Not the parent but I agree completely with him. First of all YouTube content is monotised by video ads which you won't be able to see with this. Secondly their statement that: "... listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost" is nothing but greedy and entitled. Nobody has the right to decide that something someone else has spent time and money creating should be available for free without the creators having a say.
Not to mention the fact that the music industry has made music incredibly cheap and available over the last few years. $10 per month for access to most of the music ever recorded on all your devices is an incredible deal. And it's available to almost everyone in the world via streaming services like Deezer (which is available in over 180 countries).
> First of all YouTube content is monotised by video ads
None of that money goes to the artist... that goes to google... So you are okay with someone else making money of the free labour of artists, but not someone NOT making money of the free labour of artists. Interesting position.
> Nobody has the right to decide that something someone else has spent time and money creating should be available for free without the creators having a say.
The creator does have a say. They can not release the content, they can DMCA the youtube videos, etc etc.
Who decided that you should pay for culture? Who has the right to decide such thing? If society disagrees with that decision is that not another "piece of culture" ?
I take offense in their statement, not the methodology. As I said in other responses: sold differently, I would be perfectly okay with what they are doing.
