3 ms·

I think Spotify which I might add has dramatically reduced piracy in the countries it is available has proven that streaming is the future. People don't care ab

I think Spotify which I might add has dramatically reduced piracy in the countries it is available has proven that streaming is the future. People don't care about not being able to download it, as long as they can watch it whenever they want. Going back to Spotify, I don't remember the last time I downloaded any music for free, I just use Spotify.

adamnemecek 13y ago
It has been argued multiple times that Spotify is not sustainable. http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09/26/161758720/how-musicians-make-money-by-the-fraction-of-a-cent-on-spotify http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09/26/161758720/how-... So it's cool that you are getting your music legally, nonetheless, in the end it's not that different than in you had pirated it.
- randyrand 13y ago
  That's not all that related to sustainability. Sure, it might mean musicians make less but that's just supply and demand and supply is HUGE (still not infinite).
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    Yeah supply of shitty music is huge but that's the way it works with everything.
    - bluntly_said 13y ago
      I think this is the wrong way to look at it. When you're in a constrained format like radio or cable tv you can only play one thing for your audience at a time. Because of that it's critical that what you play has mass appeal so that lots of people will be okay listening to it. When you're in an unconstrained model that lets users pick what to watch or listen to, that mass appeal factor becomes much less important. Sure, there's a HUGE array of music available, and each of us can claim that we think most of it's shitty. But when you actually start comparing what you consider shitty to what I consider shitty, I'd be willing to bet there are a LOT of areas that don't overlap. This is the power that comes with being able to stream the content that the user wants. Mass appeal becomes much less important. So yeah, there's a huge amount of music out there that I think is shitty. But there's an equally huge number of people that all have different opinions on what the shit actually is.
      - adamnemecek 13y ago
        I'm not sure I understand your argument. I agree that in an unconstrained format mass appeal is much less important. Yet I don't feel some sort of 'good music' saturation point has been reached within the single subgenres (and subsubgenres) and I think that it will take a while for that to happen.
- selectodude 13y ago
  Spotify pays out 97 percent of its total revenue to the record companies. If the record companies are taking an enormous percentage of that and not paying the artists, it's perfectly sustainable once you remove the parasite siphoning off all the money. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and-spotify-rake-in-the-money-and-then-send-it-off-in-royalties/?_r=0 http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and...

adamnemecek 13y ago

It has been argued multiple times that Spotify is not sustainable. http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09/26/161758720/how-musicians-make-money-by-the-fraction-of-a-cent-on-spotify http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/09/26/161758720/how-... So it's cool that you are getting your music legally, nonetheless, in the end it's not that different than in you had pirated it.

randyrand 13y ago
That's not all that related to sustainability. Sure, it might mean musicians make less but that's just supply and demand and supply is HUGE (still not infinite).
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  Yeah supply of shitty music is huge but that's the way it works with everything.
  - bluntly_said 13y ago
    I think this is the wrong way to look at it. When you're in a constrained format like radio or cable tv you can only play one thing for your audience at a time. Because of that it's critical that what you play has mass appeal so that lots of people will be okay listening to it. When you're in an unconstrained model that lets users pick what to watch or listen to, that mass appeal factor becomes much less important. Sure, there's a HUGE array of music available, and each of us can claim that we think most of it's shitty. But when you actually start comparing what you consider shitty to what I consider shitty, I'd be willing to bet there are a LOT of areas that don't overlap. This is the power that comes with being able to stream the content that the user wants. Mass appeal becomes much less important. So yeah, there's a huge amount of music out there that I think is shitty. But there's an equally huge number of people that all have different opinions on what the shit actually is.
    - adamnemecek 13y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your argument. I agree that in an unconstrained format mass appeal is much less important. Yet I don't feel some sort of 'good music' saturation point has been reached within the single subgenres (and subsubgenres) and I think that it will take a while for that to happen.
selectodude 13y ago
Spotify pays out 97 percent of its total revenue to the record companies. If the record companies are taking an enormous percentage of that and not paying the artists, it's perfectly sustainable once you remove the parasite siphoning off all the money. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and-spotify-rake-in-the-money-and-then-send-it-off-in-royalties/?_r=0 http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and...