The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
This is why the new model makes sense.
Old 11th February 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

This is why the new model makes sense.

Spotify's Daniel Ek Talks Royalties, Social and the Future.
Old 11th February 2012
  #2
Yeah, right - The "new model". There's only one problem - the "new model" doesn't pay.


That's why many major artists won't license Spotify and entire labels - and one distribution company representing a whole roster of indie labels - pulled their catalogs from Spotify.

EK touts the $200 million figure as if it's something to be proud of but what it comes down to is a ridiculously tiny figure per play.



$0.00029 per play to the artist. Over 4 million plays/month to make minimum wage. It's laughable.

The "new model" = put your music on Spotify and get a job tending bar.

It's a great thing - for Spotify.
Old 11th February 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Yeah, right - The "new model". There's only one problem - the "new model" doesn't pay.

It's laughable.

The "new model" = put your music on Spotify and get a job tending bar.

It's a great thing - for Spotify.
But for people who have other things on their minds occasionally than money, and how much of it they can't seem to find, it's not too bad, eh?

You know, that's a big problem with the greed is good paradigm. It really does make it difficult for only marginally greedy, as they are not voracious enough to eat other dogs on the way up.
Old 12th February 2012
  #4
When you're trying to run a viable business you do have to pay attention to money.

That's what all the bushwa about a "new model" claims to be about - how to make a business out of music in the so-called "new paradigm", which isn't anything but the "old paradigm" with the addition of unrestrained thievery.

So what do you actually do for a living? You've told us a lot of things you claim you do but don't make a living at.

So how do you support yourself?

How would you like to come over and do whatever it is for me?

I'd love to see your work.

Of course I'm not going to pay you - it's greedy for you to expect to get paid for working. You should do your work just for the sheer joy of it.

So come on over, work for me. I'll tell all my friends what a great worker you are. Then maybe you can work for them as well! I bet you'd really like that.

Just think of all the exposure you can get, working for me and my friends for free! It'll be GREAT!

I'm sure you'll love it - it's the NEW MODEL!
Old 12th February 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Yeah, right - The "new model". There's only one problem - the "new model" doesn't pay.


That's why many major artists won't license Spotify and entire labels - and one distribution company representing a whole roster of indie labels - pulled their catalogs from Spotify.

EK touts the $200 million figure as if it's something to be proud of but what it comes down to is a ridiculously tiny figure per play.


$0.00029 per play to the artist. Over 4 million plays/month to make minimum wage. It's laughable.

The "new model" = put your music on Spotify and get a job tending bar.

It's a great thing - for Spotify.
The money is going to go up. Obviously you didn't read the article. Good for you.
Old 12th February 2012
  #6
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Johns actually saying he wants you to make a living out of it and that these models are for the company to make a good living.

lot's of people seem to think that the old model is trying to take over the playing field. lets assume that's so. then what makes anyone think the new models aren't doing the same ?
Old 12th February 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
Johns actually saying he wants you to make a living out of it and that these models are for the company to make a good living.

lot's of people seem to think that the old model is trying to take over the playing field. lets assume that's so. then what makes anyone think the new models aren't doing the same ?
I don't see where models "do" or "try" anything. People do that.

What I do see, is more of a natural evolution, or development taking place.

Astute business people can often see where things are heading and get a jump, but that can only go so far, as you can see from the (assumed) percentage of labels making bad calls on new acts they think they should back so they can profit on their success.

Where the real power has always been and will always be, is in the hands of the end users. They decide everything. Nobody is going to make a buck if nobody is going to spend one.

Yet, the general public shows lots of evidence of being aware of what's up and coming and popular.

Youtube is a good measure of how certain things can take off when it comes to peoples attention. I believe they've given it the adjective of "viral". Youtubes "viral" videos could never have been predicted. Mostly, they are not music videos, as far as I know, but I'm sure some are.

This looks similar to what used to be called fads back in the day. In the 60's, 70's and 80's, I used to note with interest, when bands went "viral", because people would run up to you all excited and ask "have you heard________ yet?". And it would be infectious.

