The Music Industry's Latest Shortsighted Plan: Killing Freemium Services 244
An anonymous reader notes that there have been rumblings in the music industry of trying to shut down freemium services like Spotify's free tier and YouTube's swath of free music. The record labels have realized that music downloads are gradually giving way to streaming, and they're angling for as a big a slice of that revenue as they can manage. The article argues that they're making the same mistake they always make: that converting freemium site listeners (in the past, music pirates) to subscription services will be a 1:1 transfer, and no listeners will be lost in the process. Of course, that's no more true now than it was a decade ago. But in doing trying to do so, the labels will do harm to the artists they represent, and shoot themselves in the foot for acquiring future customers by getting rid of several major sources of music discovery.
Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean more than they already do ?
From what I have seen the sites pay next to nothing and most of what they do pay goes to the labels, because the artists are still in debt to them.
Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an amateur musician - if i wanted i could use a record label to help me in a professional career, or i could self-promote/publish my work.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate ?
I just don't buy into the B.S. they are doing this for the artists, or that the artists will ever see anything in their pocket from this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
something is wrong with being hostile to an industry filled with talentless beurocrats that keep a stranglehold on the entire creative industry through massive wealth, lobbying power and legal intimidation?
Re: (Score:2)
I see. Beaten Wife Syndrome. Or Stockholm Syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
For what? Aren't Spotify and similar websites just like labels, except they are e-labels? Why do you need two middlemen? You should not have deal with (or pay) a conventional label if distributing your music through an e-label like Spotify.
Paying both middlemen would be quite expensive, resulting in a very tiny fraction of profit per song played for the artist as has been demonstrated on numerous slashdot stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Record labels abuse the talent and then corrupt the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He's got a point: only very famous musicians can make money from "concerts/merchandise." The remaining artists depend upon song sales for bare minimum survival. You don't get to decide which music is appropriate for making money -- that's the artists choice.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
These number seem exaggerated. Here's the BBC's take [bbc.com] on how 800 million pounds from CD sales are divided amongst the various players:
About 13% goes to the artists, while 30% goes to the label, with a 17% cut going to the government in the form of VAT (applied at 20% and therefore 1/6 of purchase price). About 17% goes to the retailer, while the rest goes to manufacturers (9%),
Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think labels might still have a place, but not with the kind of power that they traditionally had. They still employ people who are good at publicizing albums whereas the bands might not be good at it themselves. (Yes, social media and other tools makes it easier, but it doesn't mean everyone becomes a marketing expert.) I envision the future label to be a glorified ad agency. A singer/band would sign a contract for the label to promote their album for a certain period of time. The label wouldn't own the copyrights and would merely get a cut of the profits. (As opposed to the current "gobble all the profits and generously give a crumb to the artists" model.) If the artist didn't like how the label was doing, they could fire them or wait until the contract expired. Then, they could pack up their albums and go to another label. (No more: "Artist X can't play popular Song Y because they left Label Z who now owns the rights to it.")
Of course, these new labels will need to trim a lot of fat out so many music executives will lose their jobs. Here's an actual size tear that I will shed over their lost jobs: .
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need them, but the people who use them haven't died yet.
There will always be a need for promoters - musicians will need to fill venues somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between making a living from music and getting super rich is being promoted by a label that can get your one or two good songs on an advert out TV show, or get someone famous to talk over the first few seconds. That's why do many bands get suckered in.
Re: (Score:2)
They often hook artists with a lucrative recording contract first, because recording with good quality is still expensive, though mixing and mastering less so now with digital workflows.
Re: (Score:3)
Traditionally the labels did a few things for you: Marketing, production, advances, and shelf space. By "shelf space" I mean getting your album in to record stores, which was a bit of rent seeking you really couldn't get around as an artist.
Today you can do your own marketing, borrow money, and control over shelf space is a commodity of dwindling (if not entirely nonexistent) value. But record labels can still add value by bringing together the facilities and technical expertise you need to make profes
Re: (Score:2)
The entire subgenre of music I used to listen back to in the great heydey of paying for physical media were all bands that had to do their own marketing before the labels would even look at them. Even that only came because a lot of 3rd party marketing that occured outside of the label system with underground clubs and tape trading done by mail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire subgenre of music I used to listen back to in the great heydey of paying for physical media were all bands that had to do their own marketing before the labels would even look at them.
