Comment by andrewzah | Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewzah | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits

That's a weird spelling of "people who want to listen to music -without- paying for it". Napster started a conversation about IP and copyright, but I for one am glad it is dead.

DCMA is monumentally stupid in its -implementation-, but the idea is not a bad one. There need to be protections for people who make a living by creating music, art, etc. Yes, that means repercussions for people who reproduce digital content and redistribute it without a license. I think that we can all agree that how these things are currently enforced via the DCMA is rather bad, though.

What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. This includes artists making music that you want "to enjoy". In 2021 there isn't really an excuse, with spotify/apple music/etc existing for streaming, and things like bandcamp for outright buying cds/lps, and discogs for the secondary/used market.

>What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work.

Most musicians don't get paid for their work or get paid a token amount.

I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living.

It's not about quality either. It's about distribution channels.

> It's about distribution channels.

This is the part that gets completely glossed over when talking about creative output. I’m not convinced that the difference between an artist who commands eight figures in annual revenue and one who commands five figures is a simple matter of talent or dedication to one’s craft. Pop superstars, in particular, are the product of a promotion and distribution machine without which the actual artist would probably enjoy only a small fraction of their reach and popularity.

As with most political slogans, “pay people for their work” is in fact an extremely nuanced idea in practice.

> I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living.

This is a strawman argument. Obviously I would like to see -all- artists get paid a living wage at least for their work. The fact that life isn't fair and TS makes millions isn't my fault, and is not what I'm specifically advocating here.

Obviously you would like to see all artists get paid a living wage in theory but the mechanism for "getting artists paid" that you actually support is one that excels mostly at getting Taylor Swift and her record labels paid, not the average musician.

So no, I don't think it is such of a straw man.

It's not the average musician who is affected by pirates. Spotify will send them $90 / month instead of $100 / month, maybe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com