> The tech giants could buy the whole music industry and it would be a blip on a spreadsheet.

For scale, the global music industry has about $20 billion in annual revenue, Google alone has about 8× that.

Absolutely. The music industry has a high profile but there's comparatively little money in it. And because music, like all entertaimnent markets, is winner-take-all, most people who work in the music biz scrape by on wages that are dwarfed by the average tech salary.

That's the context in which generally well-off tech folks champion piracy and ridicule musicians who have the audacity to question tech industry exploitation.

But are the well-off tech folks the same ones who would defend open source licenses?

Let's see. I'm comparatively well-off by the standards of most working musicians. I'm an aggressive Open Source advocate. So... yes?

And yet you will certainly not find me championing piracy. I don't see what you're trying to get at.

The post I originally responded to talked about the existence of a demographic that reacts with offense to open-source licenses being violated but is indifferent towards or even advocates for music piracy, and contended that their ethics is "weird". To me, weirdness implies being uncommon, but to the extent that this demographic exists, I do not think that the ethical principles they are applying are uncommon at all: as they see it, the typical GPL violation case is perceived to involve a faceless megacorp benefitting off of the work of one or multiple hobbyist programmers scraping by while making their labour available for free, while music royalties are perceived to primarily benefit very affluent label executives and industry association lawyers. Conditional on this belief, a very commonly held ethical system says it's bad to steal from the former but good to steal from the latter. If the objection is merely that the belief is wrong, though, you can't say that the problem is that some "weird" ethics is involved.

All over this thread, it is musicians themselves being castigated. Not "music industry executives need to wake up", but "musicians need to wake up". Don't try to make this all about executives and lawyers now.

Good grief, how I hate the disregard for musicians so commonly seen in the tech industry.

Open source of the kind that gets violated (copyleft) is generally putting the user first, rather than the developer. So in tht sense, the main beneficiary of the license – the user – is indeed the underdog.

I don't think GPL software developers usually work for US software megacorps, and I haven't see people get up in arms about violations of non-copyleft licenses (how would you even violate those? Not crediting the original developer?). In fact, I've GPLed some of my own projects and pushback from people who seem to be associated with the Silicon Valley subculture is a pretty common occurrence (they typically want it to be relicensed under BSD or MIT or the like).

> I haven't see people get up in arms about violations of non-copyleft licenses

Oh? Then you didn't see me going off about the "Commons Clause" bullcrap.

For what it's worth, I'm a former member of the Board of Directors and V.P. Legal Affairs of the Apache Software Foundation, and I'm a music industry person who worked in a recording studio for 6 years before transitioning to tech.

It is philosophically consistent to defend attribution-based Open Source licenses and musicians' right to negotiate hard. In both cases, the rights of the creator are prioritized.