• FringeTheory999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    so, you don’t believe that people should profit from the redistribution of public domain works? I think the entire publishing industry would have something to say about that. Considering the amount of non-copyrightable/public domain material that is bought and sold commercially every day. That’s a pretty funky belief you’ve got there.

    You’re right, spotify could release a competing distro, yet they aren’t.

    • rglullis@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      people should profit from redistribution of public domain works

      You are making my argument for me. Who is distributing in this case? I’d say that it is Spotify.

      • FringeTheory999@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        then they should create their own competing distribution. They aren’t actually making any ambient soundscapes. not even white noise, let alone rain, wind, birds, crickets, etc. And what about all those copies of “which side are you one boy” and it’s many covers. you could make the same argument for any traditional music, but you’re not. You only care about “white noise” because you consider it to be low effort. Low effort is not no effort, and the people that put in the effort to create those files should be paid.

        • rglullis@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you confusing me with someone else on the thread? My argument was solely on the fact that white noise can not be copyrighted, nothing related to “effort”.