Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Digital Media Music The Almighty Buck Youtube Entertainment Apple

Music Industry Sees First Big Gains in 20 Years Thanks to Streaming Services 134

Thanks to subscription-based music streaming services, the music industry is seeing a significant growth for the first time in nearly two decades. According to International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), an industry trade group, the global music sales rose 3.2 percent last year, also surpassing those from all physical music formats. The important tipping point in 2015 saw digital services account for 45 percent of recorded music revenue. According to the report, Spotify, Apple Music and other music streaming services brought in about $2.9 billion in revenue. The findings are in line with Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)'s estimates from last month. IFPI also noted that music on free streaming services such as YouTube has also grown quickly, creating a panic among record labels and artists alike. Billboard elaborates that aspect: In criticizing ad-supported services, the IFPI joined a growing list of trade bodies and music company executives to criticize YouTube for paying royalties that are relatively low when considering its popularity. The report argues YouTube distorts its negotiations with labels by hiding behind the DMCA "safe harbor" rules that limit the liability of online intermediaries from the infringing actions of their users. The result, the IFPI argues, is YouTube can use an "act first, negotiate later" that "fundamentally distort[s] the negotiation process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Industry Sees First Big Gains in 20 Years Thanks to Streaming Services

Comments Filter:
  • by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:08AM (#51931511) Homepage

    But if youtube send us those damn ads we have to sit through until "skip" comes up, or worse the ones where you have to wait for the whole thing to finish, the least they can do is cough up the money to the labels or individual musicians if self published.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Which they do since those artists monetize their own videos.

    • by adolf ( 21054 )

      Youtube has ads?

      Since when?

      • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        Since you were holidaying on Pluto it would seem.

        • by adolf ( 21054 )

          Naah. I jest.

          But I have been blocking ads since long before Youtube had them -- ffs, I've been blocking ads for at least 20 years. I was shocked when one day I fired up a new PC that wasn't fully configured and found an ad on Youtube, and that was (apparently) years after they started.

          Nowadays I don't think about it much, except when I get a new portable device. Youtube ads are already blocked at my router, including on Chromecast (which involves sandboxing 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4, but I don't miss Google's

  • by Rinikusu ( 28164 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:10AM (#51931521)

    Right now, the industry is being subsidized heavily by VC money.

  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:11AM (#51931531)
    Too bad the music industry fought like hell to stop the very thing that would eventually make them rich, again.
    • by careysub ( 976506 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:30AM (#51931643)

      There has been a long tradition of the music industry (even before it was the recording industry) of fighting any technological innovation since it would disrupt their current business model. Industries that make money by controlling access to other people's creativity are like that.

      The music industry convinced itself that its CD era peak revenue period from 1994 to 2000 [businessinsider.com], when a few generations of music lovers were rebuying their entire music collection in the superior CD format, was their "natural revenue level" and any decrease from the anomalous high point was due to "Piracy! Piracy I say!" rather than the inevitable technology-driven business cycle, seen several times before. They then spent the next decade feverishly fighting digital music, the upcoming format that would replace CDs, rather than working on consumer-friendly ways to exploit it, driving their own revenues into a ditch by pissing off the next generation of music consumers with lawsuits and DRM.

      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        The fight has been going on longer than CDs. It has been going on longer than the Music Cassette. It has been going on at least since sheeted music was sold.

        And piracy has been going on as long as there has been some sort of restriction. This goes back to very early in the German (Bavarian) beer brewing industry in 1200 or so.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I used Napster back before they were sued. Downloading music sucked up so much of my time in finding songs I wanted, downloading them, then checking it was actually music I had downloaded, was the song I wanted, was the full length version (and not some hacked-up version missing the last third of the song), and wasn't a live version that I told my wife flat-out that I wish the music labels would just open up their catalogs online and let me buy the songs I want for one dollar. I figured that even though a c

      • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

        A friend of mine spent a semester in Japan and came back with a "Best Techno of '93" compilation from some club (Juliana's Tokyo) he'd been to. Double album, so maybe 50 songs total. I had a copy on tape and listened to it daily, and then lost it during the move after college in '97. I would have gladly bought a copy, but it wasn't for sale. Since it was a compilation I could occasionally find one or two items if the artist had their own album, but many songs weren't available at all. Eventually I turned to

    • To bad that no matter how much the music industry profits, the artists are still getting screwed.

