Lily Allen to quit music [Archive] - Forums @ The Digital Fix

24-09-2009, 13:02

Seems a strange decision. Fed up with illegal file sharing and complaining of not making any money. She sprung to fame from myspace iirc and has made some cracking tunes. Makes it seem really odd as the internet is her thing, she's always tweeting. I also fancy her a bit even if she is annoying.
Publicity stunt?

LouBarlow

24-09-2009, 13:06

Nah she just ran out of ideas after her debut. The follow-up was guff. Hope she goes into porn.

SIMON ADEBISI

24-09-2009, 13:07

I liked her arse on the glastonbury stage.

wen

24-09-2009, 13:08

Makes no money = signed the wrong contract.

Talent always shines through.

statto

24-09-2009, 13:12

Well at least it reveals her motivations for being in the business in the first place.

Baz

24-09-2009, 13:13

Nah she just ran out of ideas after her debut. The follow-up was guff. Hope she goes into porn.

Because everyone pays for that...........

douglasb

24-09-2009, 13:18

It's almost certainly just newspaper stuff.

'Just so you know, I have not renegotiated my record contract and have no plans to make another record. The days of me making money from recording music has been and gone as far as I'm concerned, so I don't (at this point) stand to profit from legislation.”

Doesn't preclude live work or even making music.

Mr Majestik

24-09-2009, 13:27

I do remember her saying she's made 20k from her debut album. Which considering how many it's sold seems astonishing.

24-09-2009, 13:29

20k? I can't believe that. I'd pay her that to be my wife per annum. Lily if you are reading this.. ;)

jpig

24-09-2009, 13:34

She's getting out of the music business before her star fades so she can get that TV presenting deal that she was always destined for.

24-09-2009, 13:36

She sucks at that though. She is really bad!

douglasb

24-09-2009, 13:37

I do remember her saying she's made 20k from her debut album. Which considering how many it's sold seems astonishing.

Wonder if she took an advance, meaning the record co would take everything before returning a profit?

Steve Albini's essay on the reality of music industry contracts still stands. Allen's on EMI, isn't she? No wonder she's not made any money.

Woz

24-09-2009, 14:01

I do remember her saying she's made 20k from her debut album. Which considering how many it's sold seems astonishing.

So maybe by pirates she actually means 'middle men and coke sniffing record execs'?

Edit: I can quite believe she didn't make much: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html (some swearing in the text)

LouBarlow

24-09-2009, 14:06

Because everyone pays for that...........

Not quite the point I was making :p

Bigsby

24-09-2009, 15:01

She's played loads of festivals this year, she must make cash from touring.

Mr Majestik

24-09-2009, 15:12

The 20k was just from cd/Download sales.

She'll make a few bob from touring, licenseing, prs ect.

GlennSh

24-09-2009, 15:33

Think she's playing a dangerous game with the illegal downloads stuff. Hypocritical bearing in mind the mix tapes she gave away as free downloads from her site. Great publicity though ;)

stu_69

24-09-2009, 15:40

This does seem like biting the hand the feeds her (or something). She made her name using the internet and gave away a load of music on blogs/myspace it's a bit hypocritical to turn round complain that folk are downloading free music.

She must have a rubbish contract though, her debut sold a few million in the UK alone and did quite well round the world. Her second album was crap though so maybe she is going on the sales of that one.

BigH

24-09-2009, 15:46

I'd pay her that to be my wife per annum. Lily if you are reading this.. ;)

and have her Dad as father-in-law? no way

Mr Majestik

24-09-2009, 15:50

and have her Dad as father-in-law? no way

But Harry Enfield would be step father in law.

BigH

24-09-2009, 15:53

But Harry Enfield would be step father in law.

good point - I'd go with Keith

barrynorton

24-09-2009, 15:56

I never realised she had started in music.