Exactly - labels pick up bands once they've demonstrated not just their musical ability, but their ability to be part of the commercial machine. (Setting aside artificial performers created by labels, like The Monkeys or Britney Spears) The labels look for a marketable product, and the best way to identify that is to choose those that already have a modest market and make it bigger.
They're still doing it. Scouring youtube and CreateSpace looking for people who can put out several high-hit pieces, and off
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a friend who is a musician. He also does music production and recording. The bottom line is that the artist makes less than $.05 per track on a CD, almost nothing from music that is streamed from pay services and royalties. Bands that go on tour generally end up in debt because the labels arrange the tours, and charge the band for everything including the air that they breathe. The labels make the lion's share of the money, and mostly end up owning the rights to the music.
So while this will not ha
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So that's the story of how you became Space Nutter Troll! Thanks for enlightening us all.
Downloading MP3s FTW! (Score:5, Insightful)
The last two records I purchased I paid for and downloaded from the artist pretty directly. I assume they were paying the hosting service a fee.
This is the way of the future. I'm sure the artist in question got > 50% of the revenue direct into their pockets, compared to the tiny slice a record company would pay them, this is huge.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been thinking of doing that: writing some music, recording it, and offering paid downloads of zipped albums. But how would I go about making sure I don't accidentally infringe some other songwriter's copyright like Robin Thicke did?
Re: (Score:2)
The bad news: You can still be liable for subconscious copying [wikipedia.org].
The upshot: You are statistically unlikely to make enough money to raise the ire of $label_with_a_song_that_sounds_like_yours, but if you do and that song got even modest play in your region, they could come a-knockin.
The bottom line: If you're going for safety over listenability, maybe try weird chord progressions in odd time signatures. That will help
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Steeleye Span did it for decades by rocking up some out of copyright folk
You appear to agree with this post by mcgrew [slashdot.org]. But the stated purpose of copyright, according to the U.S. Constitution, is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". If copyright causes people to stick to pre-1923 works rather than creating new works out of fear of accidental infringement, it is fulfilling the exact opposite of this purpose.
but the real issue is that "accidental" infringing that makes it as far as a courtroom isn't very accidental.
Are you claiming that "My Sweet Lord" was not in fact accidental? In any case, it appears your answer is "prepare to settle out of court". In that case, how ca
Re: (Score:2)
That's right.
Re: (Score:2)
Where would one go about asking other artists? Music: Practice and Theory Stack Exchange considers "business or legal issues" to be off-topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bandcamp is the service I used. The artist I recently found and downloaded was Lily & Madeleine, following comments on First Aid Kit videos on YouTube.
So without being able to explore music online I wouldn't be able to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I actually listened to them on youtube for free and decided I liked them enough to buy. Anybody that does something worthwhile listening to will get enough money that way. And people that just pirate things will never pay for them, regardless the restrictions. You can piss off legitimate customers though that way. Several artists that I kind of liked did that to me by having the first CD I bought from then being unable to play on my PC. Turns out I never listened to them again, because I feel rip
Music discovery (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a good phrase. I've purchased perhaps a third of the music I own because I heard a song (or snippet of a song) in a video or just tripped across something I liked while surfing youtube. "This video has been muted due to an audio copyright claim by FuckMeI'mAnIdiot Publishing" would seem to be quite as self-defeating as normal folks claim.
Re: Music discovery (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://canvasproductions.net/the-prog-hour
I'll have to check that out.
Re: (Score:2)
I've literally just ordered over $100 of CD's after listening to some free samples on Pandora.. guess they don't want my business, again. They lost me for 10+ years when I didn't have any way to legally preview music that wasn't awful mass market pop.
Every time they clamp down on sharing they lose revenue and then blame the sharing.. hilarity ensues.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The publishers are stupid bean-counters that have forgotten that most illegal copying does not equal a sale, but some does and will because people had a chance to try before buying. Now making copying impossible will not get any of those that did not buy before buying now, but you lose the latter group that wanted to try first. There are now some scientific studies that confirm the effect, but it just does not fit the world-view of the bean-counters. Even some artists have forgotten that they life a
how about we go back to the old days? (Score:2)
Artists pay the radio stations play their music and pay the labels to market their albums to convince me to buy your $10 collection of songs and selling the same songs two and three times over as live versions and in greatest hits collections
Re: (Score:3)
I think you meant this:
"Labels lend money to artists to pay the labels for recording their music, then the artists pay the labels to pay the radio stations to play their music, pay the labels to market their album to convince you to buy their $10 collection of songs, and pay the labels to pay the royalty services to collect money from the radio stations (who have been paid by the artists out of the money paid to the labels to pay the radio station to play them) to pay the labels.
