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

31–40 of 58 posts

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

#31

Post by tdavis »

If file sharing does directly contribute to lost revenue then that revenue wasn't ever (or is no longer) deserved. I pay for music, but only when I think it's really warranted. Artists have to prove to me that what I'm buying is worth paying for -- before file sharing there was no way to do that. Sure, artists release singles, but you don't buy CDs by the song.

There are a select few people who have proven to me time and again that they produce high-quality music worthy of my money (and, in my opinion, worth far more than I pay). Notably, I will buy anything done by the likes of Steven Wilson, Trent Reznor, Jenny Lewis, and MJK. It doesn't matter if it's a new group or a solo album. It doesn't matter if I haven't heard a single song. Some bands like Dredg are guaranteed buys -- again, even if I haven't heard a single song.

I know the artist doesn't get very much of album sales, especially digital ones, so I will buy directly from them (FLAC helps, too) where possible. Music -- popular music, anyway -- has been commoditized and watered down to the point that it really isn't worth buying. I "pirated" the latest Pearl Jam album because I was reasonably sure it was going to be a disaster (apart from the one catchy single) and I was vindicated in that notion. If I had bought it, where would I return my MP3s to?

I have never believed music isn't worth paying for. I don't even know how I would live without the ability to listen to music nearly constantly. I am very cognizant when I'm without it for even a day. This viewpoint wasn't cultivated by manufactured, commodity sound. It was born from the work of amazingly talented individuals who have the ability to take words and sound and shape them into something that has more meaning than either could achieve alone. How isn't that worth paying for... when it transcends?

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

#32

Post by lucumo »

axod wrote: post #23
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…

> 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.

That's fine. I don't think anyone wants to deny consumers their right to decide the amount they want to buy for. What people disagree on is whether you should then get it, if you're not willing to pay the price for it.

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

That isn't relevant, of course. Age doesn't say anything about the quality of an industry. Some very old industries have died (deservedly), while very young industries are thriving deservedly.

> 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.

Wow, the UK must be way ahead of the rest of Europe! :-) It's still a big fad here. Not a few pounds, but about a euro or so...

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

#33

Post by cubedice »

tdavis wrote: post #31

If file sharing does directly contribute to lost revenue then that revenue wasn't ever (or is no longer) deserved. I pay for music, but only when I think it's really warranted. Artists have to prove to me that what I'm buying is worth paying for -- before file sharing there was no way to do that. Sure, artists release singles, but you don't buy CDs by the song. There are a select few people who have proven to me time…

See, but this is very much the problem. Records provided an unequal distribution of wealth amongst performing artists before the internet. Why pay to listen to an up-and-coming classical artist when an exquisite recording of Chopin's work all ready exists?

Now, the internet has magnified this even further. An incredibly narrow band of artists are currently being compensated in any way (live performance, merch, cds), and this trend appears to be continuing. In general, the life of a performing musician pretty much sucks. Take a blog post by David Byrne I found on here awhile ago http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2009/08/080809-edinburgh-so-ho... . He's working pretty damn hard, and he's famous!

I'm not saying that file sharing is inherently wrong, I'm just saying deep down, we know there's a system that will rise out of this that will undoubtedly be regulated. I'd rather be having that discussion, than saying 'oh, I wouldn't have paid for that'

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

#34

Post by gojomo »

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.

Your point may be valid, but I find it amusing that you're essentially saying: "I know filesharing is awful because I do it so much."

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

#35

Post by andyking »

aw3c2 wrote: post #28

This is blogspam, here is the actual link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

I originally found the video via this blog, which I'm subscribed to in Google Reader. I'd much rather reward the bloke who made me aware of it with a few hits than link to some anonymous Youtube page stuffed with inane comments. Both pages contain the video, and it doesn't affect the view numbers on that, so what's the actual problem here?

It's not my blog and I'm pretty sure the bloke running it isn't raking in the cash from piles of adverts, so it's hardly spam...

