this post was submitted on
2,474 points (51% like it)
34,166 up votes 31,692 down votes

funny

subscribe2,434,903 readers

7,333 users here now

PLEASE, No posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.


Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress.

  • Rage comics - Go to /fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).


Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.


If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators


The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.


CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]bernando2 1309 points1310 points ago

romney when he doesn't get elected.

[–]ExtraCheesed_Buddha 479 points480 points ago

That sucks having to fall back on millions after losing the presidential election

[–]somewiseperson 191 points192 points ago

I think you mean hundreds of millions. How will he cope?

[–]fenwaygnome 134 points135 points ago

Some reports have him at $1 Billion net worth. Maybe he can buy a small country and be President there?

Edit: I can't find where I read that, so I guess it's just $250 million as according to Forbes. I'd wager it's somewhere north of that because that's only assets he has disclosed.

[–]canteloupy 155 points156 points ago

Can't you buy Greece for 1 billion by now?

[–]epicitous1 146 points147 points ago

eh, thats just asking for a bad return.

[–]TaserWieldingBear 15 points16 points ago

Tell me how Greece isn't a screaming buy right now. You know how they say, buy when there's blood in the streets? Well Greece has been one bloody protest for months. It's pennies on the dollar these days. Put it this way, is Greece a better value five years ago, or now?

TL;DR: Buy a property in Greece. Go there in five(ten?) years.

[–]FlyingPasta 88 points89 points ago

Perfect for Romney, he can't fuck it up any further.

[–]crug87 3 points4 points ago

Because he is totally known for taking things right into the ground

[–]Close_Your_Eyes 15 points16 points ago

How do you outsource and fire Greeks and then shut down their country? Is it going to be like a giant husk of an old Wal-Mart, only in island form?

[–]idio3 58 points59 points ago

Island? Is he going to cut it off from the Balkan peninsula?

[–]SuperWalter 35 points36 points ago

That would be fucking it up

[–]Shatenfreude 6 points7 points ago

In his defence, they do have a lot of islands.

[–]ThrobinWigwams 9 points10 points ago

Yeah, but then he could be a president.

[–]serbrc 14 points15 points ago

You can rent it, but if you shit on floor, 50 euro.

[–]makopolo2001 19 points20 points ago

You mistake free for a billion.

[–]BrutalPun 20 points21 points ago

you could make this argument with anyone who tries to progress / attain goals in their life though. there are plenty of people with loads of money / cushioning who try to succeed at things and are understandably disappointed when they don't pan out

[–]brunswick 237 points238 points ago

Just like John Kerry and Al Gore had to do. Republicans aren't the only ones with hundred millionaires.

Just look at the top 10 richest senators/congressmen

  • Rep. Michael McCaul (R) - $290m
  • Sen. John Kerry (D) - $199m
  • Rep. Darrell Issa (R) - $141m
  • Sen. Mark Warner (D) - $86m
  • Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) - $83m
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) - $80m
  • Rep. Jared Polis (D) - $72m
  • Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) - $57m
  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) - $47m
  • Rep. Jim Renacci (R) $37m

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 34 points35 points ago

And both parties also have a million hundredaires.

[–]MuseofRose 282 points283 points ago

Yet he never said that...

[–]Humble_Link_Guy 125 points126 points ago

[–]whubbard 3 points4 points ago

No, but Gore wasn't blasted for being wealthy and Kerry was barely touched for it.

[–]az4z3l 30 points31 points ago

No, but it's always used as a major reason to go against Romney and the Republican party but the Democratic party is just as wealthy.

[–]kralrick 78 points79 points ago

The problem is not having wealth, it's trying to institute policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

[–]ImNakedHowBoutYou 10 points11 points ago

The problem is not having wealth

You say that now, but "Romney can't relate to the average American due to his wealth" is a point that is used very often against him.

[–]loscornballs 8 points9 points ago

Isn't Obama wealthy too though? Sure he came from a more humble background, but as it stands, Obama's richer than the majority of Americans. I really never liked this whole "he's wealthy and can't relate to average Americans" argument. It's not just Romney, it's been used historically on so many candidates. The truth is, I think the average American would do a pisspoor job being the president. Sure he or she may be more likeable. That doesn't mean that he/she is the right person for the job. Note that this statement is not meant to support either Romney or Obama.

[–]homeboy5925 9 points10 points ago

I think the main difference is that Obama wasn't always rich, while Romney was born into it and has had no experience at the average joe level.

[–]aaronroot 0 points1 point ago

Sure he's wealthy now, but at a time he wasn't. Did you listen to Ann Romney's RNC speech. Her impoverishment story was the time they only had $90k (in 1969) to get through a few years of schooling. Of course with affluent parents who decided to just drop enough cash to buy a house in their lap cause renting wasn't working. I do believe it helps when governing people to have at least the most minimal idea about something that dominates their lives. At least to have a little first hand experience at some point. Mitt Romney literally has never had to want for anything that cost money.