The artists then pay the lab
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. If you love music and hate how artists make out, Before I Get Old (The Who by Marsh) is essential reading.
Writing a custom darknet to fix this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah as I type this I'm listening to pirated music that I just started downloading due to Grooveshark getting shut down.
On the 30th they shut it down. By the 3rd of May I downloaded 250 gigabytes of pirated music and got back every song I had on my grooveshark playlist.
Now I will *never* use the internet to stream music. I keep losing my damn playlists which took hard work to properly set up. Then whatever site gets shut down or bought and I'm suddenly lost one morning unable to even get my playlists (lost many great obscure songs I loved and couldn't remember the names/bands to)
First I was an Imeem user, then that got shutdown and bought by Myspace. (Fool me once)
Then I went to grooveshark who also years later got shut down. (Fool me twice)
Now I'm just pirating like a mofo and working on streaming software (which I'll be keeping private and not sharing) to give to people close to me (friends, family, etc) which will just provide a front end to the massive collection of music I've pirated. Basically creating my own streaming service which can't be shut down if no one but my close circle knows about or has access to.
Here I thought by disabling adblock on streaming sites I was actually being a "good person". Now I regret that decision after they shut it down anyways. If they don't want me watching ads to listen to music I guess I'll just fucking pirate all of it then... They had their chance.
Now I'm using my prowess as a software developer to stream my pirated collection to everyone I know with a custom program that can't be stopped. Darknets will be built by people like me.
Anyone remember that one no-name company with source code control tools that tried suing the Linux Kernel Developers? I don't either, they prompted Linus to write Git which is all everyone uses these days..... That crappy product from that crappy company isn't at a single place I've worked. Are they out of business yet for their greed?
Re: (Score:2)
Check out Subsonic [subsonic.org].
Re: (Score:3)
I have different approach. I got Spotify Premium, so I have access to all the music I listen to. When Taylor Swift pulled her songs from the service I said to myself: "I'm not going to bother, I don't have to listen to her songs anymore!". I have same approach with Netflix, if a movie or TV series is not there, I don't watch. I don't feel entitled to listen/watch content that is outside of the services I pay for.
My approach costs less and keeps my free time free from stress. On the other hand if you do enjoy making a private streaming service for your friends and family then by all means, but try justifying your effort better.
They could do with a million more like you. Hand over your cash and consume whatever they shove down your throat no questions asked.
make my day (Score:2)
Record companies had their run (Score:5, Insightful)
Their model for distributing music has only been around a little over 1/2 a century. New technology invalidated their business model. Guess what? That's how it's always worked. They can either adapt, or they can die.
So a few bands will make less because they won't have the album sales. Most musicians have traditionally made their money by playing live, and that's what'll happen. The difference now is, streaming services will help introduce people to new music, and some of those will go to their live shows. Some of those will buy the $30 t-shirt to further support the band. You might not have as many multi-millionaire musicians, but the internet should benefit the ones who never sold enough to make a profit on an album anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but I've never really had more than 3 to 4 stations that I liked to choose from, whether that was growing up in the 80s in the midwest, or in my 30s & 40s in SF. Now, it's really easy to wonder what a particular style of music sounds like, find it on youtube or something else, and check it out. My tastes in music have broadened tremendously over the last 10 or so years, and while I don't buy every album, I've went to concerts of bands that I would have never known that I liked before the interne
It is almost as if (Score:2)
Re:It is almost as if (Score:4, Insightful)
If more people pirate music, they can blame bad sales (where bad is defined as "We sold X and we think we should have sold 10,000*X") on piracy. Then, they can use the piracy claim to get some music industry-friendly, consumer-unfriendly laws passed. (E.g. "You need to pay a $5 a month piracy tax whether or not you pirate." or "Three copyright infringement accusations and your ISP must disconnect you.") Best case: An executive blames piracy on a bad album sale instead of on the fact that he signed a band with no talent.
