Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Peter Sunde is all about freedom and "sharing". Yet, his site "Flattr" charges a higher service fee than any other service of its kind.

Here is from the flattr site:

"On incoming revenue you keep 90%. When you add money to give to others or withdraw money you earned you only pay a fee to the payment provider you choose."

So, they charge 10%. Paypal doesn't even charge you anything close to this. I also like how they tried to make it sound like it's not that bad, by talking about how much you actually get to keep rather than the fee itself.

I guess you need to make a profit/pay for server/infrastructure costs...so do artists, movie makers, and software developers.

It's so easy to take the hard work of others and in most cases, against the wishes of the original content creator, and just give it out for free. Anybody can buy a couple of servers, index a bunch of content, and put it up in a foreign country.

TPB isn't fighting for your freedom. They are helping in the demise of independent artists. Sure, you will always have a few people that play for free because it's fun, but because of the current state of the Internet (the new generation feels like they are entitled to music and anything else online, for free), it's going to be very difficult to actually make a living unless you are signed to a major label.




>Yet, his site "Flattr" charges a higher service fee than any other service of its kind

Could you show me another service 'of its kind' as awesome as Flattr? Probably not.

Speaking of the the services not of its kind, Flattr's 10% is well reasoned. Appstore/Google Play charges 30%. Have you heard about Envato? They charge 50% on all sales until you make $70,000. Thousands of people make a living out of Envato and Appstore/Play.

Also don't forget that Flattr is dealing with micro transactions. With Flattr you can give $1 to 10 different content creators. Could you do that with Paypal? I think not. So, I would say that Flattr's 10% fee is well reasoned and acceptable.


"Appstore/Google Play charges 30%. Have you heard about Envato? They charge 50% on all sales until you make $70,000. Thousands of people make a living out of Envato and Appstore/Play."

Those services are for giving donations to people? Can you show me where they state this, because I can't find it anywhere..

"I would say that Flattr's 10% fee is well reasoned and acceptable."

Are you a shill for Flattr? Your comments make me think that you work for the site..


Independent artists aren't going anywhere, and neither are record labels. Independent artists and labels alike have been helped and harmed by the changing paradigm that global networking has brought about. Pick whichever sign for the delta you want, but money isn't and hasn't been the driving force behind artistic expression. The overwhelming majority of all musicians never break even on the time and money they put into their work. It's been that way for decades. Most artists --signed and independent alike-- are far more concerned with the size of their audience than their wallets. And in the quest for an audience, the internet has far outdone its predecessors. From my perspective, the "current state of the Internet" is not a state in need of repair. Rather, business models are in need of an update. Humanity has dragged them forward into new technologies kicking and screaming every time, and every time the show has gone on.


> It's been that way for decades.

Try centuries.


>TPB isn't fighting for your freedom. They are helping in the demise of independent artists. Sure, you will always have a few people that play for free because it's fun, but because of the current state of the Internet (the new generation feels like they are entitled to music and anything else online, for free), it's going to be very difficult to actually make a living unless you are signed to a major label.

Did independent artists ever subsist off album sales prior to the internet/TPB?


  > TPB isn't fighting for your freedom. They are helping in the demise of independent artists.
I think you've been misinformed about the effects of content piracy.


Indeed, it's disheartening to see people try to defend what is most certainly a crime. No matter what you call it, the artists are not getting paid for their content when they have the right to require payment. That is not right, no matter how you slice it.

I'm tired of people saying "but look how evil the artists/labels/companies are!" I don't care, it's no excuse. You're correct that they're shady, but just because you're correct doesn't make your actions right.


> You're correct that they're shady, but just because you're correct doesn't make your actions right.

You're correct that there are laws against sharing, but that doesn't make those laws right.

> Indeed, it's disheartening to see people try to defend what is most certainly a crime.

I guess your point is that things are illegal for a reason? There is certainly some truth to that. However, trying to enforce old ideas of copyright when digital distribution has created fundamental changes in how media is consumed seems shortsighted to me.

Perhaps you'd be less disheartened if you recognized how many people, both artists and consumers, are successfully navigating digital distribution without resorting to draconian copyright and drm.


If you are talking about morality, I would stay away from those that want to deny peoples access to general useful information. To quote professor Eben Moglen:

  The great moral question of the twenty-first century is
  this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful
  information can be costlessly given to everyone at the
  same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can
  have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever
  moral to exclude anyone?


So a movie is information now? A song is information? Even the dictionary doesn't agree with your definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=t

How about your name, address, ssn, CC number, and bank account information. Information wants to be free, right?


http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100

There is an indie artist #1 on the charts right now, first time in 20 years, and second time in history.

"...won’t talk about how much money they’ve made, but it’s enough to make a major label’s advance offers seem inconsequential."

Is this an anomaly or is this a trend?


It can happen, but very rarely. Indy artists are like startups that have no funding for marketing or just don't know how to market themselves properly.


Try to give to artist 10, 20 or 50 cents trough paypal. You will pay minimum 200% transfer fee.


On the App Store for instance 30 % goes to Apple.


FYI, the name of this logical fallacy is "poisoning the well".

"He made X before, so Y must be Z"


No, it's called hypocrisy and it's pretty clear.

But because he is the darling of the HN community (which seems odd, since many people here are interested in running startups), nobody cares.

I find the same thing happens with Al Gore. He made carbon credit laws that made him a billionaire and his supporters don't see this as filthy, corporate, greed. Yet, complain about the banks.


The only way to adjust business practices in a society that fetishizes deregulation is transferring money around. If the businesses can't/won't self-regulate, some action will be taken within the boundaries of what America will tolerate.

A much better action would certainly be to regulate, empowering the EPA and international health/safety standards bodies and skip over the middlemen entirely.


Such a horrible arguments, no wonder it got down voted.

If you think you can do better than Flattr and produce a service that charge less, feel free to implement it. Competition is healthy, and there is no software patents in Sweden, thus no state enforced monopoly to stop you.

As for the TPB site itself, there are not a single peer reviewed research that say that independent artists was harmed by the site. Now days with the promo-bay, they have done more good than most labels but without charging a single dime.


"Such a horrible arguments, no wonder it got down voted."

Like most things that go against that go against the mainstream opinion of HN, my opinion is silenced by the masses.

"If you think you can do better than Flattr and produce a service that charge less, feel free to implement it. Competition is healthy, and there is no software patents in Sweden, thus no state enforced monopoly to stop you."

I don't need to. I'm also not trying to defend to the world why I'm freely sharing other peoples content and making money on it (through ad revenue).

"As for the TPB site itself, there are not a single peer reviewed research that say that independent artists was harmed by the site"

You are really tying to tell me that If I am selling a product and everyone knows they can get it for free from a website online, that people will buy it from me instead if downloading it for free and I won't get "harmed"?

You can defend this all you want, but when it hits your industry, don't start blaming anyone. It will cause job loss in the future.

"Now days with the promo-bay, they have done more good than most labels but without charging a single dime."

Prove it. There is no peer-reviewed research on the subject.


I'm not sure that a payment processor is the best thing to compare Flattr to, but if they believe it offers no value beyond that, artists are free to do everything themselves and use Paypal or whatever else.


A major label isn't a guarantee of money. In fact, quite the opposite. Royalties don't earn much of a living until you reach the very high echelons of musical popularity. The most money is really earned from touring and live performances.


Great, another thread ruined by a lowest common denominator discussion.


Kickstarter also charges 10%.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: