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

41–50 of 58 posts

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

#41

Post by rsheridan6 »

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…

Your grandparents were buying recorded music. It's not some new fad.

The reason we expect music to be free, or nearly free, now is because of filesharing. If Napster and its spiritual descendants had never existed, people would still be buying music more or less like it was 1999.

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

#42

Post by anigbrowl »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #40
anigbrowl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

I see your point, though I'm only concerned about the artist rather than industry. Do you use any of your estimated $600/yr savings to attend concerts? The point being that I personally feel music is most effective (commercially) as advertising for live performance. Or am I being naive?

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

#43

Post by rsheridan6 »

aw3c2 wrote: post #30
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).

The record industry's post-Napster decline gives a hint about the relative magnitude of file-sharing's positive and negative impact on the record industry. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sect...

Short answer - it's negative.

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

#44

Post by rsheridan6 »

gojomo wrote: post #34
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."

Whereas the usual opinion is "filesharing must be OK because I do it so much."

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

#45

Post by enneff »

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.

"If he used the actual sample from the song then it's more likely"

Well, he didn't.

I totally disagree with you. The foundations of modern pop music are built on sampling the music of ages past. Much of what we enjoy today literally would not exist without the unfettered use of samples. We can't just say "nope, not any more."

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

#46

Post by rsheridan6 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #42
rsheridan6 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 pr…

I see your point, though I'm only concerned about the artist rather than industry. Do you use any of your estimated $600/yr savings to attend concerts? The point being that I personally feel music is most effective (commercially) as advertising for live performance. Or am I being naive?

I never really went to shows much, so no. That's just me, but if there were a general trend of pirates spending more money on going to shows, the clubs would be booming, but AFAIK they're not. From what I understand (no source here but talking to older scenesters), fewer people go to shows now than they did back in the day.

If the total amount of money going to shows has not increased, then artists are just having to compete harder for a slice of the same (or smaller) pie by giving away something that they used to be able to charge for to promote themselves. It may be the rational thing for an artist to choose to do now, but the overall situation is worse for them than it was back then. It's sort of analogous to how investing in capital goods for a commodity business like textiles ends up benefiting the customer, not the producer (though other producers have to invest too or they are crushed).

Sometime between stints at rehab about 10 years ago Courtney Love suggested downloads + tips as a substitute for the record industry as we know it. http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print....

If there had been an free itunes-like service that made it convenient to tip, I would have gone for that (I use the past tense because I'm old and busy now and haven't listened to much new music lately).

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

#47

Post by redcap »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #41
axod wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your grandparents were buying recorded music. It's not some new fad. The reason we expect music to be free, or nearly free, now is because of filesharing. If Napster and its spiritual descendants had never existed, people would still be buying music more or less like it was 1999.

Don't know about your grandparents, but I'm sure that my grandparents mostly listened to music on the wireless. Buying records was a new trend for them (compared to their parents).

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

#48

Post by DrJokepu »

petercooper wrote: post #38
DrJokepu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

Spotify uses P2P for distribution as opposed to maintaining high street record shops and expensive product packaging so it saves a lot on distribution costs. Oh and also they don't have any other choice.

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

#49

Post by KC8ZKF »

anigbrowl wrote: post #27
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.

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.

Those certain adjustments are "paying the devil." The "devil" being the gap between the main deck and the hull; "paying" being filling with pitch. When you are doing that, you are hanging over the side, "between the devil and the deep blue sea." When you are between the devil and the deep blue sea, paying the devil, the sails are down. Adjusting sails has nothing to do with it.

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

#50

Post by netsp »

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…

That's not what ownership means. Ownership means that they can deny you access for whatever reason they choose, usually money.
Post reply on HN