[–]loscornballs 2 points3 points ago

To be honest, I might get flack for this, but I have also never had to want for anything that costs money. Both my parents are physicians. However, both came from very humble backgrounds (immigrant, factory worker, etc). I had a job the second I turned 13 years old. It wasn't because we needed money. It was because I needed to learn the value of money, as well as a good work ethic. I definitely won the parent lottery, as they raised me very well. But back to the discussion. To play devil's advocate, I think that kind of background may lead you to lean towards the Republican party (ie not a Democrat), but it doesn't necessarily make you a worse presidential candidate. Furthermore, I think people tend to extrapolate this to "Romney is a bad person." I'm not saying he is or isn't, but the foundation of that argument certainly should not be because he's wealthy.

[–]gammarayzzz 15 points16 points ago

And cutting the upper half's taxes at the same time.

[–]BlckMrkt 18 points19 points ago

I think that was covered under the "benefits the wealthy" section of that sentence.

[–]RockStarTower 2 points3 points ago

Then why is his wealth always brought up?

[–]LtCthulhu 0 points1 point ago

Except the difference is that most republicans are backed by large corporations that are being helped by government policy (i.e. oil companies).

However, you could argue that the Democrats have their fair share of departments backing them as well, EPA, alternative energy companies, etc.

I am independent, but the latter of those is more appealing at first glance.

[–]lonegoose 103 points104 points ago

[–]brunswick 94 points95 points ago

Though, adjusted for inflation, JFK had an inheritance valued at over $1 billion.

[–]toomuchpork 22 points23 points ago

And all bootlegging money to boot!

[–]iUsedtoHadHerpes 24 points25 points ago

Crop off the top of that image and this immediately turns into an argument that all the presidents of the last ~60 years, combined, were only half as good at presidentiality as Romney will be.

[–]netherous 23 points24 points ago

You have a bright future working for Fox News

[–]CannaBetter 6 points7 points ago

Presidentiality is a funny word.

[–]coastalbrad 2 points3 points ago

Seems low for Kerry if you include his wife.

[–]Nobama122 23 points24 points ago

Just like Obama, right?

Last he checked he was worth around $15 million. He'll also be making even more money after he's president. Must be nice.

[–]BadCircleJerkBad 80 points81 points ago

No no no! Obama is JUST LIKE US. Hes not like every other politician! Don't crush my pathetic dreams!

[–]U2_is_gay 30 points31 points ago

Mostly from his books. When people complain about millionaires and billionaires they aren't talking about Stephen King

[–]Nobama122 9 points10 points ago

Why does it matter how someone made their money as long as they made it legally? Who are you to say what is the correct way to become a millionaire or billionaire?

[–]BRod1 74 points75 points ago

Because there is legal, and then there is ethical. Big difference.

[–]U2_is_gay 19 points20 points ago

Right. Say he was the CEO at a huge cigarette company. Would that not be brought up?

[–]damendred 9 points10 points ago

Obama is destitute compared to Romney.

[–]FireAndSunshine 16 points17 points ago

And buttfucking rich compared to the average redditor, who themselves are in the top 5% worldwide.

[–]bernando2 6 points7 points ago

he's resting on an albino tiger

[–]calicojones 11 points12 points ago

..is that what we're calling Paul Ryan now?

[–]240lb 3 points4 points ago

You're nuts if you think Romney isn't winning this thing. Unemployment and jobs reports are abysmally low, and there's anti-American sentiment being expressed by many Arab countries. Unless Obama can turn this all around by November, Romney will win this thing by a landslide.

[–]celestialwolf 3 points4 points ago

Obama when he doesn't get elected

[–]niggerhomo 0 points1 point ago

That's funny because Obama isn't a rich asshole.

[–]buysomeapples 2 points3 points ago

HAHAHA HAVING MONEY MAKES YOU EVIL LOLOLOL

[–]red321red321 377 points378 points ago

Can't we just talk about Rampart? Also, can y'all please refrain from torrenting the film's soundtrack? Thanks.

[–]jacls0608 52 points53 points ago

Honestly, has anyone here actually seen this? Is it that bad of a movie?

[–]Kakofoni 113 points114 points ago

To answer your question - no. The thing is that Woody Harrelson did an AMA and only wanted to talk about Rampart.

[–]Brettersson 93 points94 points ago

more likely, a PR rep of some sort did an AMA on Woody's behalf.

[–]BreSput 44 points45 points ago

This is my theory as well. Actors know how to do the song and dance to promote something (watch any talk show and you'll see they talk briefly about whatever they are pushing at the beginning/end). It doesn't make sense that he would fail so hard here.

[–]Brettersson 32 points33 points ago

I went to a pre-release screening for Zombieland, and after the movie him and Jesse Eisenberg did a Q&A, he seemed like a cool guy with a good sense of humor. Not at all like he did in the AMA

[–]DrHenryPym 18 points19 points ago

If I recall correctly, the top question on that AMA was about some alleged sexual encounter with a virgin and never calling back. God, I love Reddit.

