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

The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

beatcroft.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#21

Post by anigbrowl »

brandnewlow wrote: post #15
axod wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like 4 chords and a drum beat. Do you really need to give credit for that? (I know legally the answer is likely yes, but I don't think it should be). Imagine if we had to give credit for each 4 lines of code that had already been used by someone else :/ Or a painter who had to give credit for a certain way of drawing a beard.

If he used the actual sample from the song then it's more likely: - 4 chords - a drum beat - a $5,000 microphone to record the guitar so it sounds like that - a $3000 keyboard to make the piano sound like that - $10,000 in drum gear to get them to sound that way etc. etc. etc. I symapathize with people who want credit for samples. A lot of work and money goes into making pop music pop the way it does.

I think it was MIDIfied, but more importantly he's also having a dig at the fact that 'her' article on copyright was copypasta from a Techdirt article without attribution to the original author, Michael Masnick. He then goes on to complain that labels assert cover versions (like this very track) infringe, when their poster girl of the moment is plagiarizing writers herself.

Not only do I like his argument on copyright, I think it's also best deconstruction of the pop music business I've heard in a long, long time.

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#22

Post by petercooper »

NathanKP wrote: post #18
petercooper wrote: post #11

It's not fair and I think she's really mean.

I certainly understand your pun on Lilly Allen's song yet I must say that we can't really complain about artists complaining about pirating. Sure Lilly Allen might have gone a little overboard, but its a valid complaint. Artists need to be paid just like everyone else. The fact that they get paid so much more money than most of the rest of us do is irrelevant. It doesn't mean we are entitled to steal from them. If yo…

If you are pirating music then you are cheating the artist. And if you enjoy the song why steal it? I mean you can probably buy it off iTunes for 99 cents to a $1.29

It depends whether you think the ends justify the means.

Since the iTunes Music Store started up, I've run a clean ship, but back in the Napster days I got into some bands I would never have got into if I had to buy their CD. I've then gone to gigs of some of these bands, recommended their music to others, and, ultimately, they got more money from my actions than if I had to pay to buy their album (which I wouldn't have bothered with).

Markets are complicated. It can't be proven that Lily Allen would have any more money now if piracy were non-existent (or vice versa, admittedly). I think the power effect of social markets comes into play - it makes more sense for her to have significantly more fans making her less cash per capita than to have a smaller fanbase that doesn't engage in piracy.

Either way, I know I've gotten into bands (and then given those bands money in some way directly or indirectly) via unconventional means before. If those avenues hadn't been available (and now I just use Spotify - no need for piracy!) I'd probably have stuck to the 10 or so bands I like and given more money to them instead.

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#23

Post by axod »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #17

Not that I really care, but I'm sick of some of the bogus pro-filesharing arguments. Downloads don't equate to lost revenue? Maybe not exactly, in that not all downloads represent a lost sale, but my monthly CD budget went from about $50 to $0 after Napster came out. I know I'm not the only one.

I don't think a lot of it is a matter of being pro-filesharing or anti. It's about recognizing the changing market.

Culture has shifted. Once people marveled at how they could listen to a recording of a singer so it was just like having them perform in their own house! They placed a large value on that. They were happy to pay to buy the latest album.

As things have moved on, people just place far less value on being able to have the ability to listen to particular songs on demand, and expect it to either be free, or nearly free.

After all, selling musical recordings is a pretty recent fad. It's not like some age old industry is being killed here.

In some ways it's similar to the ringtone fad. In the late 90s ringtones were massive and people were willing to pay a few pounds for each ringtone. Few years later and people aren't prepared to do that anymore.

It seems like the new model will just be 'Give away recorded music to promote live shows'.

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#24

Post by KC8ZKF »

skolor wrote: post #12
KC8ZKF wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It breaks the analogy, though. When you have the devil to pay, adjusting your sails won't do any good. Pirates or not.

I believe that was a pun. "Adjust your sales".

I understand the pun. It still breaks the analogy.