I'm sure it still goes on, with the difference that what would unfold over weeks of real world time in the 60's , can happen in hours now.

Those who owned or worked for labels back then had more time to try to catch these fads or acts about to go viral and jump on the gravy train.

These old dodderers are much too slow for the pace of things now. They have no chance of cashing in on fads before they've already become passe, and are pissed off that the gravy is eluding them.

So they want to slow things down. Maybe some legislation? Maybe some punishment for those cutting them out of the money stream?

Likes and interests have really seemed to diversify over the last decade or so. There are a lot of popular genres that are well established that come as a surprise to me when I hear about them. I'm sure most of them are tributaries or branches split off from larger pocket musical realities.

When the labels were in charge, you had maybe 5 main genres, and they'd specialize in one or maybe two of them.

I think they are in an untenable position as prediction is much less a gamble in an under-control arena, like they used to be, but things have de-centralized to the point where attempts to gain control over any part of it is pointless to try to accomplish.

It's almost a matter of adapt and get creative or die wondering what happened.
Old 12th February 2012
  #8
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
I don't see where models "do" or "try" anything. People do that.
well I take models to have implied assumptions. so if the model is that you can't make a living from the pricing framework, the implied assumption is that the value of your content or productivity is assumed to have a value approximating zero. some people create models without even questioning their implications.

Quote:
What I do see, is more of a natural evolution, or development taking place.
maybe so .. but apart from the assumption of evolution in technology being the same as in nature, you are also implying the future will be better.


Quote:
Where the real power has always been and will always be, is in the hands of the end users. They decide everything. Nobody is going to make a buck if nobody is going to spend one.
someone is certainly going to make a buck. even if music content is offered up as the sacrifice because consumers demand their music content for free. The profits are made from advertising and sales of access to profiles of consumer patterns. it's not really about music, creatives or artists.

Quote:
Yet, the general public shows lots of evidence of being aware of what's up and coming and popular.
and the advertisers know how to direct their campaigns to those trends.
as above, you need data for that.

Quote:
Youtube is a good measure of how certain things can take off when it comes to peoples attention. I believe they've given it the adjective of "viral". Youtubes "viral" videos could never have been predicted. Mostly, they are not music videos, as far as I know, but I'm sure some are.

This looks similar to what used to be called fads back in the day. In the 60's, 70's and 80's, I used to note with interest, when bands went "viral", because people would run up to you all excited and ask "have you heard________ yet?". And it would be infectious.

I'm sure it still goes on, with the difference that what would unfold over weeks of real world time in the 60's , can happen in hours now.
sure, everything is speeding up and correspondingly, everything lasts for shorter and shorter periods of time. The maximum potential speed has been predicted as being close to the speed of electricity itself. that's the point where your own senses can't even make those kinds of intervals intelligible any longer. you can't apply rational at that point and some people think that's the point that we revert to pattern recognition.

Quote:
Those who owned or worked for labels back then had more time to try to catch these fads or acts about to go viral and jump on the gravy train.

These old dodderers are much too slow for the pace of things now. They have no chance of cashing in on fads before they've already become passe, and are pissed off that the gravy is eluding them.

So they want to slow things down. Maybe some legislation? Maybe some punishment for those cutting them out of the money stream?
I don't think it's fair to conjure up generalized negative character traits in order to appeal to negative emotions. but that's why I mentioned that by the same token, why would a new model have any different negative characteristics everyone is so quick to ascribe to the previous model.

Quote:
Likes and interests have really seemed to diversify over the last decade or so. There are a lot of popular genres that are well established that come as a surprise to me when I hear about them. I'm sure most of them are tributaries or branches split off from larger pocket musical realities.

When the labels were in charge, you had maybe 5 main genres, and they'd specialize in one or maybe two of them.
sure well nothings perfect.


Quote:
I think they are in an untenable position as prediction is much less a gamble in an under-control arena, like they used to be, but things have de-centralized to the point where attempts to gain control over any part of it is pointless to try to accomplish.

