
The last word on Lily Allen and her anti-filesharing campaign - andyking
http://beatcroft.blogspot.com/2009/09/absolutely-brilliant-last-word-on-lily.html
======
skolor
I'm glad to see that the artist who performed this isn't just talking about
it, he's actually doing what he says. I poked around a little ways, got to his
MySpace page, and found this:
[http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&...](http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=34458280&blogId=460628318),
where he not only provides the link to buy his newest album, but he also
provides a link to download it too (<http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HMMBYOTZ>).

As a side note, I don't understand the recent trend for bands to only have a
MySpace page, and not have their own site. It just seems a little tacky to me.

~~~
callmeed
Lily Allen's career took off because of her myspace page as she uploaded
songs/videos. In her case, she never needed a website.

~~~
kierank
Being Keith Allen's daughter helped too.

------
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?

~~~
cubedice
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...](http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2009/08/080809-edinburgh-so-how-does-it-
work-on-the-bus.html) . 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'

~~~
tdavis
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.)

~~~
cubedice
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.

~~~
blueben
This sounds an awful lot like welfare for people "attempting to create music".
Are you sure that's what you mean to say?

~~~
cubedice
Not really. Although that's a funny thought.

I'd go for a system that enforced a payment based upon a baseline # of listens
on pandora, last.fm or youtube.

------
rsheridan6
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.

~~~
axod
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'.

~~~
rsheridan6
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.

~~~
redcap
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).

------
christopherolah
I'm usually not a music person.

But this is brilliant. The amount of effort that must have gone into making
something like this... Timing the typing and speaking to the rhythm. It helps
that I disagree with the modern state of IP.

I hope it goes viral. Dear Lily, why you being so silly...

~~~
skolor
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.

~~~
KC8ZKF
It breaks the analogy, though. When you have the devil to pay, adjusting your
sails won't do any good. Pirates or not.

~~~
anigbrowl
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_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Between_the_Devil_and_the_Deep_Blue_Sea)
\- 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.

~~~
KC8ZKF
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.

~~~
anigbrowl
ah, I see. +1!

------
aw3c2
This is blogspam, here is the actual link:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY>

~~~
andyking
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...

~~~
aw3c2
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.

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

~~~
NathanKP
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.

~~~
petercooper
_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.

~~~
DrJokepu
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%.

~~~
petercooper
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..

~~~
DrJokepu
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.

------
gizmo
Terrific (and probably effective) song.

Half way through Dan Bull implied that he took the background score from one
of Lily's songs. He did, but he never properly gave credit at the end of the
clip. And that's just not cool. Even if you think that music should be in the
public domain (like I believe all university papers should be) you still must
never use something without giving credit where it's due.

It only took 20 seconds to Google, but still. The original song is "22" from
the album "It's Not Me, It's You".

~~~
axod
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.

~~~
brandnewlow
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.

~~~
blueben
If you're paying $18k for one mic, one keyboard, and one drum set, I have a
nice bridge I'd like to show you...

~~~
brandnewlow
Recording a drum kit in a professional way can involve as many as 8
microphones, each one requiring a preamplifier and effects. Add in the cost of
the drums themselves and the hourly rate of a session player. 18k may be an
overstatement, but it's a nontrivial cost.

------
russell
Wonderful, wonderful. Way beyond your typical anti-IP rant.

