5 ms·
I can't remember the last time I bought a physical album. I think it was about 10 years ago, when Metallica's Death Magnetic came out. Everyone I know uses a s
by oxide 10y ago
I can't remember the last time I bought a physical album. I think it was about 10 years ago, when Metallica's Death Magnetic came out.
Everyone I know uses a streaming service to get music. No one I know buys or owns physical CD's, vinyl, etc. Because the music industry has failed to rise to the occasion, there are several services that have ascended to pop culture status while the traditional music industry is hemorrhaging.
The suits who sign the checks need to change the business model, but since they either can't or won't, they'll probably just die off on the vine, eventually.
music piracy is a direct result of the failure of the music industry to change with the times. if you offer a service that can compete with piracy, people stop pirating.
that's what turned me from game pirate to Steam paying customer with over 300+ titles in my library.
that's what turned me from TV pirate to Netflix subscriber.
p.s. I don't think anyone ever made money from recording music, even when album sales were good. record labels have always taken the lions share of profits. this has nothing to do with artists making money IMO.
- ethbro 10y ago> record labels have always taken the lion's share of profits This is the problem I have with most of the whining about rates. Artist-driven equity, that I can get behind. But don't pitch me on a solution where we're avoiding the fact that modern technology can replace traditional promotion/distribution channels far more efficiently.
- walterbell 10y agoFlattr and Patreon have taken steps to separating payment from distribution. Someone will eventually build a distribution channel that allows "second screens" to be used for payment. This is not unlike attribution for advertising that leads to a sale. Instead of attributing advertising, we can attribute the actual content being used to lead to a payment. Why would someone "pay" for something they already "have"? Because payment is not for the last song, it's for the next song, to support what will be created by the artist. Sound strange? No, it's how Netflix and others fund content creation. Why can't fans do the same for their favored artist?
- snowwrestler 10y ago> if you offer a service that can compete with piracy, people stop pirating. But it doesn't solve the problem, because the #1 feature of pirated music is that it doesn't cost anything. A free streaming service doesn't cost anything either--but just like piracy, it also doesn't pay the artist anything. > p.s. I don't think anyone ever made money from recording music, even when album sales were good. record labels have always taken the lions share of profits. this has nothing to do with artists making money IMO. You are wrong. Source: my brother has been a recording artist for 20 years.
- shakna 10y agoSteam and Netflix do cost, but have verifiable impact in their industries. And they do pay their respective artists. The streaming service doesn't have to be free. But it does have to have a decent user experience.
- snowwrestler 10y agoThe music industry specifically has this problem. The video and gaming industries watched what happened to music and learned a lot of lessons about what not to do. For example, they didn't give up on DRM, and they funded a lot of their own services for online distribution (Steam, Hulu, etc.). They also have been much more aggressive negotiating with 3rd parties. Netflix started developing their own content because it became clear that movie studios and TV producers would soon start pulling out, in favor of their own software platforms. Vertical integration is the name of the game now. The ISPs are all buying content producers, the online stores are all developing original content, and the content producers are all selling out or doing partnership deals. Tidal is an example of musicians trying to do the same thing, but they're so late to the party it might not matter.