Comments on: The Ultimate File Sharing Battle: Lily Allen, Patrick Wolf, and Others Speak Out Against Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien and Crew

By: Bransby

Bransby — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:57:40 +0000

Thanks to file sharing and services like Pandora (now banned in the UK thanks to our own short-sighted music industry) I have been exposed to, and have bought far more music than I ever did before these technologies existed.

I'm curious to know what mythical time Lily Allen is referring to when she harks back to an era when it was EASY for new acts to emerge. Given that her entire career was launched on the back of the concept of people being able to access her tracks for free, she appears to have a remarkably short memory.

Patrick Wolf (who I've never heard of incidentally, maybe I need to go find some of his stuff on BTJunkie) whines that he won't be able to buy a house and that many musicians will struggle to make ends meet. Again, is this supposed to contrast with a time before this technology when all musicians were afforded a healthy living wage? What a load of garbage, musicians struggle, always have done, always will. Incidentally, Wolfy, I've got a proper bleedin' job and I still can't afford to buy a house, so you'll escuse me if I'm not choking back tears for your plight.

Matt Bellamy – he appears to simply be saying that ISPs should charge for bandwidth usage, which as far as I'm aware, most do.

And Bjorn from Abba, lending moral support whilst no doubt sitting on his gold sofa in his diamond mansion. I can't believe music fans would deign to steal from him, the poor little sausage, when he's got another Pacific Island to buy! And after he brought us Mamma Mia!!

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:55:04 +0000

Ed O'Brien hits the nail on the head -> it's a paradigm shift. It's not like the artist makes a living off album sales anyway, but from live shows. Free music=a bigger listening audience which also results in a bigger attending audience.

Matt Bellamy shows that he thinks that anyone that uses 1gig MUST be stealing music, then launches into advocating taxation. Yeah, that sounds great…oh wait, People ALREADY pay for their download limits.

The charts mean very little to people these days, and the real way to get a large fan base is to go viral and free. If people like it, they buy it. In fact, people are MORE inclined to buy if there is a digital version and a hard copy. These artists need to stop whinging and start adapting.

By: Sarah A.

Sarah A. — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:07:33 +0000

While file sharing does allow for the illegal downloading of copyrighted material, it also provides some benefits to the music industry. Instead of trying to outlaw it, we need to analyze and interpret its consequences to see if it can actually help artist’s careers rather than hurt them. The FAC states that, "The focus of our objection is the proposed treatment of ordinary music fans who download a few tracks so as to check out our material before they buy. For those of us who don’t get played on the radio or mentioned in the music media -- artists established and emerging -- peer-to-peer recommendation is an important form of promotion." As mentioned in my previous blog post, our technology is changing and it is imperative to the music industry to keep up with these changes. Digital online media has opened up a whole new market and we are yet to regulate that market to create a successful business model. While some say peer-to-peer file sharing is taking money out of the pockets of many artists, I believe it has the potential to serve as an efficient promotional vehicle for many. These days, most artists are making their money from touring and performances. In order to get more fans out to their shows and increase their revenue streams, they need more exposure. File sharing has the power to gain them immense exposure, even though it might be taking away from their CD sales. There is, however, a need to regulate and monitor its use, as it does allow for copyright infringement. But I do not believe cutting off someone’s internet as a consequence of file sharing is the solution. First of all, it is taking away our ability to access information, which sounds a lot like government censorship. The FAC released a statement on their website stating that the legislation would, “reduce the civil liberties of every one of us in the country in order to afford a disincentive threat to a small minority of ‘egregious offenders.’ We believe this would be both disproportionate and unenforceable.” It is unfair to punish everyone for file sharing when some are just using it to check out a band before they buy their album or purchase concert tickets. Taking away the internet does more than take away the vehicle used for illegal downloading, it also takes away freedom, privacy, and a method of communication. Also, those that are using file sharing for illegal purposes can resume doing so simply by signing up for new internet service, or waiting until their service is returned to them. Furthermore, cutting off people’s internet not only hurts the consumer, but also the artist. The internet is a huge platform for fans to engage with artists, and utilizing it properly is crucial to an artist’s promotion. If fans get cut off from this platform, they no longer have access to that kind of interaction, and the artist no longer has access to their fans. Bottom line, file sharing need to be further investigated as a legitimate source of artist promotion, and attempting to shut it down is not going to solve any industry problems.

By: mariya

mariya — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:56:10 +0000

What a cyberspacial Utopia Bellamy lives in (and I wonder if he's read Looking Backward, written by another, more sensible Bellamy).

And @lilyallen: I doubt you would have become as popular as you are now without the magic of file-sharing. I'm pretty sure no American would have any idea who you are if Bellamy's idea were realized before your big break. Indie bands/artists have a much easier time getting themselves heard as a result of file-sharing; this isn't a time when we can shell out $20 per every artsy-looking album only to find that a majority of them are crap. I think this inspires a good amount of competition, and allows an artist to remain under an independent label, which does not limit his/her freedom of expression. Let's face it: scoring a major label is the only real way a band is going to make any money, and to go major is to go mainstream.

By: David G

David G — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:17:11 +0000

"The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP (internet service provider) based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists . . ."

Hello? I use the Internet for a large number of things that aren't related to downloading music, some of which take up quite a bit of bandwidth. I absolutely refuse to have my PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS monitored by a hyper-capitalist industry promotion/lobbying organization with minimal interest in freedom or privacy.