SNIPPETY // Same-Sex Marriage + Free Music Ethics + Nalbandian + Fairfax

There isn’t enough time to write all the draft blog posts that circulate through my head. Solution? SNIPPETY. SNIPPETY is an irregular mishmash blog post of news, views and other snippets. Feel free to interact with the mash in the comments.

Stylish same-sex campaign glosses over real issues // Our Archbishop Peter Jensen had a great article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday. Read it here. Also you can read a letter that he sent out to all the Anglican Churches in Sydney during the past week. Snippet from the letter “It will help however if in the near future Christians who wish to stand for marriage, as instituted by God, would thoughtfully and courteously let their views be known to their Federal parliamentary representatives. We should speak up for the sake of love.”

Do you enjoy free music on SPOTIFY/GROOVESHARK? // I haven’t actually read this letter yet, but some musician friends have been sharing it. I’m bookmarking it for later reading as I’m interested in thinking through the ethics of subscription music services and their impact on artists. Read it. After I read it, I might leave a comment below.

David Nalbandian is a knuckle head // Did you see him kick line judge in the Queen’s Club tennis final? Watch it here. Read about it here. If Danny Vukovic got a 1 year ban for this hi 5 with the ref in 2008, then Nalbadian ought to get at least 5 years if not life.

Fairfax to shed 1900 staff, erect paywalls // Big changes at Fairfax announced yesterday. Read about it here. Over the last 10 years old media sources have struggled to grapple with new media. These changes from Fairfax are essential! Seth Godin has been talking about the need for old media to get with the program or die on his blog for a long time.

Comments welcome.

check out snippety archives


  1. says

    RE music; It’s an interesting question. I’m a big fan of spotify. I have never been much of a music buyer; I’ll to what I have, or else the radio. Artists get a lot less for a play on spotify than they do for a sale on itunes or in-store. But they weren’t getting ANYTHING when I didn’t buy. So for my own music habits, I’m cool with it. Also, if you like something enough to want it on the go (ipods, cd’s etc) then you’ll buy it anyway.

    • says

      they do receive royalties when it’s played on the radio.

      also – spotify et al have premium accounts that mean you can take it on the go offline.

    • Julie says

      Andrew I actually think artists are getting a great deal. If it weren’t for the fact that I’m a person who prefers buying to renting – which effectively what streaming is – artists would actually be better off with me streaming their music.

      With a ratio of payment to artists seeming to be 140 streams = 1 legal download through places like itunes, considering I listen to the songs I like anything up to 140 times a week, whereas I only purchase a song once. So in a week they could make off me renting their song, the same as what I’d spend in a lifetime buying it.

      And some of their other arguments are fallacious. They talk about people only owning 15 CDs and 11,000 songs on their ipod? I own close to 500 CDs, just me myself, not including anyone else in my household. Most have 15-25 tracks each, some have many more. I have legally purchased more than 11,000 songs on CD, whereas my ipod only has around 10% of that figure – only the songs I like enough to bother ripping to my computer to load onto my ipod.

      Sure, not everyone does that, but no one can assume people with large amounts of songs on their ipods are illegal downloaders (I buy CDs when on sale in shops or second hand copies from places like ebay or from friends).

      And people who assume that spotify paying so little = stealing from the artists is wrong. If I were to use spotify, artists would benefit greatly (hence why I buy not stream) because my favourite artists would make heaps off me playing their song over and over, and other artists that I’m not a fan of would still get money, whereas I would not buy their songs in the first place – I’d listen to them on the radio if they came on, or just not listen at all. Some money is better than none.

      You could stamp out illegal downloading and ultimately it wouldn’t make more than a few cents different to artists – of those who illegally download, most would go without rather than pay. In fact, some people argue that illegal downloads increase sales because people will “sample” a song, and if they like it, they will buy it, whereas if they couldn’t sample it, they wouldn’t bother.

      One of my favourite artists is linkin park. I love how they have a youtube channel to check out their music – without that, I’d probably have never bought any of their albums or gone to concerts. But because I listened, and liked, I bought.

      Maybe it’s time other artists considered something like that – give people a taste of their music for free first, and it will encourage purchases.

      • Andrew Shaw says

        If you listened to numb 140 time that would equal 7 hours and that’s a short song so please don’t tell me that you spend 7 hours a week listening to one song.

        Saying that spotify is OK because if people don’t use it they could steal it is like saying mugging someone is OK because if they didn’t mug them them might have murdered them instead. One crime doesn’t justify another.

        When it comes down to it you can always justify yourself but as far as I’m concerned if your needing to justify yourself there is a good chance your doing the wrong thing.

        • says

          “When it comes down to it you can always justify yourself but as far as I’m concerned if your needing to justify yourself there is a good chance your doing the wrong thing”

          spelling aside ;)

          this isn’t a helpful argument. the fact is, it’s not illegal. now that doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
          but i think it’s thoroughly appropriate for people to do the research and continue using a legal service if, in good conscience, they are convinced it’s ethical.

          • Andrew Shaw says

            The artists don’t get the money that they deserve so while it may be legal it doesn’t follow the purpose of the law and that’s more important.

            Right and wrong aren’t subjective even if they have looked into the subject.

        • Julie says

          Interesting choice of songs…. when I first heard numb, I was depressed and probably listened to it more than 140 times in a row. I just set it to repeat. But I also suffer genuinely from OCD so you picked the wrong person to use as an example ;)

          I’ve listened to their new single Burn it Down well over 100 times since I got it two weeks ago. Awesome song, and again I just set it to repeat.

          But back to the proper point – it has nothing to do with justifying. It’s simple maths. An artist like Linkin Park would get more money from me streaming their stuff than buying their albums.

          It is neither illegal or unethical, nor is it “justifying” anything to say that some bands would make more from streaming than CD purchases with the people who obsessively listen to their music. Just really basic maths.

          Now if you believed that what artists get from selling their CDs or mp3s was morally (but not legally) stealing, you could try to argue that streaming is also morally (but not legally) stealing too, but I see nothing in any of your posts to suggest you believe buying a song or album is stealing.

          I know some people do believe that buying mass produced songs and albums is stealing from the artists, with the massive amount retailers, wholesalers and record companies take before the artists get anything. But you can’t argue that streaming is “stealing” without the exact same arguments applying to CD and mp3 sales (except for an artist who self releases and that is extremely rare).

          And ultimately nothing is stealing if you have the owner’s permission. They can give it away if that’s what they choose. no one forces them to sign up to companies like spotify. Most of them do it because they know even though it might not make them millionaires, that it WILL make money. And most of the bands I’ve known personally share their stuff online for free because they believe music is meant to be shared – and since it’s their own original work, that is their choice. It’s not “stealing” to listen to their freely available music – that is the “price” they have set and are asking for.

          You have to remember, art is subjective and always has been. It’s up to any artist (whether it be music, paintings, writing, whatever) to determine if they are willing to sign an agreement for whatever sum of money. Some people might sell themselves short, some people might be worth more, but at the end of the day, it is their choice.

    • says

      hey andrew,

      you may see it “no different from stealing” – but it’s not.

      illegal file sharing through limewire is stealing.

      but the only music on spotify is music that has been included with the permission of the copyright holder.

      you might be thinking that the music growers are getting ripped off. maybe they are. if so, perhaps you could start advocating for FAIR TRADE MUSIC (like coffee and chocolate etc…)

  2. Julie says

    “This is not a matter of ‘marriage equality’ nor of human rights, since the right to be married extends equally, but only to those who are qualified.”

    That is exactly what I’ve been trying to explain to a lot of people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *