Hacker News Reader

Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

The prices put down during the pirate bay trial, it was claimed that artists lost between 20-30$ per watched performance.

So 14 thousands performance is almost a half million dollar lost of revenue, stolen by those streaming services. Worse, they claim its all moral and legal.

View on HN

$20 or $30 per performance? Is that what they're making off of each YouTube stream? That's a ridiculous claim. Back in the pre-digital era like the 90's singles were $9 for a CD single. And those usually came with 3 songs, even counting for inflation I don't think that math adds up, and that's for purchasing a song.

$4 for 14k performances of a streamed song seems totally reasonable to me. If you own the song 100% then charge more.

It seems nobody else noticed your satirical inflection.

The "$20 per performance" number, and your math, sounds just about as intellectually honest as the case where RIAA claimed damages totaling more than the world gross domestic product [1].

[1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215074/RIAA_request_...

Is a streamed/recorded song really considered a 'performance'? Isn't it just one performance? If one performance is recorded and replayed 14k times, how does that turn into 14k performances? I must be missing something...

The prices put down during the pirate bay trial, it was claimed that artists lost between 20-30$ per watched performance.

We're talking about streaming audio over the internet, though. I don't think one listen of a song brings in $20 in revenue (advertising and subscriber fees).

14000 * $0.30 = $4200 not half million dollars.

I think you misread. They claimed 20-30 _dollars_ per performance. not cents.

He said $30, not $0.30. Which makes it $420,000. Which is almost half a million dollars.

Of course, if the $30 figure is off, and it was really only $0.30 a performance you're right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com