A few days ago, we brought you news of the Featured Artists Coalition - an organization that campaigns for the protection of performers' and musicians' rights.
The group, made up of the likes of Blur, Radiohead & Pink Floyd, want the UK government to stop putting the thumbscrews on "music pirates", because:
The story generated a lot of discussion, with many voicing opinions like that of reader Kevin Nolan of Dublin:
Under no circumstances, ever, should anybody 'give away' their creativity for nothing - its demeaning and devaluing their efforts - and for these fat cats to propose so is nothing short of an outrage.
Lily Is Here
Now Lily Allen has spoken out on the topic, suggesting that, sure, filesharing is fine....when you're old and rich and sell out arenas:
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. Last week in an article in the Times 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.
You don't start out in music with the Ferraris. Instead you get a huge debt from your record company, which you spend years working your arse off to repay. When you manage to get a contract, all those pretty videos and posters advertising your album have to be paid for and as the artist, you have to pay for them. I've only just finished paying off all the money I owe my record company. I'm lucky that I've been successful and managed to pay it back, but not everyone's so lucky. You might not care about this, but the more difficult it is for new artists to make it, the less new artists you'll see and the more British music will be nothing but puppets paid for by Simon Cowell.
Who do you think is right? Lily Allen, or the guys from huge bands?
via Lily Allen