      Ah my, but what was old is new again.

    • by gsslay ( 807818 )

      Yeah. Look at the millions that Napster fed back to the artists who performed the music.

      Wait... they didn't do that, did they? They took the music and gave back precisely nothing.

      It's the perfect business model. Let someone else bear the production costs. Visionary indeed.

      • by spire3661 ( 1038968 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @11:32AM (#51932551) Journal
        Napster broke the monopoly on music. Up until then you had to buy a whole album for one song. Napster was the market correcting itself. The industry brought it upon themselves. If a kid in a dorm can obsolete your business model in a 3-day coding spree, your business is not viable.
      • by dave420 ( 699308 )

        You don't seem to understand. Artists make very little from album sales. Sometimes literally nothing. Artists rely on live shows, merchandise, and maybe licensing their name/image to be used on products. Everything else goes through the record company, which takes the lion's share.

        So yes, Napster did give a lot back. It gave great exposure to many artists, who then found large audiences to buy tickets to their shows and merchandise.

  • A suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:12AM (#51931539)
    Now they might try putting out music that didn't suck. Seriously, today's twerk-a-licious and computer generated, autotuned stuff makes 1960's bubblegum music and disco look good.
    • Now they might try putting out music that didn't suck. Seriously, today's twerk-a-licious and computer generated, autotuned stuff makes 1960's bubblegum music and disco look good.

      Nah that would require some effort, better to just reuse the same old crap that just keeps on selling. There's always a fresh new batch of thirteen year olds every year.

      • Now they might try putting out music that didn't suck. Seriously, today's twerk-a-licious and computer generated, autotuned stuff makes 1960's bubblegum music and disco look good.

        Nah that would require some effort, better to just reuse the same old crap that just keeps on selling. There's always a fresh new batch of thirteen year olds every year.

        Yet one of these days, someone will come along and catch everyone with their pants down (esp Miley Cyrus) and change things - I hope.

        There was a similar tine in the early 1960's when music was in a real doldrum.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There is plenty of good music being made, but that's not what sells. Association with some other media is where the money is, e.g. being used in a movie or being fronted by a celebrity.

      As usual, the industry is trying its best to commit suicide. YouTube is popular because the main consumers of their crap are kids with no money who in years past would have turned on the radio. Spotify is popular because their parents buy them a subscription to keep them quiet, just like they used to pay for MTV.

      There just is

      • Re:A suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:59AM (#51931855) Homepage Journal

        The amount of double-think is astounding. They're selling precisely what brings in the most money, continuously, in a constant and reliable model, and you're criticizing the model and saying it's going to destroy them.

        • Re:A suggestion (Score:4, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@NosPam.world3.net> on Monday April 18, 2016 @10:34AM (#51932121) Homepage Journal

          You didn't understand what I wrote, did you?

          Read it again. Note how I'm talking about their efforts to get YouTube to pay more. If they force YouTube to pay more, YouTube won't be able to offer the music for free (ad supported). Web ads don't bring in much money. Certainly not as much as the subscriptions.

          Note how I also mentioned that association with other media is what sells these days. So trying to shut down that association but being asshats with copyright and preventing use on the most popular platforms is stupid. We have already seen just how stupid they can be by splitting their catalogues between multiple streaming services. They are still trying hard to drive people away and towards piracy or ad-supported platforms where they get less money.

          I'll even give you an example. A few years back my toilet was blocked. The usual methods didn't work so I googled. A YouTube video came up suggesting hot water and dishwasher tablets. Works a treat. The video used Queen's "We are the Champions" to celebrate the unblocking, and it reminded me of the song so I went and listened to it and the label and Queen got paid. Since then the video has been taken down on copyright grounds, so if I were searching today they would get nothing.

          Just like MTV, just like Napster, just like iTunes and Amazon, just like Spotify they are trying their best to fail. The only reason they are making more money now is that they are at the upward part of the cycle where they come to accept the new technology, before the next thing comes along and they fight it for a few years before giving in and accepting a new revenue stream.

          • You said there's plenty of good music that's made, but it's not what sells; and then claimed their stuff-that-sells isn't selling and that not selling will destroy them. You actually made a market argument where they're providing the most-profitable product and that's going to destroy their profits.

