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

NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#41

Post by tikhonj »

tptacek wrote: post #7

Oh, boy, these threads are going to be a whole bucket of fun. 200-odd commenters competing to see who can most stridently express opposition to the copyright/royalty/license business model of mainstream music, and 5 of us getting yelled at for suggesting that maybe private businesses should be able to pick their own business models, even if they're completely idiotic, and that everyone has the right to simply not buy…

Oh yes, I should be able to pick my own business model! What fun. I know: I'll just pay old investors with new investors' money. That may be completely idiotic, but it works. After all, nobody has to invest in my venture! There's always some risk in any investment, so it's only fair.

Now, I'm definitely being too glib. But I think you are as well: it's a complicated issue, and simplifying it down to your view while being almost unbearably condescending helps nobody.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#42

Post by briandear »

Codhisattva wrote: post #26
objclxt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very difficult to do 'micropayments' on a credit-card based architecture - card fees are usually a percentage + flat rate cost (say 2% and the first 20 cents of any transactions). Because of this flat fee anything below around 99 cents quickly becomes unprofitable to sell. It's why companies that do microtransactions do so with other payment methods, like alternative currency (FB credits, etc). Of course, you ca…

iTunes store shows that it's no longer difficult once you have a critical mass of business. Not something in reach for indies, but Dwolla is changing that. Side note: Spotify is horrible for musicians.

Indies can easily get on iTunes.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#43

Post by ctrlfrk »

briandear wrote: post #31
ctrlfrk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but songs are 99c on iTunes? Is it reasonable to expect a 20 year old intern to drop almost $11,000 on songs? It would seem being a music lover is an expensive hobby.

Is it reasonable that she has actually listened to all of those songs? That's about 733 hours of music. Assuming she listened 2 hours a day and never repeated a song, she'd be listening for over a year before she heard all of those songs. And you know she has Modest Mouse and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs on repeat. This girl is a thief, plain and simple. It's like walking into a Starbucks and just stealing coffee. The margina…

Whoa calm your jimmies, I'm not saying she's not a thief. I'm just saying that in order to get that many songs you'd have to pay a shitload of money.

And it's very likely that she doesn't listen to all those songs. She does want to work in the music industry though, so I can kinda see how she might want to sample a wide variety of songs. She should probably have used streaming services instead I guess.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#44

Post by falling »

tptacek wrote: post #7

Oh, boy, these threads are going to be a whole bucket of fun. 200-odd commenters competing to see who can most stridently express opposition to the copyright/royalty/license business model of mainstream music, and 5 of us getting yelled at for suggesting that maybe private businesses should be able to pick their own business models, even if they're completely idiotic, and that everyone has the right to simply not buy…

pg may well say that HN has not become Reddit, but it has.

(yes, my account is less than a year old but this is a fresh start, my other account is 6x older)

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#45

Post by ghshephard »

zheng wrote: post #6
ghshephard wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't actually see it that way. Admittedly, there is always some gray area when it comes to Intellectual Property, but, in this case, the intern's behavior was just disgraceful. Stealing is stealing. Ever since reasonably priced alternatives (iTunes and Amazon) of non-drm content in flexible packaging (per song purchasing) became available - music listeners have no excuse for stealing music. I.E. This might have be…

Here's my issues with this line of thought. For one, why is 99c considered "reasonable" for a song? I feel as though this price point has little to do with the economics of the song-making business and a lot to do with the economics of iTunes/etc. Secondly, what is "convenient"? Why is iTunes downloading convenient, but watching GoT on HBO's online service not? I'm not saying they are equal, I think iTunes is easier,…

At least in the western world, $0.70-$1.29 for permanent, non-drm ownership of a track is within the norms of what people have been willing to pay for the last 60 years for music, inflation adjusted. I consider that historical precedent to suggest that those prices are "reasonable."

Itunes (or Amazon) downloading is convenient because I can download almost _any song I can conceive of_ in 30 seconds.

