> Problematic content should be acknowledged but not purged and erased.
By problematic content, do you mean stolen content? What do you suggest other than purging and erasing stolen content?
By problematic content, do you mean stolen content? What do you suggest other than purging and erasing stolen content?
Also, you can't steal data. Copying is not stealing.
Of course not. That's trespassing, a real crime unlike copyright infringement. Physical space at the venue is limited and the actual artists are the most scarce resources there is. It makes sense to pay to see artists you love play live.
No idea why you're applying physical world concepts to digital "content" which can be infintely copied. It doesn't work. Mental gymnastics like copyright exist purely to enable rent seeking monopolists. It's not even morally defensible. Artists receive what, 30% of the profits of their record sales?
The 30% is pulled out of your ass. If I did all my own editing and released songs on Spotify without any assistance I would get a much higher cut. If I don't like Spotify I am allowed to sell mp3s on my own website. However - if I was trying to produce a high quality album a year and coordinate worldwide tours then it is worth it to me to share my profits with hundreds of talented artists/marketers/engineers on my team or in contract with my team.
I pulled it off a search engine. And that was one of the better figures. Do you have better data?
As famous quote goes, 'Slavery, Apartheid and Holocaust were legal'
> (imitating a woman defending ridiculous divorce settlements): "That's what the law says!"
> (himself): "A hundred years ago I could beat you with a mop handle, that's what the law said! Doesn't make it right!"