Even if piracy went away tomorrow, I'm convinced that the music industry would still claim that piracy was increasing more and more.
Lets not forget other group behind this.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But Apple offers their own free, ad-supported music streaming service, iTunes Radio. According to a quick Google search, it's more popular than Spotify -- which I find hard to believe, but several sites make the claim.
It's probably de facto installed with iTunes and they count every installation rather than use. Probably bundled with safari and quicktime too.
Broadcast radio FTW (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I love FM radio. 85% commercials with the occasional song thrown in. There's a reason I haven't listened to that shit in years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damned if you do... (Score:2)
Only a fool would buy music (Score:5, Interesting)
Suddenly, I own a focking paid for library of signature party mix.
Best con of all? I'm not even sure how they got me, so I think they can do it again.
Try a carrot (Score:2)
Offer tiers of service ranging from free (ad-supported) to dirt cheap (fewer/no ads) to cheap (mobile/offline support) to still reasonable (higher quality, international content, user uploads).
Allow artists to choose whether to make their content available at the 'free' tier.
Write the contracts such that paying users will always be able to access music they've added to their library, even if the artist/label throws a fit and leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
try
https://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com]
i personally love it, and a few years ago bought a life time membership (even after buying several albums from them).
Only thing i wish was that their phone app was better (and had random across favorites) and that they had a desktop player like PandoraOne so that i don't have to leave a web browser always running to listen (and the player would work with media keys for play/pause/stop)
Re: (Score:2)
The MPAA and RIAA have no visible interest in changing.
Of course they do. As long and the change gets them more money for less work.
shoot themselves in the foot (Score:2)
Good. The music industry is like a puss filled infection on the ass of humanity that needs to be lanced and drained so something better can take its place.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like this? [thesun.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
In the immortal words of George Lucas (Score:2)
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
It's too bad Lucas wasn't a better filmmaker/storyteller.
But geese that lay golden eggs (Score:3)
How dumb can you be and still breathe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, real smart. "Oh no, people are discovering new music for free, let's stop them."
Users: "Oh, my free streaming service went away. You suck! How do I get music now?" Googles for 'free music download', or asks friends, eventually ends up at the Pirate Bay or something. "Cool, all this stuff is free and I can even keep it without some service disappearing from underneath me!"
When will these people realise that they cannot support their old business model because technology has made it redundant. The longer they try and abuse their customer base, the more of their customer base they are going to lose. Eventually technology will steamroll them into obsolescence, but it's mainly because they never thought to give people want they want soon enough (if, back in the Napster days, they had provided an easy way to purchase any MP3 online, DRM-free, for a low price, everyone would have done that instead of finding more and more ways to avoid paying at all. Now, it's too late and the market has left them behind).
It's the horse-feed sellers complaining that everyone is using jet aircraft - and then trying to force them not to by suing? I have for quite some time been saying that they need to wake up and adapt to the technology, but I honestly think it's too late for that. The recording agencies have dug their own grave by being so backward. P2P tech and other options have left them irrelevant, and their trying to beat people up with legislation changes just makes the rational people who don't mind paying a fair price angry.
Sorry, but if I'm looking for new music, I'm still going to look at places like YouTube. If the big businesses are too stupid to put their stuff there, then it won't be their content I'm seeing - it'll be indy artists, and I'm more than happy to pay an artist directly if I think their stuff is good enough, and if I can get it without DRM (or other vendor lock-in like iTunes).
Of course, most of the big-label stuff is rubbish anyway, so I guess I'm not losing much. Perhaps YouTube will stop suggesting crap pop songs now - yay!
who needs the big labels (Score:2)
Dinosaurs (Score:2)
Seriously, there are plenty of ways a band can publish their music now with no need for a distribution contract. Here's a few off the top of my head:
Bandcamp :)
ReverbNation
cdbaby
Magnatune (Haven't checked if they still exist - they made a big deal about not being "evil")
Google Play
iTunes
Hell there's YouTube if you're desperate
Meh (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the labels only worry about the artists when their own interests aren't involved. You're right about the music discovery, but from a label's perspective discovery is only worthwhile if it leads to a sale. If people just listen to youtube whenever they have the itch to hear a song witho
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see any issue where artists publish their recordings on streaming services and only earn a token income, while music enthusiasts (DJs and critics etc) vie for attention by recommending and publishing playlists, to which consumers listen then pay to see their fav
They've been doing that... (Score:2)
... the foot-shooting, that is, for what? Ten years? For as long as i can remember on /. , that's what we always say. Yet they are still here...
Anyone got any hard data to determine whether they are gaining or losing from all the foot-shooting?
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Lose" money? I don't think so. They get money from being on Spotify.
The question is, do they get as much as they could/should?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Going to play Devil's Advocate here for a minute:
Arguably, they *are* getting paid what they should, because market forces have shown this is the amount that listeners are willing to pay for a streaming service, and they don't seem too worried about the lack of restitution their artists are receiving from it.
Spotify did a great deal to slow down piracy rates of music, simply because of the ease of access. (Think Valve's "piracy is a customer service problem.") The service is finally at a price point (free
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is part of why I personally advocate more government grants for the arts, not less. When an artist lives or dies by sales alone, you're going to have the brilliant minds of our generation ignored
Ok, but how do you decide who's a "brilliant mind" who needs a grant, and who's a talentless hack who just wants free money for doing nothing but churning out some worthless drivel? I could press some keys on an electronic keyboard and call it "music" too; give me a grant so I don't need to work for a living!
If anything, this is another good case for a Basic Income.
Re: (Score:3)
If anything, this is another good case for a Basic Income.
A basic income is flawed. The concept of money for nothing, song jokes aside, rots people. If nothing at all is required from people many give back exactly nothing. I know too many people who live off no strings attached money, be it disability / child support (yes there's no requirement it be actually spent on the children) / alimony. They are a complete waste. They don't volunteer, don't produce anything. Nothing of any value society at large. Instead they watch tv, play video games, or go out to e
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then, what do you propose people do for work in the near future when all the easy jobs are automated? Let them starve? There simply won't be enough jobs to go around.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Of course they deserve to be able to live off their work.
Do they? Any time prior to a few centuries ago, a musician only made money via patronage and live performances, and maybe selling some sheet music or other products on the side. And sure, I've got no beef with anyone claiming a (decent) musician should be able to make a living off their work in that fashion. Today though we've created the strange idea that an musician should be able to record their music once, and get paid for it repeatedly over the course of the next century. This is very much a historical anomaly. Even authors and other creators of much more involved and substantial works were historically only granted a decade or two of profits from their one-time labor. This is an aspect of our economic system that's still very much evolving.
There is much to be said for patronage or government grants, done well. Grants especially though have the issue of who decides which artists receive them? It's easy to abuse the position of spending other people's money to support something as nebulous and subjective as art. Especially considering the elitist "echo chamber" effect that often surrounds such things. Personally I'd consider the world to be better off without much of modern art, by what right are my taxes spent on such things?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's easy to abuse the position of spending other people's money to support something as nebulous and subjective as art
No it isn't. It's extremely hard, and is fought for every time these things come up for review.
Personally I'd consider the world to be better off without much of modern art, by what right are my taxes spent on such things?
They used to say the same thing about Matisse. Or they would have, if grants had been around then. In any case, the amount of money spent on the arts is microscopic when compared against any other public spending. It's pretty cheap, and it's good for everybody.
Today though we've created the strange idea that an musician should be able to record their music once, and get paid for it repeatedly over the course of the next century
I have often thought the same thing. But if the company I worked for was not able to charge, over and over again, for the software that I write once, then t
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, sort of like has been done by those kickstarter campaigns that commissioned public domain performances of various pieces of famous classical music. I could also see going with a sort of intermediate state - free redistribution rights, but no derivative or perhaps just no commercial derivative works, such that an artist need not immediately see their work in ads pimping the latest bit of degrading consumerism.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly it's not a simple question. But yeah, if I put in a year worth of labor on a software product, am I really entitled to a lifetime of income there either? There's also a matter of degree - how many man-hours go into producing your average $1 music track, versus your average $1 smartphone app?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, why not? Your employer will use that software to generate revenue (or reduce expenses) for a long time (many years). Why shouldn't the person who created the software get a cut while the software is making money? If the naive programmer takes a small fixed salary, the boss ends up with all the profit for someone else's work. All he paid for was $100,000 for increasing revenue by $2M.
Re: (Score:2)
And if I make a quality hammer, a carpenter can use it to make a profit for decades. What's the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
The model is different. Suppose software is part of a machine that manufactures hammers (assuming hammer manufacturing is 100% automated which it is not currently). Due to software automation, the hammer manufacturer can cut staff resulting in millions saved in salary payments. The hammer manufacturer sells 1 million hammers/year at $10 profit per hammer. Do you think he owes the programmer who wrote the software for the machine only $100k one time payment, instead of 10% of his profit which is $1 million/y
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they deserve to be able to live off their work.
A few years ago I went to an Elton John concert. In Costa Rica, where I was living at the time. Now Sir Elton is no young puppy. Neither am I. Still I was impressed that this rather elderly entertainer was banging out these tunes, visibly sweating and working his ass off. The tickets weren't that expensive either, so he can't have been raking in a lot of money from that concert. But he worked and worked. And of course we applauded and cheered as he played exactly what we wanted to hear. Later on, I logged on and I found out that this little central america tour was just a break from his real job which was playing Vegas every weekend that year. So here is Elton John at 60 plus years old working his fucking ass off weekdays AND weekends. Yeah, Sir Elton has his own jet, and no doubt several sets of equipment and all the people he could need to keep his show on the road in many places at once. But he is working, working, working, and I don't care how many millions he makes he has earned every single penny.
Now the stupid arsehole who thinks the world owes him a zillion dollars for that one crappy song he wrote though, no, I think THAT guy doesn't "deserve" to be able to live off his "work" at all. Writing a tune is not WORK. You wrote a song. Congrats! You think you're special? I wrote a song. My daughter painted a painting. My wife wrote a poem. Big fucking deal. Now get to fucking WORK if you actually want to live off your song! Then maybe the regular people, those of us who actually DO work every day, will respect this "artist". Copyright should never be entitlement.
Re: (Score:2)
I never met him, but I'll bet Sir E. and Bernie worked hours and days and weeks just to get one of their songs hitworthy.
Yes, with a computer and something like GarageBand, recording a passable song is doable. But writing a GREAT song is still really fucking hard and time-consuming as it always has been.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elton John wrote one of his biggest hits 'Your Song' in 20 minutes. Even if it takes a whole month, it's still not worth 70 years of royalties.
If it is good enough that people are willing to pay for it 70 years after it is written, then surely it deserves the royalties.
If I build a house and rent it out, surely I deserve the rent payment as long as the house is in a good enough state where people want to rent it?
Remember that all these artists only get royalties when people actually listen to their music.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> The difference is that there is a rather large demand for many of Elton John's songs
This whole thread appears to flatly contradict that idea.
That is why the music industry is whining.
They're whining that they can't milk the cash cow after 40 years.
I suspect that everyone that has any interest in buying a copy of something representing Elton's work has already done so and did rather a long time ago. That particular well is tapped out and they they can't "frack" it with another change in formats.
Many peo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(because of jews again)
That's your argument? Come back when you want to be sensible, son.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends on how you calculate (as always). Do they get a lot of money from Spotify? No. Would they have gotten more money somewhere if not on Spotify? I don't know, you would have to assume that people would spend money getting the music from whatever non-Spotify source the artist opts for.
There is very little direct revenue in recorded music nowadays. Successful artists make a large portion of their money from live shows. But without popular and wide spread recordings of the music, will anyone show up to th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
. But without popular and wide spread recordings of the music, will anyone show up to the concerts?
There is still popular and wide spread recordings via radio and streaming. The death of the studio distribution monopoly doesn't change this.
Re: (Score:2)
it's advertising to get people to pay the ridiculous live concert prices
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also pirates support children terrorist's
Is that children who terrorise or people or terrorise children.
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates OOOooo
Look. Listen. If a pirate wanted to pay for it he wouldn't steal it in the first place. Don't fall for this mouthy group's agenda. It's like try to say I should let shoplifters get away with it since they are my best customers. Yeah, right. It keeps me buying ammo is what it does.
Get it through your fucking skull that copying is not the same as stealing. If it was then telling you you're an idiot is the same as shooting you in the face. Especially as that seems to be your preferred method.