[–]Doctor_Loggins 14 points15 points ago

And now everybody takes that story as gospel truth because

youreallythinksomeonewoulddothat.gif

[–]zainin 8 points9 points ago

Yeah, considering how much free advertising we are doing for this movie it'd be neat to know if it was actually any good.

[–]madcaesar 28 points29 points ago

[–]PerfectLibra 8 points9 points ago

Ned Beatty? Isn't he the guy who got porked over a log in Deliverance? I wonder how it feels to be mostly known for that role.

[–]A-BIG-FAT-FONY 2 points3 points ago

Don't try to be anyone else. Everyone is perfect, especially you, Labia

[–]dotakiller 18 points19 points ago

[–]secrentagEnt 83 points84 points ago

Did you type "bosses" because you couldn't spell executives?

[–]Tidus5005[S] 38 points39 points ago

I've been...erm....found out. (I was going to put 'rumbled' but I can't spell it)

[–]secrentagEnt 15 points16 points ago

Upvoted for honesty

[–]Humble_Link_Guy 41 points42 points ago

[–]brenan6 90 points91 points ago

the fuck is a "record boss"

[–]Strideo 134 points135 points ago

It's the final boss you have to defeat if you make it to the top floor of The Record Company Headquarters. He's made entirely of vinyl records!

He can only be defeated by bludgeoning him with the folk guitar from an indie band.

[–]spaz1904 18 points19 points ago

Yeah, but that's not even his final form.

[–]Untoward_Lettuce 11 points12 points ago

Minidiscs... Why did it have to be minidiscs?

[–]oopsthatwasnotadoll 6 points7 points ago

You should make this game, I feel like you've got a pretty good handle on it.

[–]CharioteerOut 3 points4 points ago

"Then Bob Dylan and Morrissey come and congratulate you, and you all ascend to heaven."

10/10 mental imagery. Superb.

[–]AffeMitWaffe 8 points9 points ago

Bruce Springsteen.

[–]Tidus5005[S] 237 points238 points ago

First GIF I've ever made =]

[–]matt01ss 59 points60 points ago

If you wanna get into making gifs, I've been using the gif compression methods outlined here

Depending on the length of the gif, you can get some pretty damn good compression along with great quality, such as this:

http://i.imgur.com/2XYUG.gif

Or even a little longer:

http://i.minus.com/icHmBvxieEMh.gif

[–]scottread1 12 points13 points ago

This should be up higher. Your gifs are amazing.

[–]Pfunk4Life 9 points10 points ago

I swear I can hear him talk in the second one.

[–]OneCello 115 points116 points ago

I'm proud of you.

[–]Humble_Link_Guy 84 points85 points ago

[–]invalid_data 26 points27 points ago

Nice one there Brazzers rep...

[–]Humble_Link_Guy 21 points22 points ago

[–]bibowski 5 points6 points ago

Is that hayden panettiere?

[–]Chiddaling 2 points3 points ago

Fuck, that just makes it hotter.

[–]Recon210 6 points7 points ago

Bravo for oc

[–]lychee-twist 9 points10 points ago

First thing I noticed was the high quality of it. Well done!

[–]Tidus5005[S] 8 points9 points ago

It was originally 720 x 300 pixels and about 20mb. A rookie mistake though I'm guessing.

But thanks =]

[–]rubymatrix 35 points36 points ago

Put your mouth where your money is.

[–]Tidus5005[S] 206 points207 points ago

You want the proof? You can't handle the proof!

http://i.imgur.com/eDnin.jpg

[–]Wyvern67 120 points121 points ago

There's nothing wrong in your taskbar. Abso-fucking-lutely nothing, no eccentricity, no shorcut to porn folder, not even internet explorer or a shitty game.

Your prudeness makes me disappointed. :(

[–]Tidus5005[S] 82 points83 points ago

I keep my work laptop neat and clean and free from anything unsavory.

So there's nothing to see here. Move along folks.

[–]KazzaBiss 103 points104 points ago

The porn is hidden elsewhere.

[–]jayseesee85 78 points79 points ago

In the fonts folder.

[–]Terricz 77 points78 points ago

Wow way to go now I have to hide it somewhere else.

[–]makopolo2001 14 points15 points ago

Guess I'm not the only one...

[–]SureSignOfAGoodRhyme 13 points14 points ago

Hide it in C:\ because nobody looks there

[–]push_ecx_0x00 47 points48 points ago

"Hot chick takes it up the ass.ttf"

[–]CoffeeIsMyConstant 27 points28 points ago

Takes a look at fonts/

Ariel Rebel Std Clarendong Cumic Sans Lustida Grande Myriad Pron Wingdingschlongs ZapfinOface ...

(shrug) looks fine to me

[–]Quinnett 2 points3 points ago

Who told you?!

[–]Dingo8urBaby 11 points12 points ago

Even on my own personal desktop I use incognito for anything remotely embarrassing or private.

