David Akermanis: The Featured Artists Coalition, Piracy, and why I sympathize with Lily Allen
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
Oh, yeah, pointing out that Lily Allen is 1) incorrect, 2) a hypocrite, and 3) should already be kicked off the internet/throttled by her own standards due to her THREE STRIKES of copyright infringement is "hating."
The real, tangible issue is that people like Lily have any credibility despite their arguments being based entirely on moral nonsense and not the facts.
David Akermanis
· 2 months ago
Do you -really- believe that Lily's moral fibre or intelligence is a real, tangible issue?
She may be ignorant and dumb as a post but at least she's contributing to the debate over the rights of artists to control, own, and be compensated fairly for their work.
What have you done Anonymous?
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
No. What I said is that the fact people give someone with a lack of moral fibre or intelligence any sort of platform IS a real, tangible issue.
Spewing and incorrect information and irrelevant opinions while IGNORING THE FACTS, striking out 3 times, failing to write coherently, and refusing to respond to the majority of questions is not "contributing to the debate." In fact, refusing to respond to questions is exactly the opposite of a debate.
As for what I have done, that is completely irrelevant, but nice attempt at deflection. One thing I won't be doing, though, is listening to any music Lily Allen is involved with, except perhaps some of the music she used in her mixtapes while ignoring the rights of artists to control, own, and be compensated fairly for their work.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
Ugh. Ignore that extraneous "and" in the second sentence.
Ally Lillen
· 2 months ago
I agree with the other Anonymous in that: "Oh, she's unintelligent and doesn't know much, but we should support her because she's "contributing to the debate" by not answering most of the questions thrown her way and by being hypocritical against her own standing in the "debate".
Anonymous 2
· 2 months ago
Anonymous you have to relax a little bit man. Lily Allen's opinion is not that big a deal. She has a platform because she is famous, that's just how the world works. That doesn't mean she has to be an expert on all subjects she forms an opinion on. I'm sure you have opinions on matters where you don't have a full and complete understanding.
Allen's opinion is not totally unreasonable. She is a musical artist and desires to be compensated fairly for her work. Free downloading of her music does not lead to any compensation for her, while music sales do. It is not surprising then, that she objects to free downloading of her music. Although it is clear to me that free downloads cannot really be stopped, and that the music industry needs to adapt to reality, I do understand why they make efforts to enforce what is, as of now, the LAW regarding copyright. I also understand Allen's opinion. I like money too, and if I was her I would feel I deserved it in exchange for my work.
You are taking a position based on "moral nonsense" yourself, you object to attempts to restrict file sharing strongly, and thus form negative opinions of the personal character of people on the other side of the issue, even going so far as to refuse to listen to music by an artist who disagrees with you.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
"Anonymous you have to relax a little bit man. Lily Allen's opinion is not that big a deal. She has a platform because she is famous, that's just how the world works."
Oh, I'm well aware that is how the world works, unfortunately. Doesn't mean it's not a problem, though.
"That doesn't mean she has to be an expert on all subjects she forms an opinion on. I'm sure you have opinions on matters where you don't have a full and complete understanding."
I don't think expecting Lily to have a basic understanding of the facts involved requires her to be an "expert," really.
"Free downloading of her music does not lead to any compensation for her, while music sales do."
Yeah, actually, that is wrong. Lily Allen's career started in part, ironically, via FREE distribution of her songs on MySpace. If Lily would now rather treat her fans like criminals and ensure that LESS people listen to her music, so be it.
"You are taking a position based on "moral nonsense" yourself, you object to attempts to restrict file sharing strongly, and thus form negative opinions of the personal character of people on the other side of the issue, even going so far as to refuse to listen to music by an artist who disagrees with you."
Sorry, but my objections are based on reality.
Fact: File sharing is not destroying the music industry. Fact: Kicking people off the internet (or throttling them, etc.) without due process will not make more people pay money for music. Fact: The recording industry may be dying (or committing suicide, more accurately), but the *music* industry is growing. Fact: Lily Allen is guilty of at least 3 instances of copyright infringement. Fact: Lily Allen "contributed to the debate" by deleting her entire blog and all the comments on it pointing our her hypocrisy and incorrect statements. Fact: Lily Allen "contributed to the debate" by responding to one direct question, missing the point, and responding indirectly/vaguely to some other perceived questions, and again got her facts wrong.
Fact: Lily Allen does not understand any of the above facts.
As for why I refuse to listen to Lily's music, yes, that is a moral judgment. I will not be sending any of my money to someone who does not (in my opinion, obviously) deserve it. But, of course, I am also not lobbying (or bribing) the government to pass a law banning Lily Allen from using the internet for her 3 instances of copyright infringement, despite how great that specific result may be.
Anonymous
· 2 months ago
Ugh, too late at night. "pointing our" should ("oviously") be "pointing out".