Sneeka

24-09-2009, 16:03

Bets on for a Keith Allen documentary on illegal file-sharing within a fortnight :|... he almost shoehorned it into the conversation on The One Show the other night.

KennyVader

24-09-2009, 16:11

lol, no great loss. She probably just wants more time to make the party pages of the Metro all 5 days a week instead of just 4.

the_daddy

24-09-2009, 16:13

Hope she doesn't quit, she's a nifty bit of eye candy, not arsed about her muisc tbh.

MrHat001

24-09-2009, 16:23

Bets on for a Keith Allen documentary on illegal file-sharing within a fortnight :|... he almost shoehorned it into the conversation on The One Show the other night.
This whole thing just reeks of her throwing the toys out of the pram over file sharing. All because a few musicians thought that cutting off a persons internet was an over-reaction to the problem.

I like some of her songs and she's easy on the eye but she needs to get over herself.

scoobyood

24-09-2009, 16:38

The other way to look at this is it's amazing way to get a REALLY good contract if anyone does want to sign her. She'll do something and never be poor. Not bad off the back off two albums.

It's a mystery to me why she (or anyone else in her position) doesn't just go independent and take the maximum cut possible from itunes and amazon. She's get a shed load more cash even if she never sells anything on physical media. Marketing purely across social networks (for free) would get her a couple of albums worth of press attention merely due the fact she's doing it without spending a penny on print or TV advertising.

Jimmyboy

24-09-2009, 17:29

Good grief! There are people here who actually take her seriously?

robbie99

24-09-2009, 17:40

campdave

24-09-2009, 18:42

This whole thing just reeks of her throwing the toys out of the pram over file sharing. All because a few musicians thought that cutting off a persons internet was an over-reaction to the problem.

Amusing really, considering the copyrighted material she used in mixes on her website in the early days.

GlennSh

24-09-2009, 19:49

Amusing really, considering the copyrighted material she used in mixes on her website in the early days.

There's still some stuff on there ironically

MixTape1 (http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/music/demos/5geuj0iedc/MyFirstMixtape.mp3)

and

MixTape2 (http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/music/demos/csd23dsms7/LilyAllenMixTape2.mp3)

NicolaUK

24-09-2009, 19:57

The problem is how do you put the illegal downloading genie back in the bottle?

Those in their mid twenties and below think music is free because it has always been and although not allowed here, many forums post links to leaked new albums in some cases on the bands own website.

As for Lily Allen, this smells like a publicity stunt to me. Maybe if she had toured to build a fan base when starting out instead of using her famous Father to get a record contract I might have some sympathy for her 'plight'. The fact is she's made some cash, seen the world and become a C-list celebrity so shouldn't really complain too much.

AndyWilson

24-09-2009, 20:00

She didn't use her famous father though did she?

They'd been estranged for years and only reconciled after she started getting noticed...

Niceguygeoff

24-09-2009, 20:01

Nah she just ran out of ideas after her debut. The follow-up was guff. Hope she goes into porn.
Seconded.

24-09-2009, 20:17

Dp?

Jimmyboy

24-09-2009, 20:35

She didn't use her famous father though did she?

They'd been estranged for years and only reconciled after she started getting noticed...

Well its more believable than record companies signing up talent on the basis of a school kids myspace account. :lol:

Sneeka

24-09-2009, 20:38

Dp?
DvDa.

Mr Majestik

24-09-2009, 20:48

Well its more believable than record companies signing up talent on the basis of a school kids myspace account. :lol:

The worlds worst DJ George Lamb was Lilly's manager for a couple of years and couldn't get her signed for love nor money. (When she got a new manager she got signed in a couple of months.)

But how much of a draw to today's pop kids would biging up Keith Allen be?

chrisjm

24-09-2009, 21:29

they wont get much sympathy while they keep touting their bling, cars and party lifestyles.
as for lily, so is she off to get a 'normal' job then? yea right.

phollan1

25-09-2009, 11:51

Certainly won't miss her not doing music, famous for having a famous Dad that is about the extent of her talent

Sneeka

25-09-2009, 12:41

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6226690/Lily-Allen-drops-fight-against-filesharing-after-Techdirt-spat.html

I like this bit..

