Or he might have miscalculated his clout. Or indeed he may have just wanted to withdraw his catalogue as protest —if the latter, I think it’s misguided idea. Lots of musicians or artists can have diametric opinions to each other. It would be a disservice if they all started dictating who could be on the same service as them. What next, only allow streaming to people who hold my views on X, Y or Z?
I don't think he miscalculated anything. We're all talking about it, and he publicly voted with his money. I doubt he believed Spotify would drop Rogan the next day or anything.
You're missing an important distinction. Spotify isn't just letting people stream Rogan, they're actively producing the content.
It surprises me that some people are talking about this as if Neil Young really thought he would win this fight. He’s been in the business for a while. I highly doubt he’d be naive enough to think Spotify would capitulate.
I guess he could have simply said he was removing his music because he disagreed with Spotify’s business practices, but this way, Spotify owns the action of removing his music from their service. NY didn’t walk out, Spotify chose Rogan over him.
How come? If I'm a proponent of cause A, and I participate in a group with a member who is anti-A, it's actually against my fundamental beliefs to be associated with that person. In this case, I can propose a solution to this: either I go, or he goes. I benefit from either result, since my beliefs in A are more important to me than the group (even if the group is still a very important part of my life).
Nobody said anything about not allowing people to dictate who can distribute their art. Why must we take every "you shouldn't do this" statement to mean "you shouldn't be allowed to do this?"
> Moral rights are the rights of an artist to claim authorship in their work (IE: Right to attribution), object to offensive or derogatory treatment of the work, including destroying it.
> Though moral rights are a part of the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory, the U.S. never fully implemented moral rights into their code. Instead, it passed the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) a law that extended moral rights to an extremely limited subset of visual works.
> As with fair use, this limited view on moral rights is another uniquely American element. Copyright holders in the EU enjoy much broader more rights. However, this is true in much of the rest of the world as well.
Perhaps rather, if you pull up stakes every time someone else on the same platform announces they prefer grape jelly over strawberry (fucking animals!), pretty soon you're going to have N platforms for N people. Which I suppose is one possible Fediverse end-game: millions of individual platforms, federating and un-federating on a daily basis as people discover that someone they thought was cool actually voted for McCain in 2008.
Yes, if you carefully pare away every bit of context then it's true that nothing makes any sense.
In actual real life though it's not the difference between flavors of goddamn jelly, it's a serious moral concern for a lot of people.
Similarly it's not even a matter of forgiveness, or permanently staining someone's reputation over one action many years ago. These actions are ongoing and Rogan hasn't repented of them. If you believe they cause harm then you probably also believe they are currently causing ongoing harm. Which is a situation with different considerations than "someone did something bad a long time ago".
