Artists go to war over illegal file-sharing
Lily Allen accuses established stars of holding back new talent
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Getty
Lily Allen fears that British music will be reduced to 'nothing but puppets paid for by Simon Cowell'
enlarge
Deep trenches are being dug within the music industry as artists battle each other over how they might best deal with the advances in file-sharing technology.
The extent to which musicians are starkly divided was exposed in an angry salvo by Lily Allen, in which she blamed several other performers for advancing the cause of music piracy.
Allen, 24, was infuriated by the Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason, 65, Radiohead guitarist Ed O'Brien, 41, and other experienced artists who have opposed government proposals to crack down on music piracy and have publicly backed the online swapping of songs – which, when done for free away from registered vendors, means the artists receive no cut.
The singer castigated the pair, accusing them of trying to make it harder for youthful talent to emerge.
She singled out Mason and O'Brien by name but her online rant was also aimed at other popular and experienced artists such as Annie Lennox, Tom Jones, Sandy Shaw and Billy Bragg.
Allen was upset by a newspaper article the older musicians had contributed to as members of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) in which they demanded the government allow illicit file-sharing to continue.
The older musicians had made their stand for file-sharing after Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, proposed punishing people who file-shared repeatedly by temporarily disconnecting them from the internet as part of measures against music piracy.
After learning of the stand made by the established performers, Allen used her MySpace web page to launch an online tirade against them.
"I think music piracy is having a dangerous effect on British music, but some really rich and successful artists like Nick Mason from Pink Floyd and Ed O'Brien from Radiohead don't seem to think so," she said.
"These guys from huge bands said file sharing music is fine. It probably is fine for them. They do sell-out arena tours and have the biggest Ferrari collections in the world. For new talent though, file sharing is a disaster as it's making it harder and harder for new acts to emerge."
Allowing file sharing would, she said, so inhibit the emergence of fresh talent that British music would be reduced to "nothing but puppets paid for by Simon Cowell". She added: "Basically the FAC is saying 'We're alright, we've made it, so file sharing's fine,' which is just so unfair to new acts trying to make it in the industry. You don't start out in music with the Ferraris."
O'Brien had argued that file-sharing was the contemporary equivalent of his generation's practice as teenagers of "taping your mate's music" and that by sampling tracks like that they were encouraged to go out and buy much more of what they liked.
Part of the FAC's support for file-sharing is based on research which suggests the that people who do it will actually spend more on music than those who don't.
"There is evidence that repeat file-sharers of music are also repeat purchasers of music, movies, documentaries etc," they said.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
...coz I just downloaded your first mixtape for free from your own website. I wonder how many millions have done the same!
http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/music/dem
http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/music/dem
http://therazorwire.blogspot.com/2006/0
Offering these on your own website goes against all rules of MCPS, PRS, PPL, and flouts traditional licensing routes that the majors insist from smaller fish!
Perhaps Ms Allen, since you seem so outspoken on the subject, you could confirm either on these comments pages or on your Myspace that all the material in the mixtapes has been cleared by both the master rights owners, performers and publishers for free download via your website. If not, who be the thief now!
This is file sharing! Or are you telling me Squeeze's label, A&M don't mind you offering a free download of UP THE JUNCTION, or SOS, Just Be Good To Me, or Lee Dorsey's tracks - all available for free via your MixTape. Whilst you built your career on these mixtapes, I don't think Radiohead or Pink Floyd have ever given away other people's copyright material. POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK ME THINKS!
....and the biggest irony is that Lily's website, where the free download of lots of other people's music is available to all, without payment whatsoever, is, like many Artist's websites, owned and controlled by her label.
The copyright notice is (c) EMI 2008.
Thus EMI are filesharers!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get your own house in order Record Industry (who, since Lily was signed to Regal (EMI), must have turned a blind eye to the MixTapes when it suited them in 2005/2006!), or is it usual business with one rule for them and another for.....
This makes me so angry!
it is totally Romance to communicate with each other,money is not important!________
Perhaps she has been "got to" and a false case presented? "File sharing is making it harder for new acts to emerge" is purest nonsense. If anything it's the opposite.
In the early days of VHS/Betamax some people thought it would be a wholey negative thing in allowing people to record/copy TV shows. Perhaps artists and producers were against VHS, I can't remember.
But it allowed the creation of a whole new business area (film/tv show rental and purchase) and probably led to the development of the DVD as well.
It's likely something like that will happen with file-sharing and the established producers just feel threatened by the future.
Public enemy number 1 is Radiohead who gave away their album for zilch knowing they could make the revenue up with touring:Not so great though if you are in a new band trying to go full time when you have to try and sell your music and your up against an established band giving away theirs.
Still i guess Radiohead ,Floyd et al are worried by the competition and would prefer the new opposition to be stifled at birth.
There are hundreds of brilliant, exciting musicians producing music today. It is easier to hear/see them than it ever has been before.
"Artists who have already had their cake are in no position to criticise lilly Allen.
Public enemy number 1 is Radiohead who gave away their album for zilch knowing they could make the revenue up with touring:Not so great though if you are in a new band trying to go full time when you have to try and sell your music and your up against an established band giving away theirs.
Still i guess Radiohead ,Floyd et al are worried by the competition and would prefer the new opposition to be stifled at birth."
This is absolute rubbish. Are you suggesting that, because Radiohead gave their album away free, people won't buy any other music? It is hardly a competition is it? It's just a bonus. You're hardly likely to spend your time only listening to that one free Radiohead album.
As I have already said, there are more new, exciting bands because of the internet and file-sharing than there ever has been before. Someone like Lily Allen owes her success to the internet and file-sharing. I'm pretty sure she avoided years of touring sh*thole venues around the country but still managed to get a massive record deal for exactly this reason. Radiohead toured for years before gaining mainstream success, without something as handy as the internet to spread the hype.
Nobody has any god-given right to play music for a living. If you work hard enough and you deserve it, it'll come to you, no matter how much file-sharing takes place. Tour until your fingers bleed, just like the Beatles did. Once you've earned your money, you can do whatever the hell you want.
"This is absolute rubbish. Are you suggesting that, because Radiohead gave their album away free, people won't buy any other music? It is hardly a competition is it? It's just a bonus. You're hardly likely to spend your time only listening to that one free Radiohead album."
What i,m suggesting is that if people get something for free they know they like ;They will be reluctant to pay for something they hope they will like.Many people who would think of themselves as kind right on people suddenly become tight with their money when it comes to paying for music.The word we actualy need to use for it is greed .
Some respectable middle aged middle class people who are nice to their neigbours etc would choke on their sundried tomatoes to think they should actualy pay for music .Some people who get paid a hundred an hour or more will mess about on their computer for hours just to download a £5 mid price album for free .
Also to be laughed at is the festival/arena fan who will pay hundreds to see a band buy the tshirt etc but when asked to buy the new cd can,t seem to find their wallet .
And why is the person who pays a band hundreds of pounds to see them in an arena, and gives the band a ridiculous amount of money for merchandise to be laughed at? So what if they don't buy the cd. Unless you are uber-successful as a band, touring and merchandise is exactly how bands get their money, not through the piddly amounts from cds.
Until recently I lived in Cambridge, somewhere I had always assumed would have a good music scene. It didn't, mostly due to the shocking lack of good live bands. I always made a point of paying for cds at the gigs I went to, usually bought out of the back of a band members rucksack. Many bands these days play 7-8 date tours, and assume that is enough. The world has changed. The album is dying. It's time to change the record.
You claim it dosen,t matter if arena size bands don,t sell records anymore .Not quite true these large bands are touring more and reducing the records they record.This has knock on effect by changing the music industry to one big nostalgia trip, free albums given away by the wail etc.
To be fresh and exciting music needs investment and support to bands trying something new who don,t immediatley hit commercial heights .
But bands have a better chance to reach the masses now than they ever have, thanks to the internet. You haven't answered my question as to why there are so many fresh, exciting, experimental bands making music if the 'industry' is dying? WWWHHHHHYYYYY? Nobody ever seems able to answer that question...
Having worked for the distributor, Entertainment UK, before it's collapse alongside Woolworths.
It was apparent to me, during the inception of MP3 players and the downloading of music, that there had to have been record industry agendas behind this movement.
As Hip Hop was becoming and has now become, one of the most popular forms of music in the history of the Music Business. It became apparent that the music brand that, as I believe Dr. Dre once said was, "Always in the back of music stores", was swiftly removing the Spice Girls and their like from being what music buyers were willing to pay for, the internet came along with an option around the same time, "X Crapper", started to, coincidentally, become a phenomenon ... ?
It is hard to now take Ms. Allen that seriously due to her entertainment connections, her father, Keith Allen, and her connection to Harry Enfield, but she does have a point here.
Who are Simon Cowell and his apparent, "all knowing", selection of music judges to be deciding who the next stars are to be !?!
People tend to follow who is constantly thrust down their eardrums, a la radio, prior to the net.
File sharing clearly damages artists revenue, but, "TRUE ARTISTS", in my opinion, are not in this to make money. Bills and rent don't come into wanting the freedom to express yourself and better still, to actually have an impact on somebody's life through your art.
Granted, money is a requirement in modern living, but, as an artist, it does not & cannot compare to the feeling & knowledge that someone respects what you're doing purely on the basis of, your creativity.
Strange as it may seem, I know what that feels like and itfeels incredibly good !!!
An advance for a couple of mill would be appreciated for sure ... !!! ... but not as much as knowing that someone shared a piece of your work because they wanted someone else to hear it.
Actions like this can clearly create a fan base that sustains a bit more than your bank balance !
Artists who have made it and already command a heavy fan base should perhaps be a little less self indulgent and should perhaps remember how it was for them when they started.
Finally, as much as Britain is where Lily is from, a recognition that this issue is affecting artists globally rather than just here ... ? ... would also have made her comments seem a little less self-righteous, particularly as she's now doing lots of interviews with industry types who are clearly supportive of the latest, "Major Supported", groups or manufactured comeback bands.
Anyhow, come find my ass Lily and let's do something yeah !?! If you really support your own and all that !!!
Yeah right ... !!! ... http://bigvirge.com/ ...
If you're an artist, keep doing your do ... !!! ... No matter what, the industry tries to pull !!!
It is proposed that persistent file sharers have their internet service restricted in some way.
The problem is it isn’t persistent file sharers who are causing the decline of music sales.
Persistent file sharers download more music than they could ever afford to buy and so the economic loss the music industry may be minimal in these instances.
The real loss to the industry is from casual down loaders, I would guess that most people perhaps on overage bought an album a month. Just guests but close enough for this debate.
If the casual downloader downloads 6 albums per year then they may reduce their purchases by 50%.
Will the ISPs and music industry be able to monitor and punish every person who has downloaded an album every 2 months?
The best solution for the music business is to reduce its prices so that the illegal downloading of music is not worth the bother.
For Example:
A four piece band make an album
It takes 3 months to produce. ( Writing songs rehearsals etc)
It contains 10 tracks
Production costs (studio time etc) £5000 per track. Total Cost £50,000
Band members wages for three months * £60,000
(Based on average earnings of the top 10% of UK earners (£50,000 pa pro rata 3 months) + Pension and National Insurance contributions).
Admin costs say 10% £11,000
Advertising say 25% £30,250
Total Cost of producing Album £151,250
Assuming sales of 200,000 copies worldwide, the wholesale price of the (download) Album could be 75 pence
Add ITunes and VAT costs say a sale price of £1.20.
This doesn’t take account of the income for a couple of singles pulled from the album, or fees from radio stations playing the songs, so a bit of a bonus for the band!
The above figures demonstrate that it’s possible to produces music much cheaper than the prices being currently charged, even with recent reduced prices, a new album on I tunes retails at £8.00.