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

191–200 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#191

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

I don't know if this is completely right. It's true that artists can do damage to the companies that own copyrights and licenses to their work. It's also true that some dynamics will change because of the artist's ability to go directly to the consumer. Substack is a great evidence of this.

But those companies can and will fight back with legal means. For example, if I'm a label, non-disparagement clauses are the norm going forward. You don't bring our business in front of (from my perspective) the mob on Twitter. Also, I don't sign a deal unless I get the copyrights, the mechanical rights, the sync rights, the performance rights, and the songwriter rights. I need all the rights. The artist can keep the a perpetual, non-transferrable license to the performance right, but that's it. I bet this won't even cost them that much more, because until Ms. Swift flipped the script, this was kind of de facto understanding of what the master rights meant. This lateral move by Ms. Swift (apparently) caught everyone off guard.

She is a genius, though. I'm not sure if what she did was fair, but apparently this was war, and there's no fairness in war.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#192

Post by Hasz »

exolymph wrote: post #142
kin wrote: post #116

The thing is, Taylor's version sounds completely different. Did Ben Thompson actually look at streaming numbers? All her fans didn't flock to the new version. They listened to it, but it's so different that the old version is still consistently streamed likely by the same fans. Further, the new version isn't on some new platform or anything. It's not like Taylor Swift asked fans to fork extra money to listen to "Tayl…

The new Fearless just dropped, it's not like the streaming numbers are going to equalize overnight. Can you link the data? Sounds like it's interesting

I just spent a few minutes looking for data, expecting something like a stock chart. I can't find almost anything -- even total stream numbers for an album or song are difficult to find.

If you have a good source, I'm very interested.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#193

Post by valzam »

kin wrote: post #116

The thing is, Taylor's version sounds completely different. Did Ben Thompson actually look at streaming numbers? All her fans didn't flock to the new version. They listened to it, but it's so different that the old version is still consistently streamed likely by the same fans. Further, the new version isn't on some new platform or anything. It's not like Taylor Swift asked fans to fork extra money to listen to "Tayl…

So basically we are reinventing DRM but call it NFTs now because...blockchain?

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#194

Post by Wowfunhappy »

lopis wrote: post #76
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does such an obvious fallacy command such purchase among smart people? Swift is talking about "music" as an original work. Patel responds with an irrelevant point about digital copies of music. Obviously these are two different things! Yes, they are two different things. The problem is that artists (and record labels) want to get paid for the non-scarce thing: the copies, and not for the actually scarce thing:…

That's the reason why many youtubers on patreon switch to a monthly subscription rather than charging per video. It makes it clearer that we are supporting the creator's livelihood, not buying a token that they produced. Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? Higher subscription tiers could include merchandising and concert tickets.

> That's the reason why many youtubers on patreon switch to a monthly subscription rather than charging per video.

Well, that or it’s just more user friendly. It’s hard to plan my finances if I don’t know how much I’ll be paying (since I don’t know, and have no control over, how many creations someone will make next month).

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#195

Post by loopercal »

parineum wrote: post #151
optimuspaul wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not ironic if you really understand socialism.

Patreon seems like a very libertarian environment to me. I'm not sure how I could see it any differently.

A lot of the original libertarians were...socialists. The term today has been rebranded to mean strictly anarcho-capitalists but it originally included anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#196

Post by ineedasername »

I didn't know that about Dave Chapelle's relationship with Comedy Central. It's a pretty good outcome for someone who over-performed much more than Comedy Central could have expected during initial negotiations.

It might seem intuitively strange-- "He signed the contract, he knew what he was getting!" But when I consider it through the lens of the professional business world, that doesn't make sense. If a company hires me at a salary of $X but I underperform, I get fired. In entertainment, the show gets cancelled. But if I vastly over-perform, things like bonuses, merit increases, and promotions are pretty standard: It's a renegotiation of the original terms of employment, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm glad that it's becoming a less novel concept in the entertainment industry as well. (especially in a streaming age where limited air-time is no longer an issue and all old shows can be available, allowing for massive resurgence in demand for given show that might not have been aired at all previously)

And Dave was very astute to go to what he says are his real bosses-- his fans-- to address the issue. That is a somewhat unique dynamic to the entertainment industry, where the value that a solo entertainer brings to the table is much more easily quantified than the specific value of many employees at a 10k employee company.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#197

Post by dkarl »

Patronage is no longer the domain of the rich. When it is clear that it is optional to support an artist, some will do so for the personal satisfaction, some out of gratitude, and others for the social credit it brings.

A difference from old-fashioned patronage is that it's easier to lie -- you can pretend to support artists while secretly enjoying their music for free. Happily, it seems like only a minority of people are satisfied by that.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#198

Post by bottled_poe »

majormajor wrote: post #133
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does such an obvious fallacy command such purchase among smart people? Swift is talking about "music" as an original work. Patel responds with an irrelevant point about digital copies of music. Obviously these are two different things! Yes, they are two different things. The problem is that artists (and record labels) want to get paid for the non-scarce thing: the copies, and not for the actually scarce thing:…

> 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 literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing.

Charging for copies to cover effort sounds suspiciously like a leaky abstraction.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#199

Post by jkhdigital »

pydry wrote: post #175
andrewzah wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's about distribution channels.

This is the part that gets completely glossed over when talking about creative output. I’m not convinced that the difference between an artist who commands eight figures in annual revenue and one who commands five figures is a simple matter of talent or dedication to one’s craft. Pop superstars, in particular, are the product of a promotion and distribution machine without which the actual artist would probably enjoy only a small fraction of their reach and popularity.

As with most political slogans, “pay people for their work” is in fact an extremely nuanced idea in practice.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#200

Post by dorkwood »

> If the creator decides that their NFTs are important, they will have value

The reason artists who believe in the value of their own NFTs get paid more is because they're nominating themselves as NFT spokespeople and attracting the attention of marketplace investors with skin in the game.

If you're the CFO of one of these marketplaces and you're faced with a choice of which NFT to buy, do you choose the guy who just tweeted "trying out this NFT thing lol", or the guy who acts like he's the next Andy Warhol and constantly pushes the NFTs-have-value narrative?

Post reply on HN