RRRrrrriiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhtttttttt!. .. The real question is why are they throwing one dollar bills? thats y i dont buy their Garbage
x
Click to expand

Comments(95):

[ 95 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - mcshwagger (09/03/2013) [-]
The real question is why are they throwing one dollar bills?
User avatar #54 to #2 - mikoli (09/04/2013) [-]
it's a strip club.
#40 to #2 - sloppycheeks (09/03/2013) [-]
Back in the day, they used to be able to throw about $20 bills. Thanks to the pirates, they are humiliated by only being able to flaunt one dollar bills.
User avatar #15 to #2 - whiteblob (09/03/2013) [-]
Cause those are the ones they don't need...
User avatar #8 to #2 - chuca (09/03/2013) [-]
well you know you gotta play it like you the most pimpin playa there, but ***** i can't afford no stacks of 20's to throw in da club, them hoez don't know the difference anyway,feel my ***** ***** ?
#4 to #2 - kuchen (09/03/2013) [-]
Bottom of the picture say why ...
User avatar #11 - yourinvisiblegf (09/03/2013) [-]
i don't see any artist in this picture
User avatar #12 to #11 - shibe (09/03/2013) [-]
lol so funi
+77
#7 - missing has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #48 to #7 - hairydawg (09/04/2013) [-]
The big guys in the music industry have always freaked out when some new, revolutionary way of listening to music comes along. The publishers flipped out when the phonograph came along, then when radio came about, then when digital recording came, and of course file sharing...there will always be changes like these and they just have to learn to go with it. But it is important for the artists to educate themselves about this stuff so they don't get screwed in the long-run by record labels and publishers.
#6 - mordakai ONLINE (09/03/2013) [-]
Wat
User avatar #53 to #6 - esmebuffay (09/04/2013) [-]
He's music is **** but he's got legs for miles.
#14 - notgabenewell (09/03/2013) [-]
Finally, I can use this.
User avatar #57 to #14 - cresel (09/04/2013) [-]
i could probably live my life out twice with just the money in that picture
User avatar #20 to #14 - bjornkrage ONLINE (09/03/2013) [-]
pretty sure lil' wayne fans are too stupid to understand what pirating even is.
User avatar #56 to #20 - amsel (09/04/2013) [-]
"Ya'll crackers tryina say that stealin boats with cannons n **** hurts painters? What the hell does that gotta do wit my music?"
User avatar #29 to #14 - dinkcool (09/03/2013) [-]
IF people didint pirate the pile would be twice as big and since the artists get twice as much money if we dont pirate stuff they will also be able to buy twice as much drugs and die twice as fast from an overdose. You heard me right, piracy helps Lil Wayne to stay alive.
#43 to #29 - vorack **User deleted account** (09/03/2013) [-]
That is the most convincing argument against Piracy I have heard in a while. that explains everything
That is the most convincing argument against Piracy I have heard in a while. that explains everything
#1 - John Cena (09/03/2013) [-]
Is this... is this meant to be read right to left like a manga?... wtf op this isn't ******* manga
User avatar #5 to #1 - caseh (09/03/2013) [-]
I was reading manga the second before I came onto this post and I read it right to left so I didn't notice it until you pointed it out
#10 - spacemasterfive (09/03/2013) [-]
cheap bastard is throwin singles
User avatar #47 to #10 - ryanmck (09/04/2013) [-]
>cheap bastard
He threw like 10k lol
#19 to #10 - xxgersenxx (09/03/2013) [-]
Its a strip club, bitches like singles
User avatar #38 - trickroller (09/03/2013) [-]
The real question is, how much do I have to pirate to kill the 'artist'?
User avatar #67 to #38 - psychopsychedelic (09/04/2013) [-]
You can pirate all their music,

or you can download mine for free accelerating me to a relevant position even though I am part of an older (and obsolete) genre.
That feels so forced. I hate advertising
User avatar #44 - kristovsky (09/03/2013) [-]
Piracy hurts artists.

Musicians don't give a **** .
User avatar #9 - tonyxx (09/03/2013) [-]
Because of digital downloads adn streaming, artist get 6% or their income from selling the music itself, the rest of it comes from mostly merchandising and a bit of touring (compared to 70% in 1990)
User avatar #74 to #9 - subcelestial (09/04/2013) [-]
I can confirm this. My friend is a musician signed with DFTBA, so they're a bit more generous compared to big record labels. She gets around 8-9% of iTunes sales.
User avatar #3 - slothmaster (09/03/2013) [-]
the bottom picture makes it look like the guy in the top-left picture is wearing stockings...
#13 to #3 - snabe (09/03/2013) [-]
the guy is drake. i'll be it he does make ****** music, but how do you not know who he is?
User avatar #33 to #13 - sparkyoneonetwo (09/03/2013) [-]
Well because I never cared to know who he was. If it wasn't for this post I'd probably never find otu.
User avatar #28 to #13 - furrypuppy (09/03/2013) [-]
Yes it is common to have heard his name, but excuse us for not knowing every single face in the universe.

Why would we ever have seen this guy's face?
User avatar #73 - Pestilence ONLINE (09/04/2013) [-]
This is just ignorant. Whenever people talk about piracy hurting the artist, they're talking about the ones that aren't rich from making a hit single or from the herd of sheep that follow them. This is most common in the metal scene. I buy every CD that I come across from bands that I enjoy, because I know that they're (most likely) spending every last cent they have just to be able to tour and get their name out there. It's the last thing we as the fans can do for the bands we enjoy.
#37 - fuckyosixtyminutes (09/03/2013) [-]
"If you're rich, you're less entitled to the protection of your intellectual property rights!"

- Funnyjunk
User avatar #60 to #37 - spleed (09/04/2013) [-]
You mean the songs his writers came up with?
#87 to #60 - pentol ONLINE (09/05/2013) [-]
User avatar #45 to #37 - sagedivinity (09/04/2013) [-]
I guess what this post is trying to say is that they aren't actually being as hurt as eu what you to think.
User avatar #46 to #45 - sagedivinity (09/04/2013) [-]
*they want you to think
#84 to #46 - fuckyosixtyminutes (09/04/2013) [-]
Yes they are. Going from say making $10 million on <whatever> to $5 million on <whatever> is still being hurt in a financial mathematical sense. No, they're not starving on the street, and I don't blame you for not feeling sorry for them (I don't either), but don't be a coward and spout off that it doesn't hurt them when you know mathematically that that's simply not true.
User avatar #88 to #84 - sagedivinity (09/05/2013) [-]
The gap is much much smaller than. I understand what your saying: any financial hit is still a financial hit, but you have to realize little to none of the money made of record sales goes to the artist. Most of it goes to managers, producers, writers, the people who market the artist as a product and so on and so on, they get there money from concerts and commercials.
#89 to #88 - fuckyosixtyminutes (09/05/2013) [-]
They do get money from the records, downloading music instead of buying it reduces that money, end of story.
User avatar #90 to #89 - sagedivinity (09/05/2013) [-]
I agree.

That's exactly what I said, but I said the amount they get is low. In fact they get more money from digital record sales like from iTunes because it removes the costs of disks, paper, casings and such.

No need to get angry.
#91 to #90 - fuckyosixtyminutes (09/05/2013) [-]
Cutting to the bottom line is only perceived by anger by weak-minded people who are unable to see it themselves.
User avatar #92 to #91 - sagedivinity (09/06/2013) [-]
You clearly are not commenting with the best of attitudes. I thought we were having a discussion. Rather than hearing me out you decided to try and end the conversation by saying "end of story" as if you had reached the ultimate truth and therefor anything I said to the contrary would be false. So I took that as hostility. Was I wrong? Are you not commenting out of anger now? Your resulting to name calling now.
#94 to #92 - fuckyosixtyminutes (09/06/2013) [-]
And by the way, it's *you're.
#93 to #92 - fuckyosixtyminutes (09/06/2013) [-]
It is the ultimate truth. Piracy reduces the amount of money that the artist gets, thus any assertion that it "does not hurt the artist" is false. Whether you think they deserve it, whether you think it's an acceptable degree of hurt, whether you feel sorry for them or how little it hurts them is irrelevant to the question I'm addressing, and all your rationalizing does not make what is indeed an inherent falsehood "sort of true" or anything similar.
User avatar #95 to #93 - sagedivinity (09/06/2013) [-]
Yes, and I agreed with you in my most of my replies. I know they lose money from piracy the point of that last comment wasn't to debate that topic. I was stating why I felt you were angry.

