Hacker News Reader

Comment by petercooper | Hacker News Reader

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 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

That said, I must admit that I enjoyed Dan Bull's song. It is funny, but I don't think that pirating is funny.

We can't force everybody to go open source, and we certainly shouldn't complain when other people complain about getting their work stolen and distributed without getting any benefit from it.

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.

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%.

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.

I mean you can probably buy it off iTunes for 99 cents to a $1.29

Did you know that iTunes store does not exist in many places outside America?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com