2 ms·
The interesting thing about the "we're better than piracy" model is that you always have to be better than piracy, because piracy will always be there. Unlike
by trjordan 12y ago
The interesting thing about the "we're better than piracy" model is that you always have to be better than piracy, because piracy will always be there.
Unlike piracy, when you pay for a service, you're making a judgement about the service as a whole. Many people are willing to use a couple different free services, but probably not piecemeal paid services to get the same experience. So, unlike piracy, Spotify has to have a catalog that makes most users think "yeah, they have all the music I want to listen to". Especially as a top artist, Taylor Swift has a lot of power in this relationship, because of the impetus that Spotify has to provide a "full" catalog.
Hopefully, this model continues, and artists like Taylor Swift continue to push back. The system of 20 years ago had too little power in the artists, too much power in the distribution, and too little choice for consumers. I like that the middleman / channel delivery is now the one who has to provide value, and the artists can take their music elsewhere. It gives artists power, allows competition in distribution, and provides more consumer choice. We could go too far along any of those axes, but this sort of fight is, imho, pushing things in the right direction.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- scoggs 12y agoIt really drives things home since it's Taylor. When I think of most music services especially when you mention the point of "piecemeal" ways to cobble together services to ensure you can listen to EVERYTHING you wish, I think of myself (sort of a savvy power user) and I think of the large majority that are just basic computer users. A utopian music situation? The only way to truthfully do that is to delve into the illegal download category unless you are dead set on buying physical copies of everything, or settling for streaming through an iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, etc. When I think of reasons why X service exploded or Y Software was the definition of music downloads it usually points to one common feature: ease of use. Sure, anybody can learn to torrent music, surf IRC chat rooms for albums and songs, get accepted to user groups or private sites of the like, but until it is as easy as AudioGalaxy, Napster, Spotify, the iTunes Store, etc., and it's back catalog can rival the greatest music pirate -- it will never permeate the way a company would wish. It's a weird tango these companies play. They have the blue print of success (if you ignore legal standpoints) with the first two programs I mentioned above (AudioGalaxy / Napster) + any torrent site / "warez" site. The trick is convincing the music industry to play ball. So long as they have their greedy, sticky fingers in the giant pot somebody is always going to leave the deal feeling like a loser.
- waps 12y agoApparently ms. Swift made ~$500k USD in revenue from Spotify. That's equivalent to 50000 records. She sold over 1 million records. Given that one has to agree it's a near-certainty that Spotify eats into record sales at least a bit ... so her position certainly makes sense.