5 ms·

'Since Spotify came about everyone I know has cut back on music downloaded.' Musicians still seem to lose out on this model as they do not make that much money

'Since Spotify came about everyone I know has cut back on music downloaded.' Musicians still seem to lose out on this model as they do not make that much money from it.

VonLipwig 15y ago
I disagree completely. Artists are loosing out because people who buy legitimate music are switching to Spotify. I buy the music of bands I really like. I buy their albums as a conscious choice to support them. For other bands I would download their music, the artist would get £0 from me unless I went to see them live. Since switching to Spotify, artists whose albums I would have'pirated' are getting a few cents which they wouldn't otherwise have got. They are winning.. if you could call a few cents winning. The problem the music industry has is that non-pirates, people who otherwise would have purchased an album are switching to Spotify for recreational listening. If a CD is worth £8 to various people it means that shops, labels and artists loose about £7.90 if the person chooses Spotify instead of purchasing. Artists and Labels can work around this. They can not put latest albums on Spotify. They can withdraw their music in the hopes they can negotiate a higher streaming price. Both of these would lead to more piracy.. MORE IMPORTANTLY.. this would lead to more casual listeners purchasing music and keeping the wheel's turning for labels. Spotify is reducing piracy at the cost of reducing the number of non-pirates prepared to pay for music ownership. Music label's say that piracy is the devil and they are missing out on millions. Spotify proves there is limited value in ending piracy. Spotify also proves there is a growing desire for people to have access to, but not ownership of, music. This is what should be terrifying labels, not piracy.
- niels_olson 15y ago
  > Spotify proves there is limited value in ending piracy. Oh, that is a wonderful insight! I might tone down the word "prove", but overall, that's a really important observation!
joebadmo 15y ago
I keep seeing this argument and I keep not understanding it. Is it an economic argument? What is the economic point? The economic point to me seems to be that musicians were previously making money on inefficiencies that streaming services have now solved. Just like newspapers made a lot of money on classifieds before craigslist. Sucks for musicians, but it's an economic reality. Or is it a moral argument? That musiciancs deserve to be paid a certain wage, and that streaming services are taking that away? This seems pretty absurd to me. I think musicians need to come to terms with reality, which is not that different from old reality, actually: recorded music is basically a commodity, unless you win the megahit lottery. The way to make money as a working musician is through the scarce products you can provide: live performances, merch, and relationships with your audience. Google Amanda Palmer.
- Tycho 15y ago
  The argument is that the music labels have basically thrown in the towel against piracy and are resorting to an extremely un-lucrative streaming model supported primarily by advertising (free Spotify is still an amazing service for consumers), because at least they'll be getting SOME earnings from people who refuse to pay for the music they listen to (previously, pirates). It's sad for the labels, and even sadder for the musicians who get virtually nothing. Spotify would be going nowhere fast if it wasn't for the enormous piracy problem.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    Piracy will be a problem because marginal cost of distribution is ~0. There's not that much money to extract from distribution anymore because the industries are not providing that much value. They only really provide value to the few artists that they promote well enough to become megahits. Artists that try to play that lottery generally get what they deserve. Industry wants you to conflate its incentives with artists' incentives, but that's never been true. Again, musicians need to focus on where they can actually provide value. Recorded music isn't it. They'd be better off considering it marketing. They should be happy that distribution is now basically free, instead of previous situation where they basically had to pay labels for it. The means to create music is getting cheaper all the time, and there are more ways to fund it than ever before. In short, the old business model doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. Find a new one.

'Since Spotify came about everyone I know has cut back on music downloaded.' Musicians still seem to lose out on this model as they do not make that much money from it.

VonLipwig 15y ago

I disagree completely. Artists are loosing out because people who buy legitimate music are switching to Spotify. I buy the music of bands I really like. I buy their albums as a conscious choice to support them. For other bands I would download their music, the artist would get £0 from me unless I went to see them live. Since switching to Spotify, artists whose albums I would have'pirated' are getting a few cents which they wouldn't otherwise have got. They are winning.. if you could call a few cents winning. The problem the music industry has is that non-pirates, people who otherwise would have purchased an album are switching to Spotify for recreational listening. If a CD is worth £8 to various people it means that shops, labels and artists loose about £7.90 if the person chooses Spotify instead of purchasing. Artists and Labels can work around this. They can not put latest albums on Spotify. They can withdraw their music in the hopes they can negotiate a higher streaming price. Both of these would lead to more piracy.. MORE IMPORTANTLY.. this would lead to more casual listeners purchasing music and keeping the wheel's turning for labels. Spotify is reducing piracy at the cost of reducing the number of non-pirates prepared to pay for music ownership. Music label's say that piracy is the devil and they are missing out on millions. Spotify proves there is limited value in ending piracy. Spotify also proves there is a growing desire for people to have access to, but not ownership of, music. This is what should be terrifying labels, not piracy.

niels_olson 15y ago
> Spotify proves there is limited value in ending piracy. Oh, that is a wonderful insight! I might tone down the word "prove", but overall, that's a really important observation!

joebadmo 15y ago

I keep seeing this argument and I keep not understanding it. Is it an economic argument? What is the economic point? The economic point to me seems to be that musicians were previously making money on inefficiencies that streaming services have now solved. Just like newspapers made a lot of money on classifieds before craigslist. Sucks for musicians, but it's an economic reality. Or is it a moral argument? That musiciancs deserve to be paid a certain wage, and that streaming services are taking that away? This seems pretty absurd to me. I think musicians need to come to terms with reality, which is not that different from old reality, actually: recorded music is basically a commodity, unless you win the megahit lottery. The way to make money as a working musician is through the scarce products you can provide: live performances, merch, and relationships with your audience. Google Amanda Palmer.

Tycho 15y ago
The argument is that the music labels have basically thrown in the towel against piracy and are resorting to an extremely un-lucrative streaming model supported primarily by advertising (free Spotify is still an amazing service for consumers), because at least they'll be getting SOME earnings from people who refuse to pay for the music they listen to (previously, pirates). It's sad for the labels, and even sadder for the musicians who get virtually nothing. Spotify would be going nowhere fast if it wasn't for the enormous piracy problem.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Piracy will be a problem because marginal cost of distribution is ~0. There's not that much money to extract from distribution anymore because the industries are not providing that much value. They only really provide value to the few artists that they promote well enough to become megahits. Artists that try to play that lottery generally get what they deserve. Industry wants you to conflate its incentives with artists' incentives, but that's never been true. Again, musicians need to focus on where they can actually provide value. Recorded music isn't it. They'd be better off considering it marketing. They should be happy that distribution is now basically free, instead of previous situation where they basically had to pay labels for it. The means to create music is getting cheaper all the time, and there are more ways to fund it than ever before. In short, the old business model doesn't work anymore, if it ever did. Find a new one.