It's almost a matter of adapt and get creative or die wondering what happened.
personally I simply want artists to have control over their own art. I like to think most people could make a living out of creating something. The only baseline yardstick for that I can see, is whether you can or not.
Old 12th February 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
personally I simply want artists to have control over their own art. I like to think most people could make a living out of creating something. The only baseline yardstick for that I can see, is whether you can or not.
I think things do break down a little further. Do you really mean that you simply want artists to have control over their own art?

The sentiment seems to come from a business perspective.

I personally think this is the best ever time to be an artist. The tools available for the creation of art of any kind were beyond imagination even a decade or two ago.

If the question includes the idea of the "commercialization" of their art, then it's a different discussion. And I believe that's what's under discussion.

From my perspective, based on lots and lots of personal observation. there seems to be an oil/water incompatibility between art and business where one person tries to cover both.

I'm not saying it can't be, or isn't done. It can be and is done all the time, but that doesn't change the inherent anathema quality when they are attempted concurrently.

Maybe it's more accurate to suppose that it's more Artists and businessmen that don't work well?

My definitions for art and artist don't descend down to the level of work. Work is done with an expectation of pay. Art is done with an expectation of beauty or emotional impact. They can be combined, but I see them as separate and distinct. An Artist can create art while they are working, but for those moments of creation, I'm sure they are not immersed in the business aspect of how much it's going to be worth.

The world today has become one in which survival at a steady and comfortable level can be a constant challenge. Anyone who has an artistic streak will hear from an early age that they ought to drop it and plan a future with a future. That, to me is sad. Because Art is really the biggest factor in creating a better quality of life than anything else that isn't purely in terms of how people treat one another.

So what's an artist to do? Try to find a personally rewarding balance between their artist and businessman selves? Maybe. Concentrate on their art and hire a businessman to handle the commercial aspects? Maybe.

The world is in flux right now, and I'm not sure anyone has any hard answers yet, but I've seen some who've been making some strides and breakthroughs which bode well for the future, for them at any rate.

And as to your last point about the only baseline yardstick being about whether you can or not, I'd posit that this too has an undercut which is generally missed. And that is "Should you". It may not directly relate to this discussion exactly, because I'd assume anyone reading here would have already landed on the should side of things. But I've seen a lot of people jump straight to the "how can I" without first evaluating the should.

I think this is a point many parents and teachers come from when counselling kids on career options, but it's rejected then as it's rejected now. Because and artist never asks "should I be an artist?". That's like "should I be a human?".

But they may be able to save themselves a lot of grief by visiting the "should I mix art and business?" question.

If they assume they must go together, then it becomes a no brainer.

But some have found they needn't necessarily both receive the same nod, and neither need suffer by keeping them separate.
Old 12th February 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
The money is going to go up. Obviously you didn't read the article. Good for you.
i hope so.. but i'll believe it when i see it. the math is certainly not in the artist's favor and who knows when/if that will change?

right now spotify seems more like a sweatshop mentality.
Old 12th February 2012
  #11
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
The world today has become one in which survival at a steady and comfortable level can be a constant challenge. Anyone who has an artistic streak will hear from an early age that they ought to drop it and plan a future with a future. That, to me is sad. Because Art is really the biggest factor in creating a better quality of life than anything else that isn't purely in terms of how people treat one another.
precisely.

the over-riding sentiment I see is that with such a great opportunity there are forces which are at play which threaten to completely curtail that possibility.

The problem for creators and artists is that they are being assailed from all sides. that's why I don't tend to advocate old or new media. I advocate (our) media. if people find ways to keep value in creativity by finding ways to exchange that value with respect then we might have something.
Old 12th February 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
precisely.

the over-riding sentiment I see is that with such a great opportunity there are forces which are at play which threaten to completely curtail that possibility.

The problem for creators and artists is that they are being assailed from all sides. that's why I don't tend to advocate old or new media. I advocate (our) media. if people find ways to keep value in creativity by finding ways to exchange that value with respect then we might have something.
It seems that has now become part of the creative process. Creating in ways of coping with the old world until the new one arrives.