I've tried purchasing HBO at least four times over the last 3+ years on "Special" deals here in Redwood City - Each time, my absolute minimum monthly cost has been $85 (Digital Cable + Special HBO Offer) - and also required additional installation and hardware costs on the order of $200 or so.

I agree - that there is a grey line - but, for me, "30 seconds and $1.29 for a song" is reasonable, but "$1020 and $200 worth of hardware and wait 2 weeks for installation" is unreasonable.

It's subjective - but I feel music downloaders don't have much in the way of excuses, but those people torrenting GoT, especially if they _always_ purchase it on DVD when it's available, at least have a defensible moral (if not legal) position.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#46

Post by natmaster0 »

tptacek wrote: post #7

Oh, boy, these threads are going to be a whole bucket of fun. 200-odd commenters competing to see who can most stridently express opposition to the copyright/royalty/license business model of mainstream music, and 5 of us getting yelled at for suggesting that maybe private businesses should be able to pick their own business models, even if they're completely idiotic, and that everyone has the right to simply not buy…

They're idiotic because they are not enforceable. It's their own fault for thinking they won't get copied.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#47

Post by mattmanser »

smspence wrote: post #38
mhb wrote: post #15

"...what she really wants is simply to pay to subscribe to “one massive Spotify-like catalog of music that will sync to my phone and various home entertainment devices...” Isn't that what Rhapsody is?

Pretty much. And isn't that what Spotify is? or is it implied that Spotify doesn't have a library as big as she wants? Lately, I have been listening to Slacker Radio with a Premium account ($10/month), and it is very much like Spotify and/or Rhapsody, and I have been pretty impressed with how big the library of music is that can be played on-demand.

Don't get musicians started on spotify, it's terrible for artists.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#48

Post by pdeuchler »

tptacek wrote: post #27
pdeuchler wrote: post #22

Put morality aside for a second. The market has clearly dictated they will not support the business practices of the major record labels, and have instead resorted to alternate ways of obtaining their music. The record labels must adapt, or they will fall[1]. Econ 101. You can debate morality until the cows come home, but that's not going to change these simple facts. [1]Ignoring possible government interference

It's not "the market" when the new channel is based on ignoring contacts and copyrights, any more than it's "the market" that would be acting if I went to my local library, scanned all the books, and then resold them at "Bookio.com".

I'm no economist, but AFAIK market forces are defined by the way people buy/sell goods.

Your analogy fails to draw a parallel since you have only one side, the seller. Also, you're talking about reselling here, where the main debate is the sharing of music.

However I fail to realize where you deny this is "the market". Consumers are making their demands known by pursuing alternative ways of obtaining a good. Seems pretty market-y to me, regardless of the means.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#49

Post by pdeuchler »

earbitscom wrote: post #28
pdeuchler wrote: post #22

Put morality aside for a second. The market has clearly dictated they will not support the business practices of the major record labels, and have instead resorted to alternate ways of obtaining their music. The record labels must adapt, or they will fall[1]. Econ 101. You can debate morality until the cows come home, but that's not going to change these simple facts. [1]Ignoring possible government interference

While adaptation might be necessary, to say debating this topic can't change the future is inaccurate. I have this debate with plenty of people, and I know at least a few who have changed their behavior as a result. Educating people about the consequences of their actions is important, even when it seems like it has little impact.

I'm not discouraging debate. I'm simply saying that arguing morality will fail to sway market forces, and the fact that record labels believe in the exact opposite is foolish, and bordering on ignorant. The record labels can stand on the side of "good" until they go bankrupt. Pyrrhic victories do nothing for the bottom line.

Re: NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs

#50

Post by mattmanser »

JAMan wrote: post #11

I have one question for everyone: who cares?

The girl herself cares and is naively lamenting about it while not realising her lack of perspective is part of the problem. It's the whole point of the article you dum-dum.

Read before you comment.

Post reply on HN