Sean Brennan wrote:

Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money?

Ok, if art belongs to the people, then where are the state run subsidies that are paid by the people supporting the artists? Are you willing to pay extra taxes so that you can listen to free music? Art doesn't magically appear, at no cost. It's cost a LOT of money and time to create. If you want art for free, that's fine- but then you need to be paying all artists a salary to create that art.

Totally agree! That's why I said that the system itself is vicious.


To clarify, YOUTUBE calls these people criminals, as does ESTABLISHED LAW. When you upload music to YouTube that you do not own the rights to it is an illegal act. You get three strikes with YouTube if you're caught uploading music that is not your own.


I'm talking NOT about those who upload music (and I've never tried to defend them!), but about those who watch Youtube. These people are not the same. For example, I watch youtube, but I've never uploaded a single song anywhere and I'm not planning to do so. From moral point of view, people watching videos online do nothing different from listening to radio or watching TV. These listeners/watchers can't even know which files are put there legally and which ones not. And they pay nothing to those who upload files, thus don't support illegal uploading...

Again, it's just my perception, and here's no need to argue at all.