7 ms·

As others already indicated I'm not sure if music in general, or Spotify in particular, should be a role model for other industries. Sure, it's convenient for t

As others already indicated I'm not sure if music in general, or Spotify in particular, should be a role model for other industries. Sure, it's convenient for the user but artists and labels (I'm not talking majors, but small, caring labels) can't survive with these rates. What the movie / TV industry could learn from music is how to sell their content conveniently and without DRM in a digital, high quality format. I'm not interested in physical discs, yet have no option to legally buy a digital 1080p copy of [insert almost any movie here] and play it in Kodi or wherever I want. Meanwhile I've been buying at least 10 lossless albums monthly for years - so it's not aas if I'm not willing to pay for my content.

iamben 11y ago
But you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I suspect you're in a minority buying lossless albums. Most of the 'youth' I know don't buy at all. They do pay for Spotify, or at worst use it ad supported. I used to buy lots and lots of CDs. I had a few years of iPod, but now I'm pretty much exclusively Spotify. I might buy a vinyl if I go watch a band. It goes straight on the shelf and never gets played. Spotify may not be the ideal, but it's better than Napster or Limewire. If you grew up getting music for free, it's a logical stepping stone. It's easier than stealing it, and it's legal. Giving addicts methadone may not be a cure, but it's better than the heroin trade and all the risks attached. Until we can find a cure, or in this case, a better(/fairer?) way for the artists and industry, that's where we're at. As per my parent post, unless the 'cure' is as least as good as the substitute (or you can fundamentally change how people think), the user will go back to what they had before. It's a funny old world, isn't it?
- thirdsun 11y ago
  I understand that I'm a minority but the point remains: Why would the movie industry follow the streaming model when Spotify shows that nobody's earninng a living with that solution?
  - iamben 11y ago
    Because we're not going to go back to DVDs. And eventually, something like popcorntime will just become the ubiquitous, go to solution that ultimately hurts them further, because it'll do what can't be done legally.
    - thirdsun 11y ago
      I still don't see how this makes streaming an unavoidable development, or a desirable one from the creator's perspective. Nobody wants to bring back DVDs - I haven't bought a CD in years, but that doesn't stop me from buying a lot of music as digital, lossless download. I can't do the same with movies. That's the problem I'm facing with the movie industry and the solution is easy: Allow me to buy DRM-free, high quality video files and we're good - that is a very legal and easy solution. Just because streaming is popular with users, it doesn't have to make financial sense - in fact it doesn't. Just ask most people working in music.
      - iamben 11y ago
        DRM free, high quality videos will get bought once, shared with friends, etc. And I'd suspect a whole load of people will just go back to torrenting (or whatever is popular at the time) because they know they'll find a perfect copy straight away. If you give them the model to buy and play immediately (the convenience of a streaming service), you're just iTunes. Or you may as well stream. You can't argue that for John Everyman, Netflix/Spotify/etc. are super convenient. I make one payment a month, of a set fee for which I have budgeted. I open the app, I choose, I press play. Or I don't. I can do it once a month, or all day long. I understand your point regarding financial sense and artists, but times change. Just ask most people driving taxis. They'll tell you Uber is destroying an industry. It may be. But we're all using it. I don't know the answer. But clinging on to something that's slipping away, rather than letting go and channeling your energy elsewhere usually hurts more in the long run.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Spotify isn't competing with other industry distribution methods. Distribution is a solved problem: there's no technical reason why anyone can't listen to any recorded music ever whenever they want for near-zero distribution cost, through torrents. "Only allowing distribution methods that get paid" is the problem. The content industries are now in the business of preventing distribution, which turns into an eternal war on the open internet. The streaming model de-escalates this and provides a way of paying for convenience.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Giving addicts methadone may not be a cure, but it's better than the heroin trade and all the risks attached. A nitpick - actually, it may well be the only reasonable cure we have, and it beats all "traditional" methods. C.f. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-review-dying-to-be-free/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi... > Almost all clinical trials have found treatment with methadone or suboxone to be more effective than traditional rehab. Even Cochrane Review, which is notorious for never giving a straight answer to anything besides “more evidence is needed”, agrees that methadone and suboxone are effective treatments. > Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution.
  - iamben 11y ago
    Nitpick noted :-) It wasn't the best analogy!
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Nah, the analogy was good and got your point across. I just can't stop myself from sharing tangential bits of information ;).
edraferi 11y ago
I think the way forward is something like the Distributed Library of Alexandria. The artists distribute their own content for micropayments, p2p networks provide the CDNs. Done properly there's still room for real value-add services in the middle to provide different interfaces and curation.

iamben 11y ago

But you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I suspect you're in a minority buying lossless albums. Most of the 'youth' I know don't buy at all. They do pay for Spotify, or at worst use it ad supported. I used to buy lots and lots of CDs. I had a few years of iPod, but now I'm pretty much exclusively Spotify. I might buy a vinyl if I go watch a band. It goes straight on the shelf and never gets played. Spotify may not be the ideal, but it's better than Napster or Limewire. If you grew up getting music for free, it's a logical stepping stone. It's easier than stealing it, and it's legal. Giving addicts methadone may not be a cure, but it's better than the heroin trade and all the risks attached. Until we can find a cure, or in this case, a better(/fairer?) way for the artists and industry, that's where we're at. As per my parent post, unless the 'cure' is as least as good as the substitute (or you can fundamentally change how people think), the user will go back to what they had before. It's a funny old world, isn't it?

thirdsun 11y ago
I understand that I'm a minority but the point remains: Why would the movie industry follow the streaming model when Spotify shows that nobody's earninng a living with that solution?
- iamben 11y ago
  Because we're not going to go back to DVDs. And eventually, something like popcorntime will just become the ubiquitous, go to solution that ultimately hurts them further, because it'll do what can't be done legally.
  - thirdsun 11y ago
    I still don't see how this makes streaming an unavoidable development, or a desirable one from the creator's perspective. Nobody wants to bring back DVDs - I haven't bought a CD in years, but that doesn't stop me from buying a lot of music as digital, lossless download. I can't do the same with movies. That's the problem I'm facing with the movie industry and the solution is easy: Allow me to buy DRM-free, high quality video files and we're good - that is a very legal and easy solution. Just because streaming is popular with users, it doesn't have to make financial sense - in fact it doesn't. Just ask most people working in music.
    - iamben 11y ago
      DRM free, high quality videos will get bought once, shared with friends, etc. And I'd suspect a whole load of people will just go back to torrenting (or whatever is popular at the time) because they know they'll find a perfect copy straight away. If you give them the model to buy and play immediately (the convenience of a streaming service), you're just iTunes. Or you may as well stream. You can't argue that for John Everyman, Netflix/Spotify/etc. are super convenient. I make one payment a month, of a set fee for which I have budgeted. I open the app, I choose, I press play. Or I don't. I can do it once a month, or all day long. I understand your point regarding financial sense and artists, but times change. Just ask most people driving taxis. They'll tell you Uber is destroying an industry. It may be. But we're all using it. I don't know the answer. But clinging on to something that's slipping away, rather than letting go and channeling your energy elsewhere usually hurts more in the long run.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Spotify isn't competing with other industry distribution methods. Distribution is a solved problem: there's no technical reason why anyone can't listen to any recorded music ever whenever they want for near-zero distribution cost, through torrents. "Only allowing distribution methods that get paid" is the problem. The content industries are now in the business of preventing distribution, which turns into an eternal war on the open internet. The streaming model de-escalates this and provides a way of paying for convenience.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Giving addicts methadone may not be a cure, but it's better than the heroin trade and all the risks attached. A nitpick - actually, it may well be the only reasonable cure we have, and it beats all "traditional" methods. C.f. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-review-dying-to-be-free/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi... > Almost all clinical trials have found treatment with methadone or suboxone to be more effective than traditional rehab. Even Cochrane Review, which is notorious for never giving a straight answer to anything besides “more evidence is needed”, agrees that methadone and suboxone are effective treatments. > Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution.
- iamben 11y ago
  Nitpick noted :-) It wasn't the best analogy!
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Nah, the analogy was good and got your point across. I just can't stop myself from sharing tangential bits of information ;).

edraferi 11y ago

I think the way forward is something like the Distributed Library of Alexandria. The artists distribute their own content for micropayments, p2p networks provide the CDNs. Done properly there's still room for real value-add services in the middle to provide different interfaces and curation.