Mainly because a couple of months after listening to my friend give a long speech about how he is very anti-pornography, I tried to go to reddit on his laptop and it autocorrected me to redtube.

I don't want people to know my hypocrisies (which I assume I have)!

[–]ColdChemical 6 points7 points ago

Just make sure you encrypt any porn collections you may have.

[–]Wyvern67 3 points4 points ago

Only the fucked up ones.

[–]SystemOutPrintln 3 points4 points ago

yay FileZilla

[–]rubymatrix 15 points16 points ago

Nice :-) I was re-referencing "White men can't jump"

[–]Tidus5005[S] 10 points11 points ago

I see =]

I wasn't quite sure if you actually wanted proof or not. I misread your comment as "Put your money where your mouth is" before posting the picture.

No harm done =]

[–]Enjoy_the_Buffet 4 points5 points ago

To be honest, I was hoping you'd reply with a gif of someone eating money.

[–]SpackDaddy 3 points4 points ago

I like how clean everything looks. well done sir.

[–]biggerx 3 points4 points ago

That is a very high quality .gif.

[–]SantiagoAndDunbar 3 points4 points ago

im actually extremely impressed with the quality and how fast it loaded

[–]Bill_Mountain 73 points74 points ago

A friend of mine is in a band. I was with him when a bartender started telling him how much he loved the new album...that isn't out yet.

My friend wasn't too happy. After the bartender realized what he just did he swore he deleted the link and only made one copy and then bought us all beer.

He promised not to show anyone and my buddy just said, "show everyone but give to no one".

My buddy depends on album sales as part of his salary too. Maybe not directly but if his label can't move enough cd's then he'll get less promotion for shows and such.

[–]jon_titor 19 points20 points ago

That, and not all record labels are bad. Some of them are scrupulously honest too, like Dischord.

[–]OneOrSeveralWolves 9 points10 points ago

Thank you. The single most infuriating part of the piracy debate for me is that people who do it act like they are freedom fighters. Thing is, most people who defend piracy aren't downloading the new Kanye CD, they are downloading mid-range and no-name, often artist run labels, who need the help the most. I understand people are going to download music, but dont act like you're a hero for doing it.

[–]PerilPhoSho 26 points27 points ago

If your buddy's band has the idea that they'll be making their money by selling albums, then they're already doomed. If their goal is to make money but they don't care how, then they need to be touring, and touring a lot at that.

[–]Libertae 9 points10 points ago

I agree. I still have to say that it doesn't make stealing right or excusable because of what the band should be doing to make money instead.

[–]PerilPhoSho 5 points6 points ago

Yup, I'm not saying torrenting is right or anything, I'm just trying to be realistic in saying the goal of doing music part time and making money from album sales is not plausible in today's world.

[–]Amoryblane 3 points4 points ago

And even then, say a major label act tours 7 months out of the year, that label has to take cuts to make up for lost revenue in record sales. That cut usually depends on the guarantee of the night (over $2500, under that most labels won't take cuts) but is usually 40%-70%. Subtract tour management, agency (10-15%), expenses... You're lucky to be coming out of a 2 month tour making minimum wage while you fucking starve most nights.

Wait! Merch you say? This is what they give acts for tour support these days. Most bands sell merch to break even on what they paid to produce it.

No one can say that touring is not affected by record sales.

[–]Buckaroopopcorn -1 points0 points ago

I buy CDs but only after listening to them first. If I couldn't get a copy to listen to I would never buy his album. I think musicians need to realize their best revenue streams are shows and merch. A few people still buy CDs but it's for the higher quality sound. Hiding their music is only going to hurt what sales could happen. The vast majority will only want one or two songs off the CD anyway. Pirates will generally take the whole album but still only listen to one song. It's pointless to count a pirate CD as a whole sale lost. He's best to think every pirate CD is a potential fan and of ways he could monetize that.

[–]justonecomment[!] 3 points4 points ago

Tell your buddy to give his albums away for free and sell cheap band swag. $1 bracelets with band logo, $10 t-shirts, mugs, whatever. Give the albums away for free as an advertisement for his swag. His fans will appreciate it. Also have him set up his page with a paypal donation link to support the band and future free albums. He'll make more money and have more fans.

[–]TheBirdsareaGoodIdea 296 points297 points ago

You know, artists, studio technicians, sound engineers all have to put food on the table. If you're going to pirate music then there's nothing much anybody can do to stop you but don't try to pretend that it's in any way ethical.

[–]fmontez1 38 points39 points ago

Also us paper pushers in licensing and copyright!

[–]semiretardado 30 points31 points ago

And marketing, A&R folks, peons... There are real people who have lost their jobs because of rampant refusal to pay for music.

[–]PDK01 10 points11 points ago

It's almost as if the old business model doesn't work anymore...

[–]LGTDBN 15 points16 points ago

Well yeah, when people can easily steal your product you're kind of fucked, but that doesn't make the stealing ethical.

[–]goddamnsam 8 points9 points ago

yeah, really. i'm not going to defend stealing music as ethical, but acting like this model is still working is just as bad as people pirating. new technology makes old technology obsolete, it sucks that lots of people in these old technology businesses lose their jobs, but that's what happens when industries change.

[–]72skylark 5 points6 points ago

You can't have a business model where consumers aren't trading with you on mutual terms. Trade is premised on the idea of both parties respecting each others rights. Besides, there are plenty of ways to get music that don't look anything like the "old model"- streaming, subscription services (emusic is a great one), etc.

Yes it would be great if every industry could turn on a dime and jump into every new way of doing business as soon as it appears on the horizon, but the "there's got to be a better way, but until they figure it out I'll pirate" mindset is pure rationalization IMO.

Also quality music is never going to be free. Whether it comes with ads, corporate sponsorship, whatever, someone has to get paid. I don't see quality music getting made if the majority of people are paying nothing. Sure, there will be hobbyists and people who scrape by for a while and then figure out that being broke sucks, but by and large you don't make amazing music if you can only do it part time.

[–]thedudeofsf 30 points31 points ago

I second this. I worked at Sony Music several summers ago and people would regularly get fired from our floor because of plummeting profits in the industry.

I see it this way- it's the labels' fault for not adapting sooner and changing their business model considerably, but it doesnt make it Right to pirate music now, because you are still affecting the people currently employed in the archaic business that is the music industry.

Industries die all the time. The current media industry is one of those. Unless labels can find a way to work with the artists to share Touring profits (the biggest cash cow for artists) and also deliver value to the artists through marketing and promotion, there will be no reason for them to exist.

[–]72skylark 2 points3 points ago

I appreciate this reality and I agree, it doesn't make it right to pirate. I think the "industries die all the time" argument is used as a false equivalent by many who condone pirating. "So what if people have to find a new job- what about the people in the horse and buggy industry, they lost their jobs when automobiles became popular". The difference is that people were still willing to pay for transportation, they didn't just discover they could freeload and spend their money on "more important" things.

inb4: You wouldn't download a car.

[–]mchugho 112 points113 points ago

But its okay to buy a second hand cd?

[–]killingthedream 19 points20 points ago

Remember the days when you'd record music off the radio station?

[–]anonymous_al 26 points27 points ago

I was a 12 year old criminal. Some times I would even use the music I recorded off the radio in my own film productions and distribute it illegally to my mom.

[–]killingthedream 19 points20 points ago

distribute it illegally to my mom

[–]greg9683 29 points30 points ago

Well, that CD had already sold at least once, so payment/royalties, etc were already made on that original sale. And the second owner has a copy now while that first gave up their copy.

Yes, the original owner could have made a copy, but without the digital distribution, it would take a long time for that copy to get distributed to multiple people if it kept making its hands into a second hand shop.

[–]Fregatt 26 points27 points ago

So... there's a speed limit?

[–]Im_smarter_than_you 13 points14 points ago

Yes because the person who actually bought it can no longer use it. A CD can only be owned by one person at the same time.

[–]Tyrien 21 points22 points ago

Only difference is that some money is put into retail, definitely not the content creators though.

It's quite similar, ethically speaking.

[–]drkphd 50 points51 points ago

That's such nonsense that it's the same, ethically speaking. That's gibberish. Stupid, stupid gibberish.

Where did we get to a point in culture when people viewed it as unethical to spread culture? Like, I've seen a painting. It's great. Is it unethical for me to donate that painting to a museum? Because if I do PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT WITHOUT PAYING THE CREATOR?!

Oh no! If Da Vinci can't sell individual-use licenses to the Mona Lisa, WHO WILL PAINT PAINTINGS?!

People record CDs in their freaking apartments. Maybe the problem is we've made music so much about commerce that you have to hire a bajillion people to put together a record when you can make great music with an off-the-shelf laptop.

THE CONTENT CREATORS. You mean the content owners, right? Because the writer of a song gets about 9 cents a sale. The publishing rights are where the money is. And the copyright. And these are owned by corporate entities. Faceless beasts whose only sustenance is profit: and so our culture becomes targeted more and more toward appealing to the masses, appealing to the filthiest base impulses of humanity, rather than attempting to elevate our sensibilities.

I'm sorry that NEWSCORP won't get the money when I buy a CD at a music store. God forbid we deprive them of the ability to regulate and license every instance of human culture. "No, you can't listen to that, you didn't pay" is a sick and twisted perversion of the most pure of human arts, music.

So go fuck yourself, ethically speaking.

[–]phoenixrawr 36 points37 points ago

Where did we get to a point in culture when people viewed it as unethical to spread culture? Like, I've seen a painting. It's great. Is it unethical for me to donate that painting to a museum? Because if I do PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT WITHOUT PAYING THE CREATOR?!