I have a lot of confidence in the young people coming up today. When I look at their creativity, it sometimes boggles my mind. They've taken it to a whole new level, which seems to mix elements that you'd never fit together, into a synergy which is seamless and 100% art.

Nothing can stop them from creating "a living" as part of their normal process, if that's their desire.

In sports too, they are doing feats of agility and fearless stunts that were just never around when I was a kid.
Old 12th February 2012
  #13
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FritZtroller
Where the real power has always been and will always be, is in the hands of the end users. They decide everything. Nobody is going to make a buck if nobody is going to spend one.
Err... how not true...
read this:
Pissed off mini-pirates whine “Where’s My Money?” | Pop Up Pirates

Here's just ONE example of a "Pissed off pirate"...err.. "Sharer", who had made over $27,000 off the "profit sharing" incentives of a pirate file locker site.

He was mad because he didn't get his last $800 some odd money that was "owed" to him.

Can you see how this kinda thing might actually piss off ACTUAL people who's hard work they're pilfering? All the while the hard working individual whos buisness they are robbing is struggling to pay the bills, and these arseholes are rolling in undeserved dough.
Old 12th February 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Err... how not true...
read this:
Pissed off mini-pirates whine “Where’s My Money?” | Pop Up Pirates

Here's just ONE example of a "Pissed off pirate"...err.. "Sharer", who had made over $27,000 off the "profit sharing" incentives of a pirate file locker site.

He was mad because he didn't get his last $800 some odd money that was "owed" to him.

Can you see how this kinda thing might actually piss off ACTUAL people who's hard work they're pilfering? All the while the hard working individual whos buisness they are robbing is struggling to pay the bills, and these arseholes are rolling in undeserved dough.
Yes I can see how that would piss off the hard working individual struggling to pay the bills.

Your point?
Old 12th February 2012
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
FritZtroller
Where's my shotgun?

Old 13th February 2012
  #16
nonsense... read this... it is that SAME EXACT argument for why Piracy is a Positive... "it's promotion"...

Hear-Like-Buy: Why Spotify Is Marketing, Not

if it were really "promotion" sales would be going up and not down...

funny, when I asked Daniel how much activity it took to make just ONE US Dollar at SXSW in 2010 he couldn't answer... I was seen a as a pariah... well, today I'm glad that Sir Paul McCartney, Coldplay, the Black Keys and others have come around to the argument I made two years ago...

Sir Paul McCartney is latest artist to abandon streaming - Telegraph
Old 13th February 2012
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
The money is going to go up. Obviously you didn't read the article. Good for you.
Sure I did. I just don't automatically believe the promises of any mealy-mouthed executive who has based his business on a model that doesn't pay a reasonable return.

I'll believe it when it actually happens. Not before.

Ya wanna buy a bridge?
Old 13th February 2012
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
Johns actually saying he wants you to make a living out of it and that these models are for the company to make a good living.

lot's of people seem to think that the old model is trying to take over the playing field. lets assume that's so. then what makes anyone think the new models aren't doing the same ?
Let's clarify that - The so called "old model" (actually the only model because rampant theft isn't a legitimate business model) employed and supported thousands of people.

The so-called "new model" lines the pockets of a few pirates and tech executives.

Which one exemplifies greed?

(HINT - it's not the old one.)
Old 13th February 2012
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzschreiner View Post
I don't see where models "do" or "try" anything. People do that.

What I do see, is more of a natural evolution, or development taking place.

Astute business people can often see where things are heading and get a jump,
Wait a minute - Is that not GREED you're advocating?

I thought your whole thing was that you're AGAINST greed?
Old 13th February 2012
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzschreiner View Post
Likes and interests have really seemed to diversify over the last decade or so. There are a lot of popular genres that are well established that come as a surprise to me when I hear about them. I'm sure most of them are tributaries or branches split off from larger pocket musical realities.

When the labels were in charge, you had maybe 5 main genres, and they'd specialize in one or maybe two of them.
That's nonsense. hat you're talking about is a semantic difference fabricated by pundits and publicity men, not any real difference in the business. What people now call "genres" (as if they're whole different types of music, which they are not) are the same ting that people used to call "styles". Like in rock and roll (a true genre) you have rockabilly, surf vocal, surf instrumental, doo-wop, etc, etc. which are all styles of rock and roll. These days people act like every new style that comes along is a whole new type (genre) of music, but it just ain't so.

Back in the old days there were maybe a dozen major labels that did pretty much anything they thought might sell. Sometimes they'd use sub-labels, sometimes not. There were also hundreds of little indie labels scattered across the country, each serving a limited number of styles, usually in a particular region.

Not much has changed except that there are fewer majors. You can blame piracy for forcing the consolidation.


Quote:
I think they are in an untenable position as prediction is much less a gamble in an under-control arena, like they used to be, but things have de-centralized to the point where attempts to gain control over any part of it is pointless to try to accomplish.

It's almost a matter of adapt and get creative or die wondering what happened.
And again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the business:

Old 13th February 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

Doom Gloom CONSTANT....This model is here to stay and will only grow. Like it or not, this is how the majority of people who to the majority of consuming music like to consume. CD is going out. The pay will improve as more people sign on..The rights holders will demand it just like they did with the explosion of radio. We've got a few years in the wilderness yet but it will steady out and the money WILL start flowing nicely.
Old 13th February 2012
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzschreiner View Post
It seems that has now become part of the creative process. Creating in ways of coping with the old world until the new one arrives.
That seems to me to be an incredibly naive and gullible statement.

"until the new world arrives"

What "new world"?

"Arriving" WHEN?

I haven't seen any "new world" arriving, not even a hint of one.

All I've seen is a wholesale tearing down and looting of the old one, accompanied by a lot of rhetoric, false promises, and hot air.

I spent around 15 out of the last 20 years waiting for that "new world" everyone's talking about. In all that time I didn't see one hint of such a thing materializing - but there sure were a lot of promises and glowing predictions.

Tomorrow I'm going to go meet Rack for lunch - he's in town attending the San Francisco Music Technology Summit, a conference held two or three times a year that is pretty much the epicenter for the hot air and promises brigade - I went once about a year ago, swallowed enough BS for at least a couple of years so I haven't been back (I'll spend my money on tape and microphones, thank you very much.) His tolerance is higher than mine, I guess. (I did offer my services as a speaker.) Anyway, my point is that WE actually DO THINGS that give us a handle on what's really going on and what isn't really going on that people like you who get all their information from pundits and "journalists" don't. I imagine at the end of the day Rack will have been exposed to at least one or two hundred schemes for "monetizing" music under the "New Model", none of which will have any actual basis in reality although a few may demonstrate something of technical interest.
Old 13th February 2012
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
Doom Gloom CONSTANT....This model is here to stay and will only grow. Like it or not, this is how the majority of people who to the majority of consuming music like to consume.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT "CONSUMERS".

The rats who gnaw into packages of food in a store room are "consumers". The care one gives rats is how to get rid of them.

I'm interested in CUSTOMERS - that is people who actually give fair value back for what they consume. Yes, customers are a subset of consumers. But they're not rats.

The people you're talking about are human rodents and I'm about as interested in what they think or want as any other rodent. Which is pretty much limited to what kind of poison they might swallow.

Quote:
CD is going out. The pay will improve as more people sign on..The rights holders will demand it just like they did with the explosion of radio. We've got a few years in the wilderness yet but it will steady out and the money WILL start flowing nicely.
Pass that nitrous tank over here, bro!
Old 13th February 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Wait a minute - Is that not GREED you're advocating?

I thought your whole thing was that you're AGAINST greed?
I can't help it if you only hear what you're saying John. I've never said any single one of the things you've ascribed to me. I see you doing the same with everyone else who disagrees with you. The problem is you can't debate in honesty and integrity. You have to twist everything you feel opposes your innate rightness by lying and twisting what was said to make it conform to your simple minded, dualistic presumptions.

I gave my definition of greed yesterday. Which is pointless to say to you because if you did bother to look it up, you couldn't possible read it right.