      • There is plenty of good music being made, but that's not what sells.

        I kind of like that the revenues from recording and sales are dropping while the revenue from live performance is increasing. Fans are turning out the see the truly good performers. If you are a studio band, and cut good music, that is fine, but it doesn't warrant the huge rewards we've seen in the past, IMHO.

        There are some tremendous talents out there touring, I think more than there were 10 to 15 years ago. You just have to search them out.

      • As usual, the industry is trying its best to commit suicide. YouTube is popular because the main consumers of their crap are kids with no money who in years past would have turned on the radio.

        Funny you should mention Youtube. I go there to ocatch some old stuff I remember, and some stuff I didn't hear before.

        What is interesting is that there is enough older music that is fresh to me because I didn't hear them when it came out.

        Some hidden gems: Album Pop goes the world by Men without Hats. Everyone was so used to their "Safety Dance" song, they got typecast. PGTW is a concept album, with some treats on it like Ian Anderson doing flute on one of the songs.

        "In the 21st Century", a song done

        • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

          I've done this a little. I've also enjoyed seeing the music videos to old favorites where, either it's been so long I'd completely forgotten them, or maybe the particular song never got much airplay, and I'd never seen it at all. It adds something new to an old favorite.

    • Now they might try putting out music that didn't suck. Seriously, today's twerk-a-licious and computer generated, autotuned stuff makes 1960's bubblegum music and disco look good.

      For them to want to do this, their listeners would have to "encourage" them to do so.

      Based upon the popularity of shows such as American Idol, this won't happen any time soon. :-(

      • And yet, given the popularity of porn, you'd expect people to be fornicating in the streets.

      • by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

        For them to want to do this, their listeners would have to "encourage" them to do so.

        Based upon the popularity of shows such as American Idol, this won't happen any time soon. :-(

        Which, less than two weeks ago, finally ended after 15 seasons. So maybe now it will happen....hahahaha.

      • Now they might try putting out music that didn't suck. Seriously, today's twerk-a-licious and computer generated, autotuned stuff makes 1960's bubblegum music and disco look good.

        For them to want to do this, their listeners would have to "encourage" them to do so.

        Based upon the popularity of shows such as American Idol, this won't happen any time soon. :-(

        I have to have something listenable to encourage me to listen.

    • And they should stop destroying music with volume compression (i.e. loudness war). A lot of music lacks dynamic range, it's like they expect people to only listen to music while driving or in noisy environments.

    • autotuned stuff makes 1960's bubblegum music and disco look good.

      I'm a sentient wad of chewing-rubber, you insensitive clod

    • That's what just slays me about listening to old music on Youtube. Singers like the Andrews Sisters [youtu.be], or the Statler Brothers [youtube.com], or even someone like Willie Nelson [youtube.com], (here seen in his extremely rare "young" look) damn all of them sang every note without autotune, or lip-synching, or any external help whatsoever. It's baffling, how could they have done that? I suppose it's just part of the culture that the West has lost, along with young people being able to be exposed to opinions that disagree with their own
      • That's what just slays me about listening to old music on Youtube. Singers like the Andrews Sisters [youtu.be]

        Talk about coincidences! You might have seen this, but I'll share in case you didn't https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        The apple tree song, with Shemp from the Three Stooges is in it as well.

        But yeah, the inabilty to hold a note is no impediment if a person is "hot" enough today. The odd thing is that autotune has the same effect on me as running fingernails on a blackboard does. We're supposed to like it?

        • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

          But yeah, the inabilty to hold a note is no impediment if a person is "hot" enough today.

          I can't believe I actually miss Randy Jackson, judge on American Idol, and his "sorry, that was a little pitchy, dawg."

          • But yeah, the inabilty to hold a note is no impediment if a person is "hot" enough today.

            I can't believe I actually miss Randy Jackson, judge on American Idol, and his "sorry, that was a little pitchy, dawg."

            Confession time! I've watch a lot of auditions for the Idol and Got talent shows, and enjoyed him as well as most of th others. Except Posh Spice, she just didn't bring much to the table.

            • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

              But yeah, the inabilty to hold a note is no impediment if a person is "hot" enough today.

              I can't believe I actually miss Randy Jackson, judge on American Idol, and his "sorry, that was a little pitchy, dawg."