Presumably, if you are able to donate that painting to a museum you own it. That means you acquired it from someone. You either paid the creator to own it, or you bought it from someone who did so, or they bought it from someone who did so, etc. Donating that painting is therefore completely fine. This is the same conclusion we reached with mixed tapes back in the 90's. You can make a mixed tape and listen to it with some friends if you want to. The more comparable example for our artist friend would be if we bought a print from him, then made a bunch of copies and mailed them to everyone on the planet who wants one.

Piracy presents one big ethical challenge that makes it hard to compare to physical art in that geography is no longer a realistic limiting factor. In our museum, people can come and see the painting, but at the end of the day they have to go home. At that point they either have to return the next day to view it again, figure that the painting really isn't all that great, or buy one for themselves to enjoy at home. It doesn't hurt the artist to have this preview available, because anyone who's legitimately interested will still buy the painting in the end. When it comes to pirating digital media however, that museum might as well be in your living room and there's no reason you have to treat the file you downloaded as a preview. You own it now. The artist's only option at that point is to go around to people who have a copy begging for compensation and hope that some of them feel bad enough to say okay.

The copyright giants are a problem, I'll agree to that, but even if we did away with them and artists were in complete control plenty of people would still have no issues screwing them over for free stuff. That's no more ethical than the situation we're in right now.

[–]drkphd 11 points12 points ago

Should you have to pay rights to the Louvre view a Google Image of the Mona Lisa? If copyrights continue to be extended indefinitely (no new works will enter the American public domain until at least 2020), then this will be the fate of all art created now.

[–]gilbes 3 points4 points ago

Which of these has more value?

A thing that you can purchase and resell.

That same thing, but you cannot resell it?

[–]Fallingdownwalls 20 points21 points ago

I kind of agree with this, the old distribution model for media is pretty much dead and execs (of companies that make tv shows, films, music, etc...) are having a hard time accepting that the kind of profits of old are over and as a result haven't handled it gracefully.

Honestly though with services like Spotify, Netflix, etc... We get a huge amount of content for so cheap and people who consistently pirate stuff that is available via those methods are shitheads.

Though with the current level of detection for pirates (an article broke recently stating that every BitTorrent transaction for the past 4 years has been tracked) and with certain high profile cases and more sensible laws (the three strike warning set up they have in places like New Zealand and France) and the increasing uptake of services like Spotify I can see pirating declining further and further until it is only really done by fringe groups and has absolutely no impact on the profits (though I would argue that it hardly had an impact at all with the odd exception).

[–]ceandros 4 points5 points ago

But I feel entitled to free music!

[–]ive_lost_my_marbles 9 points10 points ago

Definitely true. However, we're not going back to the way it was. Regardless of the ethical nature of pirating, streaming, buying used albums, and so on, things will only get leaner in the music industry. It was always hard to make it as a musician, engineer, or producer. Now it's just harder to see big profits even when you put in a lot of effort. It is certainly unfortunate for the old guard, who are getting laid off. This is what happens with revolutions in industries, though, and nothing lasts forever. That does not, in any way, mean there won't be artists or music anymore. With the advent of cheap home recording, producers and engineers have been steadily marginalized for years as musicians have taken on the role of engineer and producer themselves. The results may be shakier, but it's part of this digital/Internet revolution. As a musician, audio engineer, and guy interesting in the future of technology, I personally am incredibly excited for what the future holds. Even if I have to eek out a living doing whatever other jobs to pay for my passion and my student loans (music technology degrees, hahaha) I'm still optimistic. If you get into the business for the money and not the passion, you're going to have a bad time. The money isn't there anymore (if it ever was for 99.9% of the people).

Also, I put everything I do up for free to download on Soundcloud under the Creative Commons license. I personally think with the increased connections we have as a society, we should foster a more open attitude toward the works of art we produce. Just my opinion.

[–]xAtarigeekx 124 points125 points ago

DAE HATE BIG RECORD COMPANIES WHO HAVE THE NERVE TO CHARGE FOR A PRODUCT AND MAKE A PROFIT?

[–]jamurp 38 points39 points ago

My least favourite record company is EA games.

[–]bitcheslovedroids 10 points11 points ago

Valve, on the other hand, is the best

[–]ness96 33 points34 points ago

A++ WOULD UPVOTE AGAIN

[–]salec1 12 points13 points ago

TIL corporations are not in fact charities and have shareholders looking to make a profit.

[–]redjohnsayshi 6 points7 points ago

DAE TOTALLY THIS?!?!

[–]whatitdont 35 points36 points ago

::sigh:: This is based on some very outdated preconceptions about the state of the recording industry.

The instant distribution power of the Internet × labels becoming outmoded due to file-sharing = no more record labels, or at least "label bosses," whatever that means... you seem to be imagining some shadowy Kingpin-like figure that never existed.

Anyway, this has happened already, congratulations, so we should stop pretending that pirating music is "sticking it to the man." File-sharing is well and good when the aim is to spread the word about music that you love, but it's completely backwards to think that sites like TPB and Megaupload are somehow noble. These are for-profit sites that collect ad revenue and pay nothing to the artists, developers and filmmakers that have their content stolen and posted. Spotify is not that much better, paying fractions of cents per stream while pocketing massive revenues from their advertisers. The new boss is worse than the old boss, as the saying goes.

Anyway, if you're going to file-share, I'd recommend using a communal non-profit site like What.CD. At the very least, you won't be lining the pockets of people profiting from piracy.

[–]attack_goblin 3 points4 points ago

After having a long conversation with the wife of a record label owner, I've vowed never to steal that label's music again, mostly since it's just a medium-sized label, but also because they're so damn nice.

[–]LGTDBN 2 points3 points ago

That's some pretty shitty ethics right there.

[–]theoldpretender 22 points23 points ago

DID SOMEONE SAY RAMPART?

[–]relegalize_it 19 points20 points ago

GUYS WERE GETTING OFF TRACK HERE, LETS STICK TO THE SCRIPT, K?!

RAMPART RAMPART RAMPART

[–]scott_lappi 108 points109 points ago

As a person who works in the industry... yeah, this is crap.

[–]Quinnett 5 points6 points ago

[–]RedAnarchist 75 points76 points ago

You know what else is funny? Every now and then people post a ticket stub on here from the 90's where a concert was like $25 that now we'd expect to pay $125 and the inevitable anti-ticketmaster circle-jerk starts up.

Guess what guys? The reason concerts cost so much more now is that has become a much more surefire way for the musicians, record labels, and everyone involved to make profits, given that no one has to buy albums anymore.

[–]NonstopWindex 57 points58 points ago

And doesn't that really seem to be the way it should be?

It should cost considerably more to see a band live than to buy an album. $25 to experience a live show when the CD is $18.99 seems a little off.

[–]Binerexis 23 points24 points ago

Depends on the show really.

Huge concert with awesome music and a pyro show for $80? I want to give you more because it's that amazing.

Concert where the band just plays through their new album with no interesting lighting or audience interaction for $80? I want some fucking change handed back to me with the ticket.

[–]justasapling 2 points3 points ago

Also, if I have to share the seating with thousands of my closest friends I shouldn't have to pay more than like $40.

[–]migvelio 2 points3 points ago

I don't care the lighting, but I do love when bands have a lot of interaction with the public / make some jokes / improvise / play unreleased material or make new parts to an existing song.

[–]lolhenry 8 points9 points ago

Didn't you hear? Everyone but me must work for free.

[–]Bad_Sex_Advice 33 points34 points ago

My favorite is when in the same conversation people will both complain that pirating music isn't bad because you will go to their concerts, and that concerts are too expensive to go to or else you would be more willing. Might as well cut to the chase and admit you are a cheap son of a bitch.

[–]uselessjd 12 points13 points ago

Record labels don't make as much money from concerts. That is where musicians have always made their money (concerts + concert merch).

[–]allittakes222 8 points9 points ago

This is not true at all. All contracts vary. However it is very common for labels to profit from tours. Like...very very common. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_deal

[–]fmontez1 9 points10 points ago

*360 deals

[–]191h4h8rhfGU8r73f3jF 6 points7 points ago

I'm a music manager and none of my artists are making money from sales. It's primarily in touring, and syncs. Record labels aren't usually taking money from touring anyways. You know why tickets are so expensive? Because it's one of the few ways an artist is making money anymore.

As for your previous ticket costs, check the inflation on that. $25 in 1975 was equal to roughly $100 in 2010. So in reality, that's only a 25% increase, which is reasonable considering what's been lost. This is an industry adapting to the conditions present.

[–]You-are_wrong 8 points9 points ago

I was about to reply to you with something angry until I got to the "inevitable anti-ticketmaster circle-jerk starts up." Thank you for not going down that route like I was expecting. I also apologize for judging a redditor by their username, that was wrong of me.

[–]moar_noaw 21 points22 points ago

Depends on the position you're in. Musicians themselves don't make much. Production companies and producers on the other hand.

[–]dg10050 43 points44 points ago

You mean the musicians who agreed to a smaller cut in order to take advantage of the large label's superior ability to market and distribute their music?

[–]mastermike14 13 points14 points ago

you mean the musician who agreed to a smaller cut so they could get signed to a record label?

[–]fenwaygnome 26 points27 points ago

you mean the blobbidy bloop blek blop

[–]dg10050 7 points8 points ago

That's what I said?

[–]Bad_Sex_Advice 20 points21 points ago

"ALL PEOPLE IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY MAKE WAY MORE MONEY THAN ME AND ARE RICH ASSHOLES" - Reddit.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands in the entertainment industries losing their jobs . . .

[–]UnlessNothing 66 points67 points ago

It's one of the biggest misconceptions in popular culture. Especially in an age where so many artists are independently releasing their material. People who steal music feel they are entitled to do so, and typically justify it with rediculous logic.