Old 13th February 2012
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
That's nonsense. hat you're talking about is a semantic difference fabricated by pundits and publicity men, not any real difference in the business. What people now call "genres" (as if they're whole different types of music, which they are not) are the same ting that people used to call "styles". Like in rock and roll (a true genre) you have rockabilly, surf vocal, surf instrumental, doo-wop, etc, etc. which are all styles of rock and roll. These days people act like every new style that comes along is a whole new type (genre) of music, but it just ain't so.
And of course, right there in the quote box above what you say here, was this comment from me.

Fritz:
"I'm sure most of them are tributaries or branches split off from larger pocket musical realities."

Any idea what that means John? Would it helped if I dumbed down my language use to a more manageable level?
Old 13th February 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
That seems to me to be an incredibly naive and gullible statement.

"until the new world arrives"

What "new world"?

"Arriving" WHEN?

I haven't seen any "new world" arriving, not even a hint of one.
As you sand on a crowded side walk bumping into people actually moving with the flow towards the new world and it's new ways, shouting "Hey!! WHAT??? WHERE Y'ALL GOIN??? STAND STILL SO I CAN SHOUT AT YOU SOME MORE!!!! I'M TELLIN Y'ALL HOW IT IS AND HOW IT'S GONNA BE AND YOU'RE NOT LISTENIN!!! WHERE ARE Y'ALL GOIN???? THERE'S NOTHIN THERE!!!! YOU'RE ALL GOING GET LOST AND THERE WILL STILL BE NOBODY THAT WANTS TO PAY ME!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
(I'll spend my money on tape and microphones, thank you very much.)
Or you could think of giving some of it to your hall of fame guitar player so he didn't have to sleep on YOUR studio's floor

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
(I did offer my services as a speaker.)
You were asking too much money. Even if you asked for anything, you were asking for too much. Do you really think people will pay to listen to you twist everything into ugliness and evil-doing?
Old 13th February 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT "CONSUMERS".

The rats who gnaw into packages of food in a store room are "consumers". The care one gives rats is how to get rid of them.

I'm interested in CUSTOMERS - that is people who actually give fair value back for what they consume. Yes, customers are a subset of consumers. But they're not rats.

The people you're talking about are human rodents and I'm about as interested in what they think or want as any other rodent. Which is pretty much limited to what kind of poison they might swallow.
You're killing me here John. And you can seriously sit there and wonder about how you can't make enough to pay your band, while taking that kind of attitude towards the hand that now refuses to feed you, because you're always biting?

If only the rest of the world would get with your program, eh?
Old 13th February 2012
  #28
Lives for gear
 
sventvkg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT "CONSUMERS".

The rats who gnaw into packages of food in a store room are "consumers". The care one gives rats is how to get rid of them.

I'm interested in CUSTOMERS - that is people who actually give fair value back for what they consume. Yes, customers are a subset of consumers. But they're not rats.

The people you're talking about are human rodents and I'm about as interested in what they think or want as any other rodent. Which is pretty much limited to what kind of poison they might swallow.



Pass that nitrous tank over here, bro!
You seem angry and a bit delusional. The type who's unable to accept the fact that the model of selling shiny discs is over. It's over man. Sorry. Spotify is small and just started but it's a step in the right direction and as Ek states, they've paid over 200 million dollars to the rights holders..This is far from piracy. He says it best right here:

"[Another] point I want to make is that this is a very, very different model than just selling a record. Everyone talks about volume, and what this means in terms of numbers, and I don’t think it’s comparable. In the world today, there are 500 million people listening to music online. Out of them, there’s only a very small portion who are avid iTunes customers, which we look at today as being the majority of the digital music ecosystem. So the way we’re approaching this is, we want to reach the 500 million people, of whom the vast majority aren’t really using iTunes.

I’d also like to address people who think they’ll gain sales by not being on Spotify. There’s not a shred of data to suggest that. In fact, all the information available points to streaming services helping to drive sales.

