6 ms·

Remember the times before Spotify? Piracy was the only way to get a lot of music ; there simply weren’t any paid options. Nowadays the market for buying or str

by 3np 5y ago

Remember the times before Spotify? Piracy was the only way to get a lot of music ; there simply weren’t any paid options. Nowadays the market for buying or streaming digital music has made paying for digital music viable. With a lot of YouTube content, the situation is very similar today; there isn’t a way to pay for content without simultaneously being exposed to ads and the associated tracking/profiling/stalking. Maybe as adblocking becomes more common, creators and platforms will be forced to accommodate for the change in demand.

mcdoogal 5y ago
YouTube premium removes ads on YouTube so that covers half the woes.
lelandfe 5y ago
That Spotify model basically already exists on YouTube with YouTube Premium. YouTube pays creators directly when a Premium viewer watches.
dakom 5y ago
I remember buying cassettes and then CDs, either from a known distributor or litte hole-in-the-wall shops. When digital music was getting big, it was mostly experienced through DJs at parties. They got their records from distributors and there were ways of pressing small amounts of vinyl cheaply. Artists who didn't have a record deal had to hustle, selling their tunes directly from the trunk of their car or any means necessary. Lots of musicians didn't make their money from these routes, instead they gave their music out for free as promotional material for live shows where they charged tickets. Even if we jump forward to now, there's a few listener-supported models like soma.fm which may not last forever but have survived without resorting to ads or piracy. Piracy is fun for the consumer, while it lasts, but it suffocates the artists and was never a viable solution. For anyone willing to pay, there is always a way to get your wares if you know what you're looking for.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  Electronic music wouldn't exist if it wasn't for ignoring copyright laws. The entire scene is built off the back of sampling and mix tapes. Likewise MP3 players and similar portable music devices (like the iPod) were technically advocating breaking copyright laws in some countries. Like here in the UK where it was illegal to rip a CD you owned. That law was clearly idiotic but the only reason it changed was because everyone was already doing it. I'm not trying to argue that piracy is good. However it's not as black and white as some make out.
  - dakom 5y ago
    Small nitpick- I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples. It was trackers and analog-then-digital synths and all sorts of microtonal weirdness which had never been heard before. It's a nitpick because I agree large swaths of the dance and hip-hop music we have today wouldn't exist if not for copyright violation, no denying that. However, if we can put aside the legal angle, there's an understood difference between copyright violation for the purpose of sampling and remixing vs. outright "gonna steal your stuff because I don't want to pay for it." Tiny anecdote fwiw, I once worked a summer gig for a wedding/bar-mitzvah DJ who had a legal license to rip and play mp3s. Iirc part of the deal was they had to be a certain quality, e.g. 320kbps straight from the source. Or at least that's what he told me (this was AJ the DJ in Houston, Tx circa 2000 if anyone wants to do the fact-check legwork)
    - lelandfe 5y ago
      > I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples Yup, exactly. See, for instance, the 1937 ondes Martenot composition Oraison as an example.[0] Other electronic progenitor genres, e.g musique concrete, did use samples but they were widely not copyrighted sounds.[1][2] Hip-hop, however, would not exist without illegal sampling. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0

by 3np 5y ago

mcdoogal 5y ago

YouTube premium removes ads on YouTube so that covers half the woes.

lelandfe 5y ago

That Spotify model basically already exists on YouTube with YouTube Premium. YouTube pays creators directly when a Premium viewer watches.

dakom 5y ago

I remember buying cassettes and then CDs, either from a known distributor or litte hole-in-the-wall shops. When digital music was getting big, it was mostly experienced through DJs at parties. They got their records from distributors and there were ways of pressing small amounts of vinyl cheaply. Artists who didn't have a record deal had to hustle, selling their tunes directly from the trunk of their car or any means necessary. Lots of musicians didn't make their money from these routes, instead they gave their music out for free as promotional material for live shows where they charged tickets. Even if we jump forward to now, there's a few listener-supported models like soma.fm which may not last forever but have survived without resorting to ads or piracy. Piracy is fun for the consumer, while it lasts, but it suffocates the artists and was never a viable solution. For anyone willing to pay, there is always a way to get your wares if you know what you're looking for.

hnlmorg 5y ago
Electronic music wouldn't exist if it wasn't for ignoring copyright laws. The entire scene is built off the back of sampling and mix tapes. Likewise MP3 players and similar portable music devices (like the iPod) were technically advocating breaking copyright laws in some countries. Like here in the UK where it was illegal to rip a CD you owned. That law was clearly idiotic but the only reason it changed was because everyone was already doing it. I'm not trying to argue that piracy is good. However it's not as black and white as some make out.
- dakom 5y ago
  Small nitpick- I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples. It was trackers and analog-then-digital synths and all sorts of microtonal weirdness which had never been heard before. It's a nitpick because I agree large swaths of the dance and hip-hop music we have today wouldn't exist if not for copyright violation, no denying that. However, if we can put aside the legal angle, there's an understood difference between copyright violation for the purpose of sampling and remixing vs. outright "gonna steal your stuff because I don't want to pay for it." Tiny anecdote fwiw, I once worked a summer gig for a wedding/bar-mitzvah DJ who had a legal license to rip and play mp3s. Iirc part of the deal was they had to be a certain quality, e.g. 320kbps straight from the source. Or at least that's what he told me (this was AJ the DJ in Houston, Tx circa 2000 if anyone wants to do the fact-check legwork)
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    > I'd say one of the hallmarks of electronic music was that it wasn't built from copyrightable samples Yup, exactly. See, for instance, the 1937 ondes Martenot composition Oraison as an example.[0] Other electronic progenitor genres, e.g musique concrete, did use samples but they were widely not copyrighted sounds.[1][2] Hip-hop, however, would not exist without illegal sampling. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EU0ISo996A [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9pOq8u6-bA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8_fhIKeOX0