3 ms·
"if we could build a service which was better than piracy, then we could convince people to stop illegal file-sharing, and start consuming music legally again"
by jheriko 13y ago
"if we could build a service which was better than piracy, then we could convince people to stop illegal file-sharing, and start consuming music legally again"
this is exactly the right attitude. i've been 'selling' this for years as my reason for piracy - its just easier. spotify absolutely killed that for me. it really is more convenient...
i do wish existing businesses in that area would look and learn instead of lobbying and abusing legislation to try and keep hold of a business model that died years ago... (or publishers trying to convince their artists that Spotify is ripping them off rather than /them/)
- wmf 13y agoThere is a catch: If the service is priced low to attract pirates and then non-pirates also switch to it, total industry revenue actually goes down. I don't think Spotify is there yet since few people spend over $120/year on music, but it is a long-term concern.
- wwweston 13y agoI'm not sure it is better than piracy. In both cases, there's no further incentive for a consumer to pay out to get better access to the music. AFAICT at current royalty rates, artists get about the same amount of money they get from piracy. Except with piracy, people know the way they obtained the music is questionable/unsustainable, so in some people it probably creates a drive towards future patronage of some kind. Meanwhile, Spotify gives the illusion that you're involved in a legitimate transaction and have more or less done your duty, while what's basically happening behind the scenes is we have a "disruptor" whose main innovation so far appears to be replacing recording revenues with the fractional broadcast revenue. Better experience for the consumer, though!