              Confession time! I've watch a lot of auditions for the Idol and Got talent shows, and enjoyed him as well as most of th others. Except Posh Spice, she just didn't bring much to the table.

              I like music, I've even liked American Idol and watched something like 10 seasons, and, especially since Simon Cowell left, I feel like Jackson brought very little to the table. Especially during the season when he was a mentor; that was an unmitigated disaster because he mentored those kids SO badly, and the judges were so bad that they couldn't give good critiques either, so when a bad singer got voted off by the public, they'd be blindsided by it and not understand why it happened. "America got it wrong!

        • by dave420 ( 699308 )

          You are making sweeping generalisations of an entire generation of artists. Think back to any time in history - was there a time when all musicians produced similar music? When they all thought alike? When they all shared a precise level of skill? Of course not. Your argument makes no sense, and appears precisely like the argument of someone feeling incredibly lost in a once-familiar territory. The problem might not be with the musicians (who apparently all started to become identical), but with you.

          O

          • You are making sweeping generalisations of an entire generation of artists. Think back to any time in history - was there a time when all musicians produced similar music? When they all thought alike? When they all shared a precise level of skill? Of course not.

            Okay, speaking of sweeping generalizations, it is pretty important to understand that I am talking about Pop music, not every single artist out there today.

            Your argument makes no sense,

            That's because you are making up an argument for me to have, then attacking it.

            and appears precisely like the argument of someone feeling incredibly lost in a once-familiar territory. The problem might not be with the musicians (who apparently all started to become identical), but with you.

            Older people have been complaining about the music of younger generations since music began.

            You managed to steer the argument to the old geezer strawman. If you read my other posts, you'll see that I listen to a lot of different music. Many forms of music that are made today. You can catch me listening to folk music progressive rock, metal music, modern and old classic some hip-hop, and even industrial, - But that isn't even a point, because it just shows my taste in music is relatively wide, and there is no accounting for that.

            But I do detest the modern version of pop music. Endless hooks, like pouring the entire container of salt on your dinner, Autotune - jeezuz, can't they find a person who can hold a tune. In the end, it's pretty people singing computer derived hooks sounding like they are singint through a kazoo. And it's so repetitive that all the songs sound incredibly similar.

            And if some people like it - fine. My original point in this anyhow was that I have a lot of money to spend. But I won't buy shit and call it filet mignon. Anyhow I hope I addressed where you tried to lead this argument. Make up more shit I was supposed to have said so you a knock it down, and I'll just let you speak to the hand and ignore you.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      What is wrong with decent Polka music instead of what them hippies make and call music?

      Now get of my lawn.

      The thing that has changed is not the quality of the music. There was always rubbish. Even the classics where called rubbish.Abba? Pure shite! Rolling stons? Noise. Hendrickx? Raping the national anthem.

      What has changed is the amount of music that people have or own. My grandparents had about 20 records.My parents have about 80 and they were the people with a LOT of music in their time. I own about 200

      • What is wrong with decent Polka music

        Know why most Mexican music sucks so incredibly a badly? It's because they were largely influenced not by Spanish musicians but by goddamned German missionaries who taught 'em how to brew decent beer and play fucking horrible music.

    • Re:A suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Megol ( 3135005 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @10:10AM (#51931935)

      LOL! Try to realize that people once complained about Mozart creating crap music and then realize whatever kind of music _you_ prefer actually is still created! In essence you think you are the arbitrator of what suck and not, just as every generation have thought the "new" kind of music worse/more immoral than the thing they grew up with.

      • Yeah, that old corollary to cultural relativity... thing is, it no longer applies; people are getting dumber, the music is becoming simpler and far more repetitive, the lyrics less and less intelligent... just another fucking attribute of the current Decline of Western Civilization.
        • Yeah, that old corollary to cultural relativity... thing is, it no longer applies; people are getting dumber,

          Except they're not.

          http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi... [bbc.com]

          • Yeah, that old corollary to cultural relativity... thing is, it no longer applies; people are getting dumber,

            Except they're not.

            http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi... [bbc.com]

            They may not be, but today's pop music is not geared toward emotionally mature adults. It's geard toward children. Whether the overly sexualized performances are remotely good to have pre-pubescent children watch is in question though.

            By the way - is Twerking supposed to be sexy? It always reminded me of a woman trying to shake off a bit of crap that's stuck to her ass cheeks.

            • by dave420 ( 699308 )

              Massive generalisations ahoy, granddad!

              • Massive generalisations ahoy, granddad!

                Instead of gratuitous insults, how about some discussion? Prove your points.

                Or have you demeonstrated the alpha and omega of your abilities?

      • LOL! Try to realize that people once complained about Mozart creating crap music and then realize whatever kind of music _you_ prefer actually is still created! In essence you think you are the arbitrator of what suck and not, just as every generation have thought the "new" kind of music worse/more immoral than the thing they grew up with.

        The idea that Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus might be be revered as an equal to Mozart is pretty amusing. While Mozart is not may favorite classical composer - I'm more likely to be caught listening to JS Bach or Rameau or Glass - there is a immense difference between any of the classical Masters and today's pop music. The Masters understood and played music. They were not chosen because of their physical looks. Their music was composed by humans and not a selection of "hooks" assembled by a computer. And the

        • And they didn't have to worry about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?... turning into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?...

          I always thought the squeaky scratchy voice thing was intentional when a female singer did it. It goes with the jet black dyed hair and the skin tight black leather pants. She thought she was being edgy, or something. Maybe I give her too much credit. The audience evidently didn't agree with me.

      • ...just as every generation have thought the "new" kind of music worse/more immoral than the thing they grew up with.

        Hey, I'm GenX and I happen to like dubstep. Sure a higher percentage of it is crap, but that's because a higher percentage of everything is crap these days. There is no editorial control of any medium anymore. The upside of that is someone other than the anointed few can reach the masses. The fairly significant downside is that any old crap gets published.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      What's funny is that it makes you realize how much actual *talent* was involved in making bubblegum tracks.

      I'm sure the bubblegum acts used a lot of studio musicians and certainly as much production as was possible in the 1970s but it sure seems like it involved a lot more musical talent. Even if they bands themselves weren't writing the songs, they at least seemed able to play instruments and make music.

      My son subjects me to awful contemporary pop music and it's surprising how much of it appears to lack m

      • My son subjects me to awful contemporary pop music and it's surprising how much of it appears to lack much in the way of instrumentation. Quite often it's *just* a simple beat with repetitive rapping type lyrics, which often seems more like yelling than singing.

        Yes, actual real professional musicians. There was an exceptionally interesting bit about modern Pop music on Studio 360 a few weeks ago. http://www.wnyc.org/story/hit-... [wnyc.org]

        Present day pop music is indeed a factory. Computer generated, and people "pick" the songs they will have hits of. Zero creativity, and one funny part is how two separate "artists" picked the same music to do. As well as today's op music, with it's multitude of hooks with no music meat in between, you have music made for ADHD people.

    • by dave420 ( 699308 )

      You should look for music you like. If you expect your music to be spoon-fed to you, don't be surprised when it's anodyne slop. There are amazing artists out there who are releasing music not at all like you describe.

      • You should look for music you like. If you expect your music to be spoon-fed to you, don't be surprised when it's anodyne slop. There are amazing artists out there who are releasing music not at all like you describe.

        Umm, I do look for music I like, dunno where you got the idea I didn't.

        Perhaps my having an opinion is what bothers you?

  • I seem to recall somewhere that the RIAA said that the internet was killing music...
    • by Anonymous Coward

      (Posting A/C because of some awesome earlier comments that needed to be modded up)

      People (and organizations) need to be given the grace and space to step away from a position that they previously held. Microsoft famously called Linux (specifically the GPL) a cancer; today I can run Ubuntu on Windows 10 with Linux for Windows Services. At the time, the RIAA was afraid of the Internet. Times (and facts) change; and their previous position isn't valid anymore (let's ignore the fact that it may not have ever

  • So, the music industry, which until now absolutely loved the DMCA because they could hide behind the "good-faith" clause, is now upset that someone else is doing the same thing? Go cry me a river, then look up "Law of unintended consequences."
  • by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @09:21AM (#51931595) Journal

    The artists who create the material. Like most people who have to actually work for a living, they are too submissive in negotiations, especially now that self publishing is comparatively trivial to past times when physical media was required.

    • 30 some years ago most people only listened to the radio and never bought albums. music streaming is the same thing. except for a few decades, most artists have made money by touring and playing live. i don't get this infatuation with the idea that some people should release a work of art and then be able to sit home and collect money off it.
      • It's a seller's market.

        • by Anonymous Coward
          No, It's a RIAA market. The artists don't get jack shit from streaming services or CD sales. The only time an artist makes anything is from concerts. My son has been in several bands, several music CDs, opened for top bands, award winning music videos, etc. The only money was touring the country doing concerts, and that barely covered expenses. They haven't seen a cent from CD sales, because after the RIAA and retail outlet took their share, nothing was left. They do it for the passion of the music they mak
      • News to me. 30 yrs ago I went to the record store every chance I could because I didn't want to wait for my favorite stuff to be on the radio. Had a decent collection at one time.

      • by invid ( 163714 )
        30 years ago people were buying cassettes, not albums, and while lots of people were making mix tapes and passing them around, we still bought some of our cassettes from the actual music industry. If you liked a band the radio would only play one or two of the biggest hits from their album, you had to buy the cassette if you wanted to hear the rest.
        • kids bought the music. most adults i knew had old collections from their youth and hadn't bought anything for a long time while their kids were buying the music
        • What?
        • 30 years ago people were buying cassettes, not albums

          If only they'd come out with the in-dash record player...

          • by tsqr ( 808554 )

            If only they'd come out with the in-dash record player...

            Not sure whether you're serious, but Chrysler [uaw-chrysler.com] offered a record player as an option in their cars from 1956 to 1961. The last model had a 12-platter changer.

  • by kbg ( 241421 )

    The funny thing is that they could have been making the same profits for the last 20 years if they had just stopped fighting the Internet and started streaming services and Internet downloads. Just shows how stupid these morons really are. Even I knew 20 years ago that trying to fight online music was totally futile and the only solution was to embrace it.

  • I was going to post a quip along the lines of now they found some more profitability how are they going to rape it such extremes it dies a slow agonising death that they can blame on piracy but yeah, try and squeeze youtube out of everypenny, yep that'll do it.
  • "Greedy fuckers in music industry grudgingly admit that maybe the sky not falling as predicted; predict that sky will fall due to 'that darn Youtube needs to pay us more' despite $billions in music industry growth."

    Does that about sum it up?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Music Industry/Movie Industry/Entertainment Industry in a nutshell:

    Announces to the world: RECORD PROFITS! SALES ARE UP! :D

    Tells the government: WE ARE LOSING BILLIONS TO PIRACY. WE ARE GOING BANKRUPT AND DYING HERE. HALP. D:

  • by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @10:03AM (#51931877)

    So streaming has caught on and people are liking it. It's making money. That means it's now the perfect time to start balkanizing the industry with exclusives to specific services, raise prices, and strangle it before it gets any bigger.

    I mean, if the music industry is doing well, they won't be able to bitch and moan and lobby gov't to impose more and more draconic legislation to combat piracy.

  • Divide and conquer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Second_Derivative ( 257815 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @10:15AM (#51931977)

    Now they'll make sure that their catalogs are spread evenly across five or six different streaming services and keep them all fighting against each other. They don't want a unified front of streaming providers pushing back and demanding a bigger slice of the pie.

    The media industry learned its lesson back when Steve Jobs dunked on them with the negotiations for the iTunes Music Store. The fragmentation happened to Netflix, it will happen to Spotify and co.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Our civilisation will not collapse if RIAA dissapears

  • Two questions: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Monday April 18, 2016 @10:38AM (#51932145) Journal
    1. Are the artists actually being compensated properly now?
    2. Assuming the answer to #1 is 'yes', is the music industry going to stop whining now?
  • At the party I said "I work for the "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry". She said "You work in the porn industry?" I said, "No, the Phono industry."
  • So the music industry is making a ton of money on streamed content, after all. Those artists who are objecting to getting a billionth of a cent on each streamed play should direct their ire at the nonproducing greedy hog middlemen, not at streaming technology.

  • I remember when the music industry went all berserk on Napster with the goal to kill once and for all any technology usable for streaming and sharing files on line. Some eventually came to their senses and saw this as an opportunity...interestingly, it was tech giants like Apple and Google, not the record companies.

There's nothing worse for your business than extra Santa Clauses smoking in the men's room. -- W. Bossert

Working...