6 ms·

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 m

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.
  - Tycho 15y ago
    I suppose authors should rejoice now too, since those troublesome distribution costs have disappeared, marketing is free and they can travel about the country providing real value through public readings and book signings.
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      Sure, if they can get that to work. It's not the way I would try to provide value if I were an author. The point is that artists need to deal with the realities before them and stop listening to the lies that industry tells them. You again seem to be making some sort of moral judgment about the situation. I'm talking about economic reality. If authors think that they can make money by charging for copies (which have a marginal cost of ~0) because they think their product is that much superior to everyone else's, then that's great, but that will obviously only work for a small minority of authors, if at all. I'm saying extracting money from copies is the old game, and it's over. The new game is trying to figure out how to make money from the value you can provide. And the fact is that the technology that's destroying the old model is also enabling new ones. The most obvious business model going forward is toiling in obscurity on your own dime and releasing a free product. If it's good enough, i.e. if people value it enough, then you can crowd-fund (a la kickstarter) the production of subsequent products. Here your value is as a creator of products, not a distributor. That's just the first thing that occurs to me after ten seconds of thinking about it. I'm sure there are many other viable models. To me, the future looks vibrant and refreshing. There are fewer gatekeepers to our collective culture, we have more direct access to creators of culture, the experience is more interactive, the barrier to entry is lower, and the exchange of ideas is freer. I hope it's a future filled with more Amanda Palmer and less Avatar.
      - Tycho 15y ago
        There's two issues here. 1. Pirating other peoples work is morally wrong. 2. You're kidding yourself if you think the economics that ruin labels and retailers are not going to just as quickly ruin independent acts. As is painfully obvious from the example of authors - they rely entirely on people honouring their intellectual property and would have basically no income without selling 'copies.' Just because musicians have a few alternative options, eg. live performances, doesn't change the underlying argument. What goes for authors, or filmmakers, should go for musicians or any other artists. Why do you keep talking vaguely about alternative business models? There are none. Nobody's going to invent an ingenious new way of making money out of music. There's live performance or there's selling intellectual property. That's it.

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.
- Tycho 15y ago
  I suppose authors should rejoice now too, since those troublesome distribution costs have disappeared, marketing is free and they can travel about the country providing real value through public readings and book signings.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    Sure, if they can get that to work. It's not the way I would try to provide value if I were an author. The point is that artists need to deal with the realities before them and stop listening to the lies that industry tells them. You again seem to be making some sort of moral judgment about the situation. I'm talking about economic reality. If authors think that they can make money by charging for copies (which have a marginal cost of ~0) because they think their product is that much superior to everyone else's, then that's great, but that will obviously only work for a small minority of authors, if at all. I'm saying extracting money from copies is the old game, and it's over. The new game is trying to figure out how to make money from the value you can provide. And the fact is that the technology that's destroying the old model is also enabling new ones. The most obvious business model going forward is toiling in obscurity on your own dime and releasing a free product. If it's good enough, i.e. if people value it enough, then you can crowd-fund (a la kickstarter) the production of subsequent products. Here your value is as a creator of products, not a distributor. That's just the first thing that occurs to me after ten seconds of thinking about it. I'm sure there are many other viable models. To me, the future looks vibrant and refreshing. There are fewer gatekeepers to our collective culture, we have more direct access to creators of culture, the experience is more interactive, the barrier to entry is lower, and the exchange of ideas is freer. I hope it's a future filled with more Amanda Palmer and less Avatar.
    - Tycho 15y ago
      There's two issues here. 1. Pirating other peoples work is morally wrong. 2. You're kidding yourself if you think the economics that ruin labels and retailers are not going to just as quickly ruin independent acts. As is painfully obvious from the example of authors - they rely entirely on people honouring their intellectual property and would have basically no income without selling 'copies.' Just because musicians have a few alternative options, eg. live performances, doesn't change the underlying argument. What goes for authors, or filmmakers, should go for musicians or any other artists. Why do you keep talking vaguely about alternative business models? There are none. Nobody's going to invent an ingenious new way of making money out of music. There's live performance or there's selling intellectual property. That's it.