5 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoBecause 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 agoI 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 agoDRM 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 agoSpotify 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.
- thirdsun 11y ago> provides a way of paying for convenience That's the problem: 10 bucks a month, ad supported or simply torrenting...it hardly matters unless people keep buying (not renting) content. You're not going to save any artist who depends on it, no matter how good you feel about your legally flawless Spotify subscription. Furthermore I don't see how the availability through torrents is of any importance - with the same argument we might as well stop paying for any digital goods...including software, apps, you name it.
- pjc50 11y agoPeople do stop paying. Moral heckling doesn't work. Trying to guilt people about artists doesn't work. Prosecution looks absurdly heavy-handed and costs more than it brings in. How are you going to get people to pay? And how are you going to compete with the ever-increasing amount of free content out there, using up people's finite leisure time?
- 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.