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#25

Post by anigbrowl »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #17

Not that I really care, but I'm sick of some of the bogus pro-filesharing arguments. Downloads don't equate to lost revenue? Maybe not exactly, in that not all downloads represent a lost sale, but my monthly CD budget went from about $50 to $0 after Napster came out. I know I'm not the only one.

So you think it's bad because you feel guilty about your past piracy? I don't - the only music I've ever downloaded is stuff I've already bought on vinyl or CD, in some cases multiple times, and lost via lending/ moving house/ abandoned storage etc., or which is unavailable due to being out of print. And have you ever tried taking a crackly LP, snapped tape or delaminated CD back to the store for replacement? Unless you just purchased it, of course not. Library maintenance is (rightly) the user's problem.

It helps that I don't listen to much top 40 stuff, obviously. But as a one-time DJ with a music budget of $500/month, and one with a self-imposed prior ownership test for what I download, thumbs down to your complaints.

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#26

Post by [deleted] »

NathanKP wrote: post #18
petercooper wrote: post #11

It's not fair and I think she's really mean.

I certainly understand your pun on Lilly Allen's song yet I must say that we can't really complain about artists complaining about pirating. Sure Lilly Allen might have gone a little overboard, but its a valid complaint. Artists need to be paid just like everyone else. The fact that they get paid so much more money than most of the rest of us do is irrelevant. It doesn't mean we are entitled to steal from them. If yo…

[deleted]

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#27

Post by anigbrowl »

KC8ZKF wrote: post #6
skolor wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I particularly liked his last line: But when you're between the devil and the deep blue sea, you need to stop worrying about pirates, and adjust your sails. It seems particularly apt in the current state of the internet.

It breaks the analogy, though. When you have the devil to pay, adjusting your sails won't do any good. Pirates or not.

FYI, the phrase originates from the difficulty and danger of carrying out certain adjustments on a sailing ship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Between_the_Devil_and_the_Deep_... - it's not about having the Devil to pay, but what you risk if you don't get the job of adjusting your 'sails' done.

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#29

Post by DrJokepu »

petercooper wrote: post #22
NathanKP wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly understand your pun on Lilly Allen's song yet I must say that we can't really complain about artists complaining about pirating. Sure Lilly Allen might have gone a little overboard, but its a valid complaint. Artists need to be paid just like everyone else. The fact that they get paid so much more money than most of the rest of us do is irrelevant. It doesn't mean we are entitled to steal from them. If yo…

If you are pirating music then you are cheating the artist. And if you enjoy the song why steal it? I mean you can probably buy it off iTunes for 99 cents to a $1.29 It depends whether you think the ends justify the means. Since the iTunes Music Store started up, I've run a clean ship, but back in the Napster days I got into some bands I would never have got into if I had to buy their CD. I've then gone to gigs of so…

Yes but now it looks like that the "Napster experience" might have a comeback, this time a legal one. As you have mentionned, we have Spotify now in Europe (http://www.spotify.com) which offers unlimited streaming (even from your iPhone) for £10 a month, which is the price of a CD and in the US market there is Grooveshark (http://listen.grooveshark.com/) offering a similar service. Since you play a flat fee, you can experiment and listen to music you wouldn't buy otherwise.

Spotify is partially owned by big record labels such as Sony BMG (5.8%), Universal Music (4.8%), Warner Music (3.8%) and EMI (1.9%), altogether 16.3%.

Re: The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign

#30

Post by aw3c2 »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #17

Not that I really care, but I'm sick of some of the bogus pro-filesharing arguments. Downloads don't equate to lost revenue? Maybe not exactly, in that not all downloads represent a lost sale, but my monthly CD budget went from about $50 to $0 after Napster came out. I know I'm not the only one.

Well, my CD money spending went from ~3/year to a good ~20 for each of the years during OiNK's Pink Palace times (fantastic music filesharing site). Now it is at ~1/year because I do got fed up by the music mafia and rather look for genuinely free music (Creative Commons etc).
Post reply on HN