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

HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

gethiphop.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 163 posts

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#91

Post by k-mcgrady »

1stop wrote: post #88
Argorak wrote: post #69

> We believe that listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost. I hate this entitlement. As if it was their decision. As if they were running a social movement. I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.

They are collating youtube content... So... everything you said is a bit ridiculous.

Not the parent but I agree completely with him. First of all YouTube content is monotised by video ads which you won't be able to see with this. Secondly their statement that: "... listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost" is nothing but greedy and entitled. Nobody has the right to decide that something someone else has spent time and money creating should be available for free without the creators having a say.

Not to mention the fact that the music industry has made music incredibly cheap and available over the last few years. $10 per month for access to most of the music ever recorded on all your devices is an incredible deal. And it's available to almost everyone in the world via streaming services like Deezer (which is available in over 180 countries).

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#92

Post by Kequc »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #89
sudhirj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in the few first world countries that these services operate in.

>> "Only in the few first world countries that these services operate in." False. Spotify is available in 45 countries. Deezer is available in over 180!

Given how stringent Germany is with regard to copyright laws and adding huge fees to everything played anywhere I'm amazed Spotify made it here, but it has and I use it every day.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#93

Post by sspross »

Argorak wrote: post #69

> We believe that listening to music should always be free and available to everyone, and that only owning it should bare a cost. I hate this entitlement. As if it was their decision. As if they were running a social movement. I am all for open access to arts, but this is the artists decision and not some programmers, just because they can.

me too! for music there are good and paid consumer solutions. i like popcorn, because they are (at least i hope) pushing the movie industry into the right direction...

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#94

Post by k-mcgrady »

krig wrote: post #71
louhike wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it essential? And why is this liberty? People may disagree with you and tell that musicians must have the liberty to get money from their music through sales. Can we really force them to give it for free? Music production cost a lot of money and involve a lot of persons to work on it. Musicians already have to do a lot of gigs to cover the cost of recording music. Even artists like Jeff Buckley had to work a l…

It has nothing to do with music. The sharing of music is only a side-effect of free and private sharing of digital information in general. There are a number of drawbacks with enabling private digital communications: It makes the sharing of copyrighted works possible without the possibility for law enforcement to intervene, it enables the spread of child pornography or other criminal and morally unjustifiable informa…

>> "Besides this, it is not at all clear that private sharing of digital information is automatically detrimental to musicians."

Seems like this would be pretty easy to work out. Look at the amount of money musicians made 30 years ago and compare it with today.

>> "Whereas it used to be the case that you needed a record deal signed with a major label to have anyone even hear your music, these days you can become a major star, making a comfortable living off your music without ever signing a contract with a major label."

This needs to be proven. Show me some of these big stars. If I look through the top 100 albums or singles I doubt I'll find 5 that have done it without the help of a label.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#95

Post by res0nat0r »

zxcdw wrote: post #72
d135_1r43 wrote: post #17

As a part time musician who needs to spend around 10k for a new album I find this frustrating.

Why? Is your income limited by lack of discoverability or lack of people willing to put in money for it? First you need the audience. Without big marketing budgets free sharing of music is the best you have. Even if people were willing to pay for good music, many would prefer to just browse the free alternatives because there are tons of good musicians willing to race to the bottom. It's not like you are alone. There…

> Why? Is your income limited by lack of discoverability or lack of people willing to put in money for it?

I'm going to go with both. There has always been a host of undiscovered talent out there that never make it "big", ie: can sustain themselves and their families by doing music full time. (See Rodriguez and Searching for Sugar Man on how this goes), this goes back way before the Internet.

> Even if people were willing to pay for good music, many would prefer to just browse the free alternatives because there are tons of good musicians willing to race to the bottom.

This is exactly the problem. Were willing to pay for good music? This is the exact thing the parent is complaining about. Younger folk think it is for some reason not normal to pay someone else for their hard earned talent and work they put in to entertain you. There has always been a "race to the bottom". Some would say The Monkees were the poor man's Beatles, etc.

The parent is complaining that it is or should be somehow acceptable or normal that you get to listen to his product for free, even if it is against his wishes. Just because you can easily copy his entire music catalog in 3 minutes over the Internet doesn't change the fact that he should be able to charge you to listen to an album that took months to create.

> How can I, as a consumer, get to listen to your music if not for free on YouTube?

Contact the artist? Ask to buy their cd / 12" / mp3 / whatever from their online service?

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#96

Post by k-mcgrady »

aaren wrote: post #66
angusb wrote: post #58

I know that there's a kick to be got out of circumventing the draconian rules big music/film industry lobby into law, but what do the writers think about independents that they effectively take down in the same blow? This is a genuine question, not an attack. I've spent a lot of time studying/writing/playing music and through that have got to personally know many of the most talented and versatile musicians I've ever…

Musicians have only recently been able to make money from recorded media. I see this as a temporary anomaly allowed by the state of technology in the 20th century (i.e. existence of mass media as a physical product). Musicians (and other artists) can still make money from e.g. performing live - which I'm assuming was their dominant form of income before the 20th century. I don't believe that a monetary incentive is n…

>> "I don't believe that a monetary incentive is necessary for good art."

It's not necessary but it's important. I'll explain how:

1) If artists can not earn money from their art the need a full time job to support themselves, provide food and shelter and pay the bills.

2) They will also need some of this money to pay for equipment and in the case of musicians studio time, sound engineers, mastering engineers, designers (for album art) etc.

3) They will need to spend some of their free time (after work) online managing their social media, promoting their music etc.

4) With the very little time they have left they need to write songs, record demos, make time (somehow) for a few days in the studio and then distribute the music.

If things were like this in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's we would not have some of the great albums we have today. Art takes time. If the artist has to do all of the above it leaves very little time for the actual art and we get mediocre art. We might get some good art. It's unlikely we will get great art.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#97

Post by adsr »

krig wrote: post #60
angusb wrote: post #58

I know that there's a kick to be got out of circumventing the draconian rules big music/film industry lobby into law, but what do the writers think about independents that they effectively take down in the same blow? This is a genuine question, not an attack. I've spent a lot of time studying/writing/playing music and through that have got to personally know many of the most talented and versatile musicians I've ever…

> I'm interested to know what people think about this. Do people think that the end (taking power away from big music industry) justifies the loss for those small-time players, or is it something that simply hasn't been considered at all? My opinion: The end justifies the loss. Secure and private file sharing is going to be essential for ensuring liberty in the future. I am absolutely convinced about that. You can't…

But enabling private communication is not the same as a public free for all. Some information should use private communication, but not be shared publicly, some examples that comes to mind is credit card numbers or private encryption keys.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#99

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

sschalk wrote: post #76
duiker101 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify did the same to me, multiple times. Last time yesterday when my pc randomly lost permissions for offline storage. But that is not an excuse. The music industry in trying to provide alternative ways, and I extremely appreciate it and think that we need to be supportive. Only by supporting this changes we will ever see any improvements, we need to find a middleground that can satisfy both parties. Spotify offer…

On the contrary. As long as something like the "Music Industry" exists, there seems to be too much money going into the wrong hands (e.g., people apart from artists & sound engineers).

But this is a throwing the baby out with the bath water scenario. Here no-one, even the deserving, gets any money.

While we'd all like a situation where those who've added most value get the lions share of the reward, this solution takes us from them getting a small percentage to them getting nothing. That seems to me to be worse rather than better.

Re: HipHop: A "Popcorn Time" for music

#100

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

locksley wrote: post #61
angusb wrote: post #58

I know that there's a kick to be got out of circumventing the draconian rules big music/film industry lobby into law, but what do the writers think about independents that they effectively take down in the same blow? This is a genuine question, not an attack. I've spent a lot of time studying/writing/playing music and through that have got to personally know many of the most talented and versatile musicians I've ever…

Not many musicians expect to make money from selling records. It used to be "do free shows to sell records". Now it's completely reversed to "do free records to sell shows".

And that's actually been the industry's best response to it all - move the monetization to the thing you can't copy.

My concern is for authors, game designers and others for whom there is no such substitution possible.

Post reply on HN