[–]chriscrowder 49 points50 points ago

You misspelled ridiculous.

[–]msterB 18 points19 points ago

Well now you are just being ridikulous.

[–]ness96 7 points8 points ago

Yeah, speaking as a musican...who the fuck are these "record bosses"? The 90s are over people. Never to return.

[–]Apathetic_Gamer 38 points39 points ago

Sony BMG
Universal Music Group
EMI
Warner Music Group 

"Big Four labels/major record labels represent the majority of the music sold, making up as much as 75% of the music market or more depending on the year." - About

Do you know who they are now?

[–]squink2 4 points5 points ago

Woody Harrelson feels no pain.

[–]SphericalOrbit 2 points3 points ago

Just snowballs

[–]BrutalPun 14 points15 points ago

i'm really just playing devil's advocate because i torrent and whatnot (and this may piss of those with a liberal mentality), but you can't just say "the record bosses are still going to be rich if people pirate their music, so we should do it / be allowed to do it". It's still their property -- the artists agreed to the terms of the record companies, and the record bosses were smart to do this. obviously it doesnt affect them much, but it isn't your (the creator of this gif / those who agree with it) right to decide the terms of when you can infringe upon other people's property rights (even if it's not tangible/finite, like in this case with music)

[–]MidgetFetish 13 points14 points ago

You have a very naive understanding of how the music business works.

[–]PiratesAreThieves 38 points39 points ago

I'd post an image about how a musician feels when you pirate their music, but it's difficult to summarise the feeling of having years of your own hard work taken from you by the self-entitled shitheads that are pirates.

Keep on fooling yourself that you're all Robin Hood figures and not ungrateful, cynical assholes, though.

[–]dslicex 8 points9 points ago

Record bosses of everything on the radio? Barely any independent labels are making money. This is a generalization =/

[–]doomedredhead 6 points7 points ago

As a former Warner Music employee I can vouch for this.

[–]brunswick 1 point2 points ago

And then he has sex with your prom date?

[–]Piratiko 3 points4 points ago

How Woody feels when you pirate Rampart.

[–]ExplosionsAreCool 2 points3 points ago

All the arguing about torrenting and all of that have made me want to say one thing. If you download music illegally and you listen to it on a regular basis. Go to that band's shows and buy merch. It's the least you can do for the hours of entertainment you can get from one record and it's where most bands get their money anyways.

[–]farceur318 3 points4 points ago

"You almost knocked your alcohol over with your knife."

[–]BuffPiggy 0 points1 point ago

Pokemon is such shit now

[–]mah131 2 points3 points ago

I was in a movie theater once and they showed an ad before hand about a director talking about people pirating his movies and blah blah blah. I shout out "oh, wipe your years with a hundred dollar bill!".

The lady in front of me just busted up laughing and kept chuckling through the previews and then after the film she turned around and told me that I had the funniest line of the night.

[–]myusernameis___ 0 points1 point ago

Anyone who thinks they deserve free music has probably never written a song. How would they feel if they spent hours making a sculpture and some asshat demands it, then if you refuse or, god forbid ask for money, they call you a sellout and steal it anyway, fuck that jazz.

[–]redwinterwolf 0 points1 point ago

Stop giving people excuses for piracy, it really does hurt content creators.

[–]bipolar_sky_fairy 1 point2 points ago

How Woody Harrelson felt when nobody gave a shit about Rampart

[–]calupo 9 points10 points ago

It's been ingrained into our culture that entertainers deserve a lot more money because they reach such a wide audience and because past entertainers have earned so much. Personally, I don't think a musician deserves more than an above average salary unless their music is clearly mind-blowing. I'm sure that being a musician is tough work but so is my job as a sysadmin and I don't even make $100k (not even close).

If the music is widespread enough that a good portion of people are listening, I'm sure they make at least three times my salary even if they suffer from piracy. Who cares if they don't make millions? I sure don't.

[–]omgzpplz 2 points3 points ago

This is the most sensible gray area between "Keep on fooling yourself that you're all Robin Hood figures and not ungrateful, cynical assholes, though." and "oh fuck you and your "stealing" bullshit."

Frankly, I think there are major reforms that the entertainment industry needs to undertake to accustom to the internet age. We're in this strange in-between zone where sharing is illegal and the control large record companies have over small, up-and-coming artists is starting to fade. Artists that do share their music and are OK with it have a great chance to reach large audiences now, without the need of a corporate big-shot label to steal a large percentage of their money to "make it". Pirating is sort of the alternative, in my eyes, to having your marketing spread by the big labels of the past. And it doesn't involve giving million of dollars of the artists' money to a middle man anymore.

Once you spread the word of your music, you have merch and shows to give you the profit.

Edit: Artists hate this because it would no longer be a multi-million dollar career if you "make it". As a musician, I never planned on making music my living. If I did, I was very ready for a reasonable income, rather than a MTV cribs lifestyle. The times are a-changing, and people have a hard time getting used to change.