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

#36

Post by tdavis »

cubedice wrote: post #33
tdavis wrote: post #31

If file sharing does directly contribute to lost revenue then that revenue wasn't ever (or is no longer) deserved. I pay for music, but only when I think it's really warranted. Artists have to prove to me that what I'm buying is worth paying for -- before file sharing there was no way to do that. Sure, artists release singles, but you don't buy CDs by the song. There are a select few people who have proven to me time…

See, but this is very much the problem. Records provided an unequal distribution of wealth amongst performing artists before the internet. Why pay to listen to an up-and-coming classical artist when an exquisite recording of Chopin's work all ready exists? Now, the internet has magnified this even further. An incredibly narrow band of artists are currently being compensated in any way (live performance, merch, cds),…

The Internet has been indispensable in my quest to find up-and-coming artists! Many of the bands I've learned about have been introduced at random by Pandora. I've gone on to buy quite a few albums (and seen shows) thanks to that passive discovery process.

...we know there's a system that will rise out of this that will undoubtedly be regulated.

That sounds wonderful -- because we all know how much regulation fosters innovation! I'd rather never have that discussion. I guess I don't understand what you're advocating in general. Music has been an integral part of society since caveman days; just because record labels found a way to get fat by extorting consumers and artists alike doesn't mean people have some god-given right to be paid for their self-expression (but often times they deserve it.)

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

#37

Post by aw3c2 »

andyking wrote: post #35
aw3c2 wrote: post #28

This is blogspam, here is the actual link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

I originally found the video via this blog, which I'm subscribed to in Google Reader. I'd much rather reward the bloke who made me aware of it with a few hits than link to some anonymous Youtube page stuffed with inane comments. Both pages contain the video, and it doesn't affect the view numbers on that, so what's the actual problem here? It's not my blog and I'm pretty sure the bloke running it isn't raking in the…

In contrast to the content-void blog post, the description on Youtube contains a link to the mp3, the authors website and the lyrics.

Don't submit where you found something, submit what you found. If you consider your link important, just post it as a comment.

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

#38

Post by petercooper »

DrJokepu wrote: post #29
petercooper wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I use Spotify (and pay for it) and it kicks ass. Thing is, I can't see how it's viable for the record companies long term since I'm only paying £10 a month to save the more than £10 I'd spend usually..

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

#39

Post by cubedice »

tdavis wrote: post #36
cubedice wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, but this is very much the problem. Records provided an unequal distribution of wealth amongst performing artists before the internet. Why pay to listen to an up-and-coming classical artist when an exquisite recording of Chopin's work all ready exists? Now, the internet has magnified this even further. An incredibly narrow band of artists are currently being compensated in any way (live performance, merch, cds),…

The Internet has been indispensable in my quest to find up-and-coming artists! Many of the bands I've learned about have been introduced at random by Pandora. I've gone on to buy quite a few albums (and seen shows) thanks to that passive discovery process. ...we know there's a system that will rise out of this that will undoubtedly be regulated. That sounds wonderful -- because we all know how much regulation fosters…

Hmm, you definitely have a point. People have rarely felt musicians should be paid (a lot) for their self-expression; I can't really recall when it was a lucrative career. What I suppose I meant was that the best musicians have often (though not always) been poor business people.

You're also right that sometimes they deserve to be paid. It is my intuition that the free market works against supporting the largest number of musicians. It may work to reward the best, but to me, that doesn't foster innovation (since musicians rarely look at the payoff in terms of money--probably fame). Certain acts are always going to be very famous, but there probably is a lot of room for diversity.

The optimal strategy for creativity/diversity would be to provide a (minimal) amount of reimbursement for attempting to create music. This would not only bring music creation back to the masses (where it probably should be) but could also provide an incentive for creative people to put work out and also buy dinner.

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

#40

Post by rsheridan6 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #25
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…

>So you think it's bad because you feel guilty about your past piracy?

No. I'm just saying it means less money for the music industry, which is not contingent on whether or not I feel guilty.

>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?

That's nice, but do you really doubt that many or most filesharers are skinflint pirates like me?

Post reply on HN