Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#171

Post by andrewzah »

samatman wrote: post #140
majormajor wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution then would be to find a way to charge not for the copies, but for the time effort that the artist put into the production of the music. That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing. Claiming you want to "take the copy for free but pay separately for the time" when you aren't willing to pay for the copy so that there is some reimbursment for the time…

That's fine, and you're right about the economic incentive to charge for copies. I happen to resent the use of legal force to do so, and I'm not alone. I belong to the Napster generation, where the muscle arm of the copyright industry destroyed one of the most promising new applications for the Internet, instead of rolling with it and reaching some kind of mutually-beneficial arrangment. We're all still pretty mad ab…

> randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits

That's a weird spelling of "people who want to listen to music -without- paying for it". Napster started a conversation about IP and copyright, but I for one am glad it is dead.

DCMA is monumentally stupid in its -implementation-, but the idea is not a bad one. There need to be protections for people who make a living by creating music, art, etc. Yes, that means repercussions for people who reproduce digital content and redistribute it without a license. I think that we can all agree that how these things are currently enforced via the DCMA is rather bad, though.

What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. This includes artists making music that you want "to enjoy". In 2021 there isn't really an excuse, with spotify/apple music/etc existing for streaming, and things like bandcamp for outright buying cds/lps, and discogs for the secondary/used market.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#172

Post by marcus_holmes »

> In the future, artists will get record deals because they have fans — not the other way around.

I'm not in the industry, so I don't grok it too well. Why would an artist with an established fan base need a record deal?

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#173

Post by andrewzah »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #172

> In the future, artists will get record deals because they have fans — not the other way around. I'm not in the industry, so I don't grok it too well. Why would an artist with an established fan base need a record deal?

They may have some fans, but not a lot of money. The label steps in to give money to fund creating a new album, creating music videos (these can easily run up to millions of dollars), issuing new LP pressings, doing concerts, advertising them, etc.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#174

Post by Spivak »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #172

> In the future, artists will get record deals because they have fans — not the other way around. I'm not in the industry, so I don't grok it too well. Why would an artist with an established fan base need a record deal?

Because the record label handles all the business aspects which is all the actual work of monetizing an artist. You can DIY but you will end up becoming a record label as you scale in the process.

They handle the marketing, merch, venues, social media, distribution, retail relationships, deals with studios, relationships with radio, relationships with personalities to do interviews, all the video production staff for music videos, like this could on forever.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#175

Post by pydry »

andrewzah wrote: post #171
samatman wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, and you're right about the economic incentive to charge for copies. I happen to resent the use of legal force to do so, and I'm not alone. I belong to the Napster generation, where the muscle arm of the copyright industry destroyed one of the most promising new applications for the Internet, instead of rolling with it and reaching some kind of mutually-beneficial arrangment. We're all still pretty mad ab…

> randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits That's a weird spelling of "people who want to listen to music -without- paying for it". Napster started a conversation about IP and copyright, but I for one am glad it is dead. DCMA is monumentally stupid in its -implementation-, but the idea is not a bad one. There need to be protections for people who make a living by creating music, art, etc. Ye…

>What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work.

Most musicians don't get paid for their work or get paid a token amount.

I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living.

It's not about quality either. It's about distribution channels.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#176

Post by TeMPOraL »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #111
rayiner wrote: post #28

The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves. > Nilay Patel wrote in Vox: > "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.' > This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcit…

> On the internet, there’s no scarcity: there’s an endless amount of everything available to everyone. This got me thinking: in a post-scarcity civilization, what would people do? Probably invent new ways to create artificial scarcity.

You don't have to speculate. That's what people already do. If there's any chance for something to become ubiquitous, someone always swoops in to make it artificially scarce again.

(To be honest, if all someone does is take an unlimited good and make it scarce to extract rent, I consider that to be deeply immoral.)

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#177

Post by jessaustin »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #156
optimuspaul wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not ironic if you really understand socialism.

Many socialist-adjacent philosophies are anticapitalist. Hence, the irony. Yes, yes, I know that it's not hypocrisy for anticapitalists to use money. I also know that not all socialists are anticapitalist. Still ironic.

Some people seem to conflate capitalism with free enterprise. A deeper study would reveal them to be near opposites.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#178

Post by TeMPOraL »

politician wrote: post #167
boredumb wrote: post #161

You wouldn't download an NFT

Technically, you cannot download an NFT. It's a distributed consensus that you cannot ever truly put your arms around (unless you're running a testnet and operate all of the nodes).

Wait. Isn't the blockchain operating on the assumption that everyone can, and should, download all NFTs? That's the "distributed" part in "distributed consensus".

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#179

Post by jessaustin »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #159
hamstercat wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a business arrangement, not an emotional relationship. They backed her because they thought they'd make a profit, and they did. They owe each other absolutely nothing else. Most people can't afford to stand up for themselves, I'm glad she's doing it.

> They owe each other absolutely nothing else. So hang on, why should Taylor Swift be demanding more then?

She isn't demanding what she is owed. She's demanding what she chooses to demand. TFA indicates she is well-placed to have her demands satisfied.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#180

Post by paul7986 »

paul7986 wrote: post #36
johnwheeler wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the exact same thing. I think Taylor’s real error was in saying anything at all. When someone rich and famous (or even just famous) makes a case for making money, no matter how sound, they open themselves up for attack. I’m not saying they’re wrong to do so, just that the populace isn’t inclined to understand.

So some people believed in her and gave her a chance... backed her with their money ..invested in her and she re-pays them by attacking them and their investment. I used to be a fan of her and her persona but now comes off as spoiled and unappreciative!

Im not one to bite the hand that feeds me. Even if I became rich and powerful...

There are 1,000s and more artist out there that want to be in her shoes and those who had the cash had confidence/believed in her outside of the other 1000s. I would be gracious, humble and appreciative!

Also, I'm not aware of any startups on the level of a Taylor Swift who publicly spat on their investors (not the companies who bought them)? Can anyone name such startup now mega-popular companies (as big as Swift) who publicly spat on it's investors?

Post reply on HN