However, Techdirt said that Allen printed an entire post from their site on her blog, thus infringing their copyright, and that she used mix-tapes of other people’s music early in her career which she distributed free. They said: “The fact that she is trying to claim that such copying is bad while doing it herself suggests something of a double standard.”

Allen issued an apology for using the Techdirt post, saying: “I think it’s quite obvious that I wasn’t trying to pass off those words as my own, and later adding that “I made those mix-tapes five years ago, I didn’t have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then.”
I know nothing about games development. Off to download some pirated games :clap:

Woz

25-09-2009, 13:05

I think her major point is that record companys aren't going to invest in new artists because they dont make any money on them now. Established artists can earn money from mech, tours etc, but without a big investment at the start this isnt happening with new artists. However the media have turned it into a bit of a witch hunt against her, and it seems the norm now that people believe music should be free. Its a debate that is needed and good on her for starting it, but I think she maybe didnt realise it would get this big so soon.

The percentage of actual artists that made money from the record industry is TINY!
There's plenty of jobbing musician's whose life won't be changed one iota from filesharing because they were never signed or the contracts they DID sign were so **** all the money they made went to the middlemen.
The number of my favorite artists who've been royally ripped off saddens me (eg, Michelle Shocked, Aimee Mann).

Think of how many musicians there are in the world and then think of how many of them are rich.

Besides which, record sales have only been a source of revenue for 100 years or so, but music's been around for thousands.
Home taping didn't kill music, and nor will firesharing. It might kill the Record Industry in its current incarnation though.

Edit: you're completely right about the cultural change with younger folk though! My 11 year old thinks music is free. He's not allowed to download it at home, but they ALL share music on their phones at school via bluetooth. No legislation's going to stop that.

Mick Jones

25-09-2009, 18:36

as for lily, so is she off to get a 'normal' job then? yea right.

Perhaps she can go back to drug dealing. She will have met so many more media types in the last couple of years, so that's a huge potential market for charlie.

splobber

25-09-2009, 19:18

http://newsarse.com/2009/09/25/lily-allen-quits-music-james-blunt-strongly-urged-to-follow-suit/

DrVenkman

26-09-2009, 11:01

Like a lot of people in the music Industry, Allen assumes that the people who downloaded her music were going to buy it anyway. It's a fallacy to suggest that x amount of downloads result in x amounts of lost revenue.

kohoutec

27-09-2009, 09:18

jpig

27-09-2009, 12:31

gjkendall

27-09-2009, 17:10

The publicity machine is rolling....topless poses in GQ!

Have to say, she looks rather nice!

TheoGB

28-09-2009, 11:44

The problem is how do you put the illegal downloading genie back in the bottle?

They only way they could is by controlling the infrastructure of the Internet in the first place. I assume it's perfectly possible in theory, though the outcome would be interesting.

Roberto

28-09-2009, 13:48

They only way they could is by controlling the infrastructure of the Internet in the first place. I assume it's perfectly possible in theory, though the outcome would be interesting.True, the only way is to make the UK into a full blown communist state like china

douglasb

28-09-2009, 14:17

She's re-issuing her last LP as an acoustic affair with DVD jobbie. I mean, why bother when it's not going to make any money?

TheoGB

28-09-2009, 15:10

True, the only way is to make the UK into a full blown communist state like china

China's about as Communist as the USA. I think you probably meant dictatorship.

That said it would only take ISPs being made responsible for their users' actions to completely change the fabric of the internet in that way. Whether this is 'commie' or not is a different matter, but sooner or later those record companies are going to work out suing mothers one benefits for millions of dollars isn't giving the sort of return or indeed sending the sort of message that suing entire corporations would.

