4 ms·

>It's a bit like saying we can't stop music piracy, now that Napster exists. We effectively didn't, though, at least as far as artists are concerned. Streaming

>It's a bit like saying we can't stop music piracy, now that Napster exists. We effectively didn't, though, at least as far as artists are concerned. Streaming revenue is abysmal for artists. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2021-04-19/spotify-artists-royalty-rate-apple-music https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2021-... Piracy made music acquisition too convenient for the consumers, so an alternative had to be created - but this alternative really only helps the labels, and not the people actually making the music. It's not clear to me that the streaming world is better for artists than the Napster one. At least anyone wanting to legally listen to music then would buy albums, rather than just having a spotify subscription. Not that royalties on physical CDs were great, but my understanding is they did work out better for most artists than we see with streaming royalties. I don't know what a potential analogy would be here with stable diffusion or dall-e or whatever, but I don't know that people were able to immediately identify the potential downsides with "winning" against piracy, either.

happymellon 4y ago
> We effectively didn't, though, at least as far as artists are concerned. Streaming revenue is abysmal for artists. But that's not Napster's fault. Spotify pays a lot of money for playing of a song, of that the artist only sees a tiny percentage due to music middlemen trying to relive the 90's.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  Sure. And that's why I buy music off Bandcamp whenever I can, and thankfully most of the music I listen to is on smaller labels, so usually even more money goes to artists. I'm just saying that the solutions that pop up once you "win" are not necessarily ones that provide a win for the people you are trying to protect.
- lozenge 4y ago
  Spotify pays a lot of money for playing a song? Out of a $10/month fee, that clearly can't be true. If P2P was somehow impossible, we would still be buying DRMd tracks for $1 each on iTunes. Spotify would at best, cost $80/month.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    > Spotify pays a lot of money for playing a song? Out of a $10/month fee, that clearly can't be true. Spotify take in €9.5 billion and pay out 70% of that as fees to record companies who take their slice before giving the artist nothing. I would consider that a lot of money, even if you disagree.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      I distribute my music through CDBaby, and looking at transaction history I've been getting $3.65 per thousand streams. That's not nothing, and is much higher than I'd get from radio. Spotify is taking in a lot of money and paying 70% to labels, which adds up to a lot of money for artists depending on their agreement with their label/distributor. But the per stream rate is still very low because there are trillions of songs streamed annually.
      - happymellon 4y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't want to sound dense but I'm not clear what your point is. Are you saying that CD Baby is a better distribution technique than standard labels because you get good margins? I didn't know CD Baby until I just looked them up but they appear to be a distributor, so your $3.65 metric is still being paid by Spotify/Amazon/Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that is much higher than the normal published numbers by 10-100x. Is this an RIAA moment where labels are trying to make other people look like jerks rather than accepting what they do, or are people using the "per 1000 streams" poorly because they will always look worse on successful platforms?
        pessimizer 4y ago
        The point is that 1/3 cents a play isn't a lot. Argue against that claim if you like, but engage with it instead of using weird rhetoric to avoid it.
        happymellon 4y ago
Sankozi 4y ago
70% percent of Spotify revenue goes to the artists (content owners to be precise), I doubt that was the case when you bought a CD (I have found numbers closer to 40%). It is not abysmal, revenue never seemed to be better.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  From the article I linked: >The actual recording artists? “They’re keeping anywhere between 5% and a quarter.” That is a far cry from 70%
  - Sankozi 4y ago
    That is not Spotify's fault. It is a deal made by artists that splits revenue between them and producer, record label etc. 70% of Spotify's revenue is to be split that way compared to ~40% of revenue of CD sales.
    - cthalupa 4y ago
      It doesn't matter if it's Spotify's fault - I'm not saying they are the evil empire. I am saying that streaming is how we "beat" piracy, and it was not a panacea for the people it was supposed to protect - unless we consider the labels the people it was supposed to protect. You're also comparing apples to oranges on revenue. 40% of the revenue of a $10-$18 CD sale is a lot different than 70% of a $10/mo subscription being split out over however many artists someone might listen to on spotify. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/arts/music/streaming-music-payments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/arts/music/streaming-musi... Lots of artists talk about how they simply can't make a living off streaming royalties - artists that were able to do in the era of album sales. Obviously any sort of comfortable living requires merch sales and touring.
      - Sankozi 4y ago
        Comparing artists that could make record sales earlier to all current streaming artists is comparing apples to oranges. I agree that Spotify's revenue split is not perfect (it is in fact worse than what you described), but it is still much more fair than record sales. I consider having tape/CD record sold in physical shops (i.e. not during concerts) would be a success on its own in the 90s. Now every artist can publish their work on Spotify and start to earn money, possibly getting noticed through it. It is much feasible to not be a part of record label now.

