3 ms·

Would it better if, instead of $340M/year in royalties, they got $0? Because that's what they'll get if they raise the royalties to the point Pandora and other

Would it better if, instead of $340M/year in royalties, they got $0? Because that's what they'll get if they raise the royalties to the point Pandora and other streaming radio goes out of business. Pandora operated at a net loss in 2013. And in 2012. And in 2011. People are willing to pay a certain amount for radio, whether it's in subscription fees or putting up with a certain amount of ads per hour before tuning out. If that amount is less than the song writers demand, then they get nothing, because the exchange just won't happen. Pandora is fighting to pay what the market will bear so that this exchange does continue to happen and those writers continue to be paid for the music we all love.

tunesmith 13y ago
This really misses something... it's written as if the consumers are somehow entitled to the music from the songwriters. Right now, musicians think streaming rates are too low, and the streaming services are operating at a loss. That basically means they are unsustainable, and that musicians are not willing to release their music at a rate the consumers want to pay. Because of debt financing, consumers are currently under the impression that they're entitled to this music anyway, but the gravy train might very well end, and then easy music enjoyment might become more scarce. For a lot of musicians, this would be a welcome development, as it would give the songwriters more options in how to control their revenue streams.
bsder 13y ago
> Would it better if, instead of $340M/year in royalties, they got $0? From the point of view of many artists, yes. Especially since the artists don't even see $34M/year out of that. Most artists would rather that either A) their music not get distributed or B) that they distribute the music for free rather than enabling the current situation.
- lostcolony 13y ago
  If A) Why are the releasing their music at all? If B) Why are they not opting out of ASCAP, and in general only distributing it through channels that are free, then? Happily, these are both options that some musicians are taking (presumably, in the case of the former). But not 'most'. Just some. I suspect 'most' simply want to make no effort in creating a new distribution model (I don't blame them, that's effort that is not going into making music), but also be paid more. But the change in technology has allowed people to want and expect to be able to listen to music from hundreds of artists, finding new stuff they like, and in general -explore- music more. The existing distribution model can't cope with that and make it as black and white, successful or failure, as it could when people either bought an entire album, or not, and there was no in between. What is the value of listening to a single track, on an internet radio station, once every few weeks? "Hey, I had a million listens, I should be paid X for that!" Should you? Would any one of those people have been willing to pay $1 for that track? You don't know; there's ambiguity when the old distribution model is applied to the new digital listening patterns, that was never there when we ignored celestial radio, and only counted album sales.

tunesmith 13y ago

This really misses something... it's written as if the consumers are somehow entitled to the music from the songwriters. Right now, musicians think streaming rates are too low, and the streaming services are operating at a loss. That basically means they are unsustainable, and that musicians are not willing to release their music at a rate the consumers want to pay. Because of debt financing, consumers are currently under the impression that they're entitled to this music anyway, but the gravy train might very well end, and then easy music enjoyment might become more scarce. For a lot of musicians, this would be a welcome development, as it would give the songwriters more options in how to control their revenue streams.

bsder 13y ago

> Would it better if, instead of $340M/year in royalties, they got $0? From the point of view of many artists, yes. Especially since the artists don't even see $34M/year out of that. Most artists would rather that either A) their music not get distributed or B) that they distribute the music for free rather than enabling the current situation.

lostcolony 13y ago
If A) Why are the releasing their music at all? If B) Why are they not opting out of ASCAP, and in general only distributing it through channels that are free, then? Happily, these are both options that some musicians are taking (presumably, in the case of the former). But not 'most'. Just some. I suspect 'most' simply want to make no effort in creating a new distribution model (I don't blame them, that's effort that is not going into making music), but also be paid more. But the change in technology has allowed people to want and expect to be able to listen to music from hundreds of artists, finding new stuff they like, and in general -explore- music more. The existing distribution model can't cope with that and make it as black and white, successful or failure, as it could when people either bought an entire album, or not, and there was no in between. What is the value of listening to a single track, on an internet radio station, once every few weeks? "Hey, I had a million listens, I should be paid X for that!" Should you? Would any one of those people have been willing to pay $1 for that track? You don't know; there's ambiguity when the old distribution model is applied to the new digital listening patterns, that was never there when we ignored celestial radio, and only counted album sales.