Thanks for the correction.
#77 - rodrickbane (09/04/2013) [-]
What if all that is just drug money? and the &quot;artists&quot; are using their 			******		 CDs as a cover up to launder it all..? Am I watching too much Breaking Bad?  (gif not related)
What if all that is just drug money? and the "artists" are using their ****** CDs as a cover up to launder it all..? Am I watching too much Breaking Bad? (gif not related)
User avatar #96 to #77 - jimimij (09/09/2013) [-]
It's really not that far off base. Tours are used extensively to transport drugs across the country. I know that country music tours to cali bring weed back to nashville where I live. I mean many veterans of the music business here have told me that the whole thing is run like the mafia...
User avatar #52 - Fgner (09/04/2013) [-]
Huge music producers like this douche nugget I have no sympathy for. However, indie musicians like Ninja Sex Party (they're awesome) do get hurt by piracy. They have a small fanbase, so every single purchase counts.
#76 to #52 - rodrickbane (09/04/2013) [-]
Hooray for NSP!
Hooray for NSP!
User avatar #34 - psydoc (09/03/2013) [-]
I neither buy nor download music, in fact, I hardly listen to music at all so I think i'm fairly impartial in the sense that I don't benefit either way. My opinion is that the music industry failed to embrace new technology when it came along. I think they thought they could make more money by fighting against technological advancement than by embracing it. So I have little compassion for them and their "problems". I don't think it's any harder to make money from your music now than it was in the past, nor do I think the industry is suffering. If they are, then I think they can blame themselves.

Plus the music industry has crappy morals (see Miley Cyrus) so I have little compassion for them crying "foul". Also they have deep pockets, so you can bet that they've been able to slant the laws in their favor.
User avatar #58 to #34 - haidoss (09/04/2013) [-]
"See Miley Cyrus " oh man, I cant stop laughing
#27 - notafunnyguy ONLINE (09/03/2013) [-]
art shouldbt be made for money. if its made for money, its made for all the wrong reasons. sharing songs should be intended to be free, how else would anyone discover new artists? im not gonna buy a song ive never heard from an artist i dont know. all the money in the music industry is from performing shows and the such. the actual sharing of their art shouldnt cost the viewer money, only the performances.
#30 to #27 - youoxley (09/03/2013) [-]
its more about the labels that sign the artist, they get the artists name out,
he sells under the name of the company which in turn they run the artists career.
#71 - John Cena (09/04/2013) [-]
It hurts legitimate striving artists.
User avatar #17 - tomowrath (09/03/2013) [-]
If I was having potential thousands to millions stolen from me, I would definately be pissed.

*Inb4 ITS NOT STEALING

Yes it is, since if u pirate the song, the chances of you buying it one day are slim to none
User avatar #25 to #17 - sgtwilling (09/03/2013) [-]
Couldn't give a **** , gonna pirate that **** anyway, overpaid "artist" for autotuned ***** .
User avatar #80 to #25 - tomowrath (09/04/2013) [-]
point taken....
#26 to #17 - notafunnyguy ONLINE (09/03/2013) [-]
art shouldbt be made for money. if its made for money, its made for all the wrong reasons. sharing songs should be intended to be free, how else would anyone discover new artists? im not gonna buy a song ive never heard from an artist i dont know. all the money in the music industry is from performing shows and the such. the actual sharing of their art shouldnt cost the viewer money, only the performances.
#35 to #26 - mitchr (09/03/2013) [-]
First, I shall list your points.
Art should not be made for money: I agree. But...
2: Songs should be free, because otherwise you'd never discover new music. Disagreed entirely. First, Spotify and Pandora have led me to quite a few of my favorite bands. Not to mention Youtube's suggestions, which, once in a while, are actually pretty accurate.

See, I personally feel there is a line. If you can't afford the songs or games, then sure, pirate them, but when you do get the money, go out and buy the game. If you plan to buy it, and just want to try it out first, then that's entirely fine. But I view buying songs as a way of showing respect to the artist- Anberlin to Zack Hemsey, they're all more talented than I am, and they have created beautiful things. My money goes to them as a sign of respect.
Moreover, there is a lot of music that couldn't be performed well live. High noises don't travel well.
User avatar #81 to #35 - tomowrath (09/04/2013) [-]
That's a nice thing to do.
#31 to #17 - dbjorgo (09/03/2013) [-]
Generally when people pirate things its because they're broke as **** . So chances are they wouldn't have bought the music in the first place, piracy or no piracy.
User avatar #79 to #31 - tomowrath (09/04/2013) [-]
Yes, but still. that's almost like stealing records from a record store in the 70's becasue you cant afford it. in a way
#85 to #79 - dbjorgo (09/04/2013) [-]
No its not, there's no loss of product
User avatar #86 to #85 - tomowrath (09/04/2013) [-]
In a way.

But still, Pirating is a little wrong, and you all try to jsutify it.
User avatar #39 to #17 - mycatislookingatme (09/03/2013) [-]
Even Lady GaGa said she doesn't need the money, she has more money than you can shake a stick at.
User avatar #78 to #39 - tomowrath (09/04/2013) [-]
GaGa is pretty damn cool
User avatar #50 - exhaustedheadcase (09/04/2013) [-]
piracy doesnt hurt the artists
if its hurt anyone it hurts the record execs and im just fine with that
[ 95 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)