Album unit sales [were] up in the U.S. in 2011, the year Spotify launched, for the first time since 2004. More than a dozen albums which debuted at number one have been available on Spotify at launch.

Spotify users are the exact same people [who] used to listen to music every day on YouTube, whose entire music collection was pulled off BitTorrent sites. By offering them a compelling music service that allows them to discover hundreds of new artists, not just their favorites pulled from YouTube or [pirated], we’re seeing millions move back to listening to music legally after years of being left out in the cold.

They’re helping pay a ton of money back to the industry. You’re talking 10 million active users, 2.5 million subscribers — most of them paying $120 a year, which is double the amount of your average iTunes user.

Do you really want to hold back your album from people who are finally paying for music again? If you think that by doing so you’re getting them to buy your album on a CD, or as an album download, again, there’s absolutely no evidence to back that theory up. Your album’s getting shared en masse over BitTorrent, over YouTube. It’s there, right now — but you decide that it’s the paying, loyal music fans that should lose out. It makes no sense"


Also, and I don't support REAL piracy which is reproducing and distributing en masse and profiting off of it like we see in China etc but just because someone downloads something does not mean they lost a sale. The majority of pirated stuff would never have been bought in the first place, according to all kinds of data and studies. To think every so called pirate would have bought that record is simply insane and there's absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Look, the bottom line is that the way we listen to and discover music is changing. Radio no longer drives culture and the music industry as well asd Hollywood haven't grasped that yet. Sharing music with your friends and discovering through trusted filters is where it's at and where it's going. As I said, it's all going to shake out and the right's holders will collect their money as more paying customers sign on to legal sharing services, youtube starts paying, etc etc..More money than ever before will filter into the music industry. However it's going to go to the artists who the people deem worthy, NOT the Rhianna's, and bull****-throwaway pop garbage the label's are pushing...Overall, this is a very good thing for the industry and we're going to see a lot more quality being shared and discovered.
Old 13th February 2012
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventvkg View Post
More money than ever before will filter into the music industry. However it's going to go to the artists who the people deem worthy, NOT the Rhianna's, and bull****-throwaway pop garbage the label's are pushing...Overall, this is a very good thing for the industry and we're going to see a lot more quality being shared and discovered.
The only thing I continually disagree with you on is the definition of worthy.
Historically, the music buying public have deemed commercial pop as most worthy of their dollars. What hardcore music fans would deem worthy is not riding high in the charts, or filling the supermarket magazines.
You only have to look at The Grammy's last night.
No criticism on the standard of music on any of my local news programmes, and the newspapers and magazines today are going to be filled with Adele, Jennifer Hudson and the many legacy rockers that played the show.
The music industry are pushing the artists that people want to buy.
If you are expecting the public to start buying more left field or adventurous music, you're going to be sadly disappointed.
Old 14th February 2012
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzschreiner View Post
I can't help it if you only hear what you're saying John. I've never said any single one of the things you've ascribed to me. I see you doing the same with everyone else who disagrees with you. The problem is you can't debate in honesty and integrity. You have to twist everything you feel opposes your innate rightness by lying and twisting what was said to make it conform to your simple minded, dualistic presumptions.

I gave my definition of greed yesterday. Which is pointless to say to you because if you did bother to look it up, you couldn't possible read it right.

FRITZ! BUDDY! Please go back and read your posts with a clear, unbiased attitude - you'll find that you did in fact say everything ascribed to you. In certain cases you may not have said it directly in so many words, but instead said it by giving strong support to people who take a strong public stand on those positions.

For example, don't claim that you support copyright and the rights of artists against big corporations if you're strongly supporting the EFF, Cory Doctorow, and Lawrence Lessig and his Creative Commons scam.

Just don't. Expecting us to swallow that is insulting our intelligence. It's like saying you're against racism but you support the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood.

If you don't understand the meaning of the things being discussed here (which I strongly suspect is the case) then stay out of the discussion.

Don't just assume that you can go defining things to mean what you think they ought to mean off the top of your head. Don't go defending people or organizations if you don't really understand what they stand for.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump