3 ms·

Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and t

Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and they have similar licensing agreements to movies and tv, right?

Mindwipe 3y ago
> Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and they have similar licensing agreements to movies and tv, right? Broadly music licensing was dealt with by collective management because a) music is cheaper and has fewer rightsowners as they are simpler works and b) because radio was the primary means of consumption rather than single asset sales. And such collective schemes generally had legal backing. And ultimately the music model doesn't work - Spotify is slowly drowning financially, which is why they are so desperate to try and do other things where they can get exclusivity - first their push for exclusive podcasts and now their push for exclusive training courses and audiobooks.
AlexandrB 3y ago
Because book and music publishers generally don't run their own streaming services. We're back to the equivalent of when movie studios owned their own theatre chains. Something that was eventually found to be a violation of antitrust law[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....
jasode 3y ago
>Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services [...] mostly all have the same content, Producing song tracks or books is "cheap" compared to tv & films. Because tv series episodes cost more than $1 million each and movies productions can cost over $300 million, the studios are more tightfisted and financially incentivized to hold on to them exclusively for their own networks & streaming platforms instead of licensing it out to all the other streaming services. Right now, the studios believe they can get more $$$ by using their exclusives to attract more subscribers rather than the sum of licensing money they could realistically negotiate from all their competitors. (The streaming competitors all want to underpay for licenses which contradicts the ip owners wanting max dollars.) E.g. Disney thought the old Netflix license contract was too much in favor of Netflix so Disney pulled their content and used it as "exclusives" on their own streaming service to attract subscription revenue. In other words, the early years of Netflix streaming where they seemingly had "everything" (that consumers look back on with fondness) ... was also the time period where Disney/HBO/etc thought they were getting financially shafted by Netflix. Music doesn't have the same economics so the content owners are more willing to syndicate across all music streaming platforms. Nevertheless, there are a few "exclusive" arrangements such as Garth Brooks only offering his studio albums on Amazon Music and rejecting Spotify and Apple Music. It's definitely not the norm compared to tv & movies.
unnamed76ri 3y ago
Music streaming has started to splinter though. Apple has had some exclusive content for years. Spotify has exclusive podcasts and clearly prioritizes record label artists over indies. Within the next year, I expect some of these streaming services to wholly own AI artists and promote them to users so they don’t have to pay any royalties.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Theres a lot less money in music. The current spend on tv/film couldnt be justified by just a single streaming service.

Mindwipe 3y ago

> Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and they have similar licensing agreements to movies and tv, right? Broadly music licensing was dealt with by collective management because a) music is cheaper and has fewer rightsowners as they are simpler works and b) because radio was the primary means of consumption rather than single asset sales. And such collective schemes generally had legal backing. And ultimately the music model doesn't work - Spotify is slowly drowning financially, which is why they are so desperate to try and do other things where they can get exclusivity - first their push for exclusive podcasts and now their push for exclusive training courses and audiobooks.

AlexandrB 3y ago

Because book and music publishers generally don't run their own streaming services. We're back to the equivalent of when movie studios owned their own theatre chains. Something that was eventually found to be a violation of antitrust law[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....

jasode 3y ago

>Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services [...] mostly all have the same content, Producing song tracks or books is "cheap" compared to tv & films. Because tv series episodes cost more than $1 million each and movies productions can cost over $300 million, the studios are more tightfisted and financially incentivized to hold on to them exclusively for their own networks & streaming platforms instead of licensing it out to all the other streaming services. Right now, the studios believe they can get more $$$ by using their exclusives to attract more subscribers rather than the sum of licensing money they could realistically negotiate from all their competitors. (The streaming competitors all want to underpay for licenses which contradicts the ip owners wanting max dollars.) E.g. Disney thought the old Netflix license contract was too much in favor of Netflix so Disney pulled their content and used it as "exclusives" on their own streaming service to attract subscription revenue. In other words, the early years of Netflix streaming where they seemingly had "everything" (that consumers look back on with fondness) ... was also the time period where Disney/HBO/etc thought they were getting financially shafted by Netflix. Music doesn't have the same economics so the content owners are more willing to syndicate across all music streaming platforms. Nevertheless, there are a few "exclusive" arrangements such as Garth Brooks only offering his studio albums on Amazon Music and rejecting Spotify and Apple Music. It's definitely not the norm compared to tv & movies.

unnamed76ri 3y ago

Music streaming has started to splinter though. Apple has had some exclusive content for years. Spotify has exclusive podcasts and clearly prioritizes record label artists over indies. Within the next year, I expect some of these streaming services to wholly own AI artists and promote them to users so they don’t have to pay any royalties.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Theres a lot less money in music. The current spend on tv/film couldnt be justified by just a single streaming service.