David Akermanis
· 2 months ago
It's worth noting that Lily and the FAC have come to an agreement and are now standing firmly behind a consistent message:
Great discussion. But some things said still don't add up. The end goal is for artists to have ultimate ownership and control, changing approach to agreements, and transparency of all argeements. Isn't that between the artists and their respective labels? How is that in any way dealing with the fan? Or a fans use of technology to acquire music. As much is reported on the music industry and how the abuse and mistreatment of artists is reported these artist should have signed smarter deals with their labels. It's the labels that are slow to adopt technology because it threatens their traditional model of excess and artist rapage. Not to mention it brings down the astronomically high barriers of entry to their business. Now these UK artist are speaking up AGAINST fans just because they are in bed with dinosaurs. Kicking people off of the internet is crazy. Just to be clear I'm not advocating piracy but I am saying trying to control people and people's use of technology has not and is not going to work. That has been the sad approach of the music business everytime it has felt threatened, get laws against it until we can get our act together or buy it out and destroy the potential it had in the first place, or sue your ass. I mean, really? And artist like Lily Allen, James Blunt, and whoever else should be fighting in this manner with the labels for control and a stop to the insane exploitation of artists by labels. I think that would have much more profound effect for change in the industry.
David Akermanis
· 2 months ago
Hey Keith! Thanks for your comments & input.
I think you're bang-on in saying that attempts at gaining control over digital copies is a losing battle. I also agree with you that punishing consumers is the wrong approach.
It's tough to have meaningful discussions about the industry without getting caught up in the small battles and limiting the discussion to the the whole "three strikes" problem, which is why I decided to do this post. But you're right, artists should be taking issue with the labels - not consumers.
Ultimately, I think that we'd all be better off debating what the new business model should look like - rather than focusing on piracy by consumers. A public digital licensing scheme to bring the music business in to the 21st century would be very welcome.
All Comments
The real, tangible issue is that people like Lily have any credibility despite their arguments being based entirely on moral nonsense and not the facts.
She may be ignorant and dumb as a post but at least she's contributing to the debate over the rights of artists to control, own, and be compensated fairly for their work.
What have you done Anonymous?
Spewing and incorrect information and irrelevant opinions while IGNORING THE FACTS, striking out 3 times, failing to write coherently, and refusing to respond to the majority of questions is not "contributing to the debate." In fact, refusing to respond to questions is exactly the opposite of a debate.
As for what I have done, that is completely irrelevant, but nice attempt at deflection. One thing I won't be doing, though, is listening to any music Lily Allen is involved with, except perhaps some of the music she used in her mixtapes while ignoring the rights of artists to control, own, and be compensated fairly for their work.
Allen's opinion is not totally unreasonable. She is a musical artist and desires to be compensated fairly for her work. Free downloading of her music does not lead to any compensation for her, while music sales do. It is not surprising then, that she objects to free downloading of her music. Although it is clear to me that free downloads cannot really be stopped, and that the music industry needs to adapt to reality, I do understand why they make efforts to enforce what is, as of now, the LAW regarding copyright. I also understand Allen's opinion. I like money too, and if I was her I would feel I deserved it in exchange for my work.
You are taking a position based on "moral nonsense" yourself, you object to attempts to restrict file sharing strongly, and thus form negative opinions of the personal character of people on the other side of the issue, even going so far as to refuse to listen to music by an artist who disagrees with you.
Oh, I'm well aware that is how the world works, unfortunately. Doesn't mean it's not a problem, though.
"That doesn't mean she has to be an expert on all subjects she forms an opinion on. I'm sure you have opinions on matters where you don't have a full and complete understanding."
I don't think expecting Lily to have a basic understanding of the facts involved requires her to be an "expert," really.
"Free downloading of her music does not lead to any compensation for her, while music sales do."
Yeah, actually, that is wrong. Lily Allen's career started in part, ironically, via FREE distribution of her songs on MySpace. If Lily would now rather treat her fans like criminals and ensure that LESS people listen to her music, so be it.
"You are taking a position based on "moral nonsense" yourself, you object to attempts to restrict file sharing strongly, and thus form negative opinions of the personal character of people on the other side of the issue, even going so far as to refuse to listen to music by an artist who disagrees with you."
Sorry, but my objections are based on reality.
Fact: File sharing is not destroying the music industry.
Fact: Kicking people off the internet (or throttling them, etc.) without due process will not make more people pay money for music.
Fact: The recording industry may be dying (or committing suicide, more accurately), but the *music* industry is growing.
Fact: Lily Allen is guilty of at least 3 instances of copyright infringement.
Fact: Lily Allen "contributed to the debate" by deleting her entire blog and all the comments on it pointing our her hypocrisy and incorrect statements.
Fact: Lily Allen "contributed to the debate" by responding to one direct question, missing the point, and responding indirectly/vaguely to some other perceived questions, and again got her facts wrong.
Fact: Lily Allen does not understand any of the above facts.
As for why I refuse to listen to Lily's music, yes, that is a moral judgment. I will not be sending any of my money to someone who does not (in my opinion, obviously) deserve it. But, of course, I am also not lobbying (or bribing) the government to pass a law banning Lily Allen from using the internet for her 3 instances of copyright infringement, despite how great that specific result may be.
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/09/lily-all...
Told you so.
I think you're bang-on in saying that attempts at gaining control over digital copies is a losing battle. I also agree with you that punishing consumers is the wrong approach.
It's tough to have meaningful discussions about the industry without getting caught up in the small battles and limiting the discussion to the the whole "three strikes" problem, which is why I decided to do this post. But you're right, artists should be taking issue with the labels - not consumers.
Ultimately, I think that we'd all be better off debating what the new business model should look like - rather than focusing on piracy by consumers. A public digital licensing scheme to bring the music business in to the 21st century would be very welcome.