Anyway, I don't really see it happening but it is the only way to control this stuff again or indeed control the internet at all.

GlennSh

28-09-2009, 15:17

Indeed. Making ISP responsible for users' actions would be like making the Royal Mail responsible for what gets sent in the post. Would take a huge step to get to that stage. Not impossible, just unlikely

28-09-2009, 16:01

She's re-issuing her last LP as an acoustic affair with DVD jobbie. I mean, why bother when it's not going to make any money?

She is or her label is? ;)

douglasb

28-09-2009, 17:16

She is or her label is? ;)

Presumably she was there in body (if not in spirit) during the recording of the acoustic tracks ...

GlennSh

28-09-2009, 17:41

She's re-issuing her last LP as an acoustic affair with DVD jobbie. I mean, why bother when it's not going to make any money?

It will still make money. Even if it only makes £20K thats not bad for a days work ;)

AndyWilson

28-09-2009, 18:51

But she's an established artist, of course she'll make money. But that's not the point she was making is it?

douglasb

28-09-2009, 18:56

But she's an established artist, of course she'll make money. But that's not the point she was making is it?

Well, she was supposedly standing up for young acts who've yet to make any money but also said "The days of me making money from recording music has been and gone as far as I'm concerned."

GlennSh

28-09-2009, 19:18

But she's an established artist, of course she'll make money. But that's not the point she was making is it?

I know - I was responding to douglasb's comment

01-10-2009, 22:34

Retirement lasted long. Doing a tour with that Dizzy whathisface.

slideymoo

03-10-2009, 01:37

Its time the music industry realised that recorded songs are an advert for live shows/merchandise and accepted that people will download the albums.

douglasb

05-10-2009, 10:40

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 12:39

Its time the music industry realised that recorded songs are an advert for live shows/merchandise and accepted that people will download the albums.

Why should they?

MrHat001

05-10-2009, 12:46

"A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html?_r=4
That's not that surprising really.
The age group for buying tunes online is going to be quite young and the vast majority are going to be buying new music that's recently been released.

Not that many people are going to be downloading (legally) older music unless they stumble across something they like and want their previous albums. If you take a browse through iTunes there's a lot of rubbish and a lot of albums that any music fan will already own.

driver8

05-10-2009, 13:25

13 million ?? That's a *lot* of songs !!

robbie99

05-10-2009, 13:59

Its time the music industry realised that recorded songs are an advert for live shows/merchandise and accepted that people will download the albums.

Isn't it more the case that people should realise that downloading albums (and not paying) is illegal? I bet 99% of people wouldnt steal the CD from the shop.

dco_chris

05-10-2009, 14:35

Isn't it more the case that people should realise that downloading albums (and not paying) is illegal? I bet 99% of people wouldnt steal the CD from the shop.

Stealing a CD requires the physical removal of an item, downloading does not. It is not theft in the same way as nothing tangible is actually gone.

Grandmaster

05-10-2009, 15:25

Why should they?

Because there is nothing they can do to stop the downloading of music.

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 18:15

Because there is nothing they can do to stop the downloading of music.

So? People can anonymously do a lot of dodgy stuff via the internet now with little chance of them being caught. Does that mean they shouldn't be prosecuted if found out? Maybe I'm a bit too moral, but I personally still believe in paying the artist for their music or film.

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 18:17

Stealing a CD requires the physical removal of an item, downloading does not. It is not theft in the same way as nothing tangible is actually gone.

It is - minus the cost of a blank CD, its case and the inlay.

statto

05-10-2009, 18:18

Maybe I'm a bit too moral.

I honestly never thought I would see you post that sentence. :)

statto

05-10-2009, 18:19

It is - minus the cost of a blank CD, its case and the inlay.

So nothing tangible - like he said?

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 18:23

So nothing tangible - like he said?

But when you buy a CD, most of the cost is due to what you'd describe as the intangible anyway. It's the data on the disc (and the work that's gone into creating it) you're paying for rather the disc. You're stealing someone's work; getting the benefit of it without paying for it. Do you also think people should be able to sneak into gigs without paying for the experience?

LouBarlow

05-10-2009, 18:34

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 19:01

I think you should be allowed to download music for evaluation purposes and then choose to either buy a physical copy, or just stop listening to it. Kinda like shareware software. If it is good enough, then you would want to support the artist.

There are always the likes of MySpace and Spotify for sampling. Should I be able to take a book from Waterstones or a quiche from M&S and only pay for it if I enjoy the experience?

RomerojpgX

05-10-2009, 19:08

Myspace I love, straight to the point and easy to use (as long as you do not scroll down and load all the crap!) and ussually plenty of tracks to get you into the mood of the artist.

Still average people dont want to pay at all :( ever.

AndyWilson

05-10-2009, 19:10

With services like Spotify available surely the tired old argument of "I only download to see if I like it, and if I do I buy it" is total crap now?

The comparisons with home taping are just as worthless - if I lent an album to friends who taped it that was only half a dozen people maybe - putting it on the internet makes it available to millions.

And as for the total bull about "It's not theft" - it's still depriving the artist of income whatever semantics you want to use - and that's got to be wrong hasn't it?

RomerojpgX

05-10-2009, 19:14

Yup I dont get the legality of Spotify at all, it is just downloading, but legal, its just strange anyone lets the music on there. Unless I still dont get "It".

statto

05-10-2009, 19:15

There are always the likes of MySpace and Spotify for sampling. Should I be able to take a book from Waterstones or a quiche from M&S and only pay for it if I enjoy the experience?

You should be able to take the quiche back and get a refund if it tastes wrong.

Do you flick through magazines sometimes before deciding on buying them? Are there times you'll flick through them and then choose not to buy them? Do you sometimes look at them even if you have no intention of buying?

douglasb

05-10-2009, 19:20

The - legal - streaming services pay (very small) royalties - something like £0.00.35 per play at the moment. Everyone says Spotify, etc. are the future but they're not making any money either - never mind the performers. There is still money to be made from music - licensing a track to an advert is still worth it - but anything else?

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 19:26

You should be able to take the quiche back and get a refund if it tastes wrong.

Do you flick through magazines sometimes before deciding on buying them? Are there times you'll flick through them and then choose not to buy them? Do you sometimes look at them even if you have no intention of buying?

But you can't take the quiche back just because you've decided you don't like that particular flavour.

And, nope, I don't browse magazines in shops without buying these days. If I want a copy of The Observer I'll buy it (or make do with what they publish online), not read it in the shop like a pikey.

statto

05-10-2009, 19:28

Funny, I thought you read it on the internet.

Presumably libraries are bad in your view? After all, people can read all the books they want without ever buying a single one. You can read papers and magazines for free, rent CDs for a fortnight for just a few pence and rent DVDs for a week for £1.

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 19:50

Funny, I thought you read it on the internet.

Sometimes read it online, sometimes buy it.

It's not a hard concept to grasp: if an artist wants to give away their music/film/book for free, that's up to them and I don't have a problem with people taking them up on the offer. However, if an artist expects to be paid before someone views/listens to their work, that's entirely up to them and I entirely defend their right to have payment.

LouBarlow

05-10-2009, 19:53

I know it's an outrageous idea, but surely artists should worry more about the actual art than the money it makes them?

Easy for me to say maybe, but still.

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 20:05

Yeah, Lou, they should desire no more than a shack, bread and water for their troubles.

Should teachers only worry about teaching kids?

Should posties only worry about delivering letters?

The irony is that the 'small' artists who are concerned more with craft than money will probably feel the effects of piracy more than big acts.

LouBarlow

05-10-2009, 20:17

My point is, it shouldn't be treated as a job.

statto

05-10-2009, 20:34

The irony is that the 'small' artists who are concerned more with craft than money will probably feel the effects of piracy more than big acts.

This gets trotted out, but I can't think a single way how it would be true. By far the biggest 'victims' of illegal downloading are established acts who are already loaded. For small acts the main priority has to be getting the music out there, and downloading is only going to help that. Of course, even if what you say is true, those more concerned with craft than money would prefer to have more people listening to their music than a few extra pennies in their bank account.

Look at it this way:

Lily Allen infringes copyright on her website while a struggling 'artist'. This is OK apparently.
Lily Allen becomes moderately successful, and signs a rubbish recording contract.
Lily Allen doesn't become as rich as she wanted, so throws her toys out the pram saying she's quitting music.
Lily Allen realises she can still make a decent wedge from touring, and immediately arranges tour.

The less people like her in the music industry the better IMO.

robbie99

05-10-2009, 20:36

I know it's an outrageous idea, but surely artists should worry more about the actual art than the money it makes them?

Easy for me to say maybe, but still.

That maybe fine for the artist, but what about the engineer in the studio, the tea boy, the man at the pressing plant etc. They all need paying, its not just the artist that it effects, which I think is one of the point's Lily was trying to make originally. I suppose it comes down to the fact that music is more of an industry.

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 20:53

The less people like her in the music industry the better IMO.

Indeed. But purely because she makes crap music. As others have suggested, she should go into pRon. There are many ways to hear new artists' music without downloading - radio, streaming sites, etc. There's no excuse for downloading and not paying. The irony is music's probably cheaper than it's ever been.

plant

05-10-2009, 20:58

Indeed. But purely because she makes crap music. As others have suggested, she should go into pRon. There are many ways to hear new artists' music without downloading - radio, streaming sites, etc. There's no excuse for downloading and not paying. The irony is music's probably cheaper than it's ever been.

That's what I immediately thought when I read the topic title.

wizbowes

05-10-2009, 21:02

That maybe fine for the artist, but what about the engineer in the studio, the tea boy, the man at the pressing plant etc. They all need paying, its not just the artist that it effects, which I think is one of the point's Lily was trying to make originally. I suppose it comes down to the fact that music is more of an industry.

You think the engineer and teaboy earn royalties then? You don't they may get paid time and materials? The only people who need sales are record companies, the artists and the agents.

robbie99

05-10-2009, 21:29

You think the engineer and teaboy earn royalties then? You don't they may get paid time and materials? The only people who need sales are record companies, the artists and the agents.

No, but the point that was being made is that if the record company doesnt make money from an artist, they arent going to invest in many new ones. If there is less investment then they will need less tea boys, engineers etc. They are indirectly involved in the process, so a lack of sales will effect the whole of the industry. Also, not all the money from record sales is royalties.

LouBarlow

05-10-2009, 21:47

Indeed. But purely because she makes crap music. As others have suggested, she should go into pRon. There are many ways to hear new artists' music without downloading - radio, streaming sites, etc. There's no excuse for downloading and not paying. The irony is music's probably cheaper than it's ever been.

I struggle to see the difference between evaluating via streaming and doing it via downloading. Either way, you aren't buying the music until you've heard it and made an informed decision.

Johnny Vodka

05-10-2009, 21:52

I struggle to see the difference between evaluating via streaming and doing it via downloading. Either way, you aren't buying the music until you've heard it and made an informed decision.

Streaming is far more restrictive - you can only listen while sat at your PC - and that makes up for the fact that you haven't paid for it. Music that's been downloaded can be far more conveniently listened to in the car, on your stereo, ipod, etc.

LouBarlow

05-10-2009, 21:55

Anything that can be streamed can be downloaded.

dco_chris

05-10-2009, 22:00

This gets trotted out, but I can't think a single way how it would be true. By far the biggest 'victims' of illegal downloading are established acts who are already loaded. For small acts the main priority has to be getting the music out there, and downloading is only going to help that.

Agreed. The larger record lables only really show interest in promoting manufactured stuff that they control, or groups that have already managed to establish a decent fanbase for themselves and fit into genres that are currently marketable. Unless they have an uncle who's an A&R man how are bands supposed to gain a fanbase, and therefore a decent record deal, without people hearing their songs? Yes some people will buy songs without hearing them first, but not many.

For small bands, free downloads act in the same way as taping gigs did back in the day. For example, I first heard a number of my favourite metal bands when they were used on Street Fighter combo videos and those anime music video things people make. Technically that kind of usage is illegal, yet those bands now have one more fan in me who has bought all of their albums. I expect they have gained many other fans the same way.

GlennSh

05-10-2009, 22:44

Yup I dont get the legality of Spotify at all, it is just downloading, but legal, its just strange anyone lets the music on there. Unless I still dont get "It".

Basically from what I gather, the major record companies looked at value of websites such as amazon,yahoo, etc etc (worth billions) and thought "we want a share of that" so they gave away hundreds of millions of pounds worth of future revenue for a stake (20% each ??) in Spotify. Trouble is Spotify isnt worth that much so they gave it away for buggar all.

And no, bands dont earn anything from it. The whole thing looks like a very short-term cash boost for the majors :(

campdave

06-10-2009, 07:27

Streaming is far more restrictive - you can only listen while sat at your PC - and that makes up for the fact that you haven't paid for it. Music that's been downloaded can be far more conveniently listened to in the car, on your stereo, ipod, etc.

So what? Spotify will let you cache songs on your iphone, is that inherently wrong too?

AndyWilson

06-10-2009, 08:57

No it's not because the artist gets royalties

douglasb

06-10-2009, 09:19

No it's not because the artist gets royalties

Well, they do at the moment - whether Spotify, et al. make enough money in the longer term to turn a profit and pay royalties remains to be seen.

Thing is, if you're in a band you either think you've made a good record or not. If you're proud of it, let people hear it. If you've written some 'fillers' that would've previously upped the required running time, drop 'em and release an EP.

Johnny Vodka

06-10-2009, 10:03

Seeing as you can do it and easily get away with it, it becomes a matter of conscience. But don't kid yourself that it's not stealing.

douglasb

06-10-2009, 10:07

Seeing as you can do it and easily get away with it, it becomes a matter of conscience. But don't kid yourself that it's not illegal to roll one up and have a little draw on a fat boy.

:thumbs: ;)

LouBarlow

06-10-2009, 10:10

Indeed, it's amazing how someone who likes the gange, can have such a moral highground over music. You fuel terrorism by buying reefer.

SIMON ADEBISI

06-10-2009, 10:11

Any moral stance JV takes is declared null & void by his posts in the singles thread.

LouBarlow

06-10-2009, 10:12

:lol:

SIMON ADEBISI

06-10-2009, 10:16

Its true though :D

How can you listen to someones stance on Israel properly when 3 minutes earlier he was complaining that the girl he's know for 4 hrs wont spread her legs after he split the cost of dinner with her.

Sorry JV. I love reading your posts but its true :lol:

JohnMid1098

06-10-2009, 10:22

I read in the NME a band (I forget who) griping that they heard they get 0.5p per play from Spotify. Maybe it really is 0.35p as mentioned up in this thread.

If an album has 10 tracks, they'd get 3.5p for a play. If someone played that album 10 times, they'd get 35p. How does that compare to traditional royalties for a CD? And if someone listens to less than 10 plays of an album, then was it ever worth buying the CD?

LouBarlow

06-10-2009, 10:28

I have read they receive between 8-25% of the final sale, depending on their deal/power in the industry etc. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that though. For example artists pay a percentage of the packaging costs and I *think* have to pay recording fees etc out of that cut.

Johnny Vodka

06-10-2009, 10:29

Indeed, it's amazing how someone who likes the gange, can have such a moral highground over music. You fuel terrorism by buying reefer.

:lol: I haven't had a spliff in a year. I really can't see any moral issue with taking drugs, if it doesn't disadvantage anyone else. Taking drugs < stealing.

There's nothing immoral about shagging either, if the two parties are consenting adults.

I think Lou loses the moral high ground anyway simply for not washing his nuts in the morning.

06-10-2009, 10:36

Please can we not bring drugs and shagging into this thread, it's boring.

douglasb

06-10-2009, 11:02

You need to set aside 10 minutes to read it, and a few more to digest it, but it's worth it:

http://www.mercenary.com/probwitmusby.html

It's a few years old now, but the stats - which come towards the end - are still pertinent.

Johnny Vodka

06-10-2009, 13:10

Please can we not bring drugs and shagging into this thread, it's boring.

Tell yer crew. :p

LouBarlow

06-10-2009, 13:13

Can we leave Lou's nuts out of it as well please. At least mine get some use. Cheeky get.

Woz

06-10-2009, 13:55

Bloom

06-10-2009, 14:26

I posted that article in post #13!
No-one read it then either :D

Excellent article, Steve seems a little disillusioned :lol:

statto

06-10-2009, 14:31

I posted that article in post #13!
No-one read it then either :D

Nah, I read it. I'm not in the music industry, but it sounds depressingly accurate.

lostboy182

06-10-2009, 16:20

:lol: I haven't had a spliff in a year. I really can't see any moral issue with taking drugs, if it doesn't disadvantage anyone else. Taking drugs < stealing.

I think we all have a moral compass to a certain degree. People will smoke cannabis within the confines of their own home - whether it's strictly illegal or not (don't even know the law on this now it keeps changing); they will drive 75mph on a motorway - again strictly illegal; and from those I know and have known for the last 5 years or so, very few people (rightly or wrongly) actually pay for their music. It is simply not on their radar as something "wrong".

It's simply an indication of society. Fair enough point that the artist will lose out on money, but what about those who download their US TV shows (advertless) through P2P - aren't there also victims through circumstance there? Those who bought advertising time, FOX, NBC, etc...etc.

hookbeak

06-10-2009, 16:30

.. very few people (rightly or wrongly) actually pay for their music. It is simply not on their radar as something "wrong".

There's an interesting point there - if a majority of the public are doing something illegal that they do not see as being wrong - should it still be illegal ?

At which point does a society say the law is wrong and change it to fit our moral code, instead of changing our moral code to fit the law ?

(and no, i'm not saying the majority of the public do think it's fine - i said IF)

Johnny Vodka

06-10-2009, 18:05

The problem is, in downloading music for free and without the artist's consent, you're taking the **** out of the artist who recorded it (and the various other people involved in bringing it to you). Unlike with drug taking or speeding on an empty motorway, there is a victim.

LouBarlow

06-10-2009, 18:07

Yes because the spliff you smoke is grown in friendly isles, surrounded by chocolate lakes, with jolly famers dressed in pink bunny outfits :nuts:

GlennSh

06-10-2009, 18:52

sounds like a good spliff if thats the effect it has ;)

LouBarlow

06-10-2009, 19:26

:D My point was it's ridiculous to claim that taking drugs is a victimless crime.

Roberto

07-10-2009, 11:34

Roberto

07-10-2009, 11:43

but what about those who download their US TV shows (advertless) through P2P - aren't there also victims through circumstance there? Those who bought advertising time, FOX, NBC, etc...etc.

My personal opinion is that downloading and watching US TV should not be viewed in the same way as illegally download music or movies, more so if they show it on terrestrial TV here (paid my licence fee). They edit out all of the ads but they would be useless anyway as a majority of the products advertised wouldn't be available outside the US. I watched all of BSG. Yet i bought all the DVD's up to season 2 and have the complete Blu-ray box set on order.