happymellon 4y ago

> We effectively didn't, though, at least as far as artists are concerned. Streaming revenue is abysmal for artists. But that's not Napster's fault. Spotify pays a lot of money for playing of a song, of that the artist only sees a tiny percentage due to music middlemen trying to relive the 90's.

cthalupa 4y ago
Sure. And that's why I buy music off Bandcamp whenever I can, and thankfully most of the music I listen to is on smaller labels, so usually even more money goes to artists. I'm just saying that the solutions that pop up once you "win" are not necessarily ones that provide a win for the people you are trying to protect.
lozenge 4y ago
Spotify pays a lot of money for playing a song? Out of a $10/month fee, that clearly can't be true. If P2P was somehow impossible, we would still be buying DRMd tracks for $1 each on iTunes. Spotify would at best, cost $80/month.
- happymellon 4y ago
  > Spotify pays a lot of money for playing a song? Out of a $10/month fee, that clearly can't be true. Spotify take in €9.5 billion and pay out 70% of that as fees to record companies who take their slice before giving the artist nothing. I would consider that a lot of money, even if you disagree.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I distribute my music through CDBaby, and looking at transaction history I've been getting $3.65 per thousand streams. That's not nothing, and is much higher than I'd get from radio. Spotify is taking in a lot of money and paying 70% to labels, which adds up to a lot of money for artists depending on their agreement with their label/distributor. But the per stream rate is still very low because there are trillions of songs streamed annually.
    - happymellon 4y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't want to sound dense but I'm not clear what your point is. Are you saying that CD Baby is a better distribution technique than standard labels because you get good margins? I didn't know CD Baby until I just looked them up but they appear to be a distributor, so your $3.65 metric is still being paid by Spotify/Amazon/Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that is much higher than the normal published numbers by 10-100x. Is this an RIAA moment where labels are trying to make other people look like jerks rather than accepting what they do, or are people using the "per 1000 streams" poorly because they will always look worse on successful platforms?
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        The point is that 1/3 cents a play isn't a lot. Argue against that claim if you like, but engage with it instead of using weird rhetoric to avoid it.
        happymellon 4y ago

Sankozi 4y ago

70% percent of Spotify revenue goes to the artists (content owners to be precise), I doubt that was the case when you bought a CD (I have found numbers closer to 40%). It is not abysmal, revenue never seemed to be better.

cthalupa 4y ago
From the article I linked: >The actual recording artists? “They’re keeping anywhere between 5% and a quarter.” That is a far cry from 70%
- Sankozi 4y ago
  That is not Spotify's fault. It is a deal made by artists that splits revenue between them and producer, record label etc. 70% of Spotify's revenue is to be split that way compared to ~40% of revenue of CD sales.
  - cthalupa 4y ago
    It doesn't matter if it's Spotify's fault - I'm not saying they are the evil empire. I am saying that streaming is how we "beat" piracy, and it was not a panacea for the people it was supposed to protect - unless we consider the labels the people it was supposed to protect. You're also comparing apples to oranges on revenue. 40% of the revenue of a $10-$18 CD sale is a lot different than 70% of a $10/mo subscription being split out over however many artists someone might listen to on spotify. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/arts/music/streaming-music-payments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/arts/music/streaming-musi... Lots of artists talk about how they simply can't make a living off streaming royalties - artists that were able to do in the era of album sales. Obviously any sort of comfortable living requires merch sales and touring.
    - Sankozi 4y ago
      Comparing artists that could make record sales earlier to all current streaming artists is comparing apples to oranges. I agree that Spotify's revenue split is not perfect (it is in fact worse than what you described), but it is still much more fair than record sales. I consider having tape/CD record sold in physical shops (i.e. not during concerts) would be a success on its own in the 90s. Now every artist can publish their work on Spotify and start to earn money, possibly getting noticed through it. It is much feasible to not be a part of record label now.