The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
The Spotify lawsuit: Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 3rd January 2018
  #1
Lives for gear
 
razorboy's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Angry The Spotify lawsuit:

1
Share
Old 3rd January 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

I sincerely hope they get drummed out of business.
4
Share
Old 3rd January 2018
  #3
Old 4th January 2018
  #4
Lives for gear
 

streaming is here to stay

the kinks need to be worked out. i guess lawsuits are one way
Old 4th January 2018
  #5
Gear Addict
 
Nick Stedman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
I sincerely hope they get drummed out of business.
Why?
Old 4th January 2018
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

why? I cant think of anyone who has done more harm over the last 20 years to the music industry than daniel ek. he and his criminal cronies belong in jail and the mega fortunes theyve amassed distributed amongst non-major label artists.
1
Share
Old 4th January 2018
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgriff View Post
why? I cant think of anyone who has done more harm over the last 20 years to the music industry than daniel ek. he and his criminal cronies belong in jail and the mega fortunes theyve amassed distributed amongst non-major label artists.
The people who have done the most harm to the industry over the past 50 years or so are the suits (executives)--record company suits, management suits, etc. They've regularly ripped off artists. Even the very small percentage of artists who have gotten wealthy have been regularly ripped off, and they didn't earn anywhere near the money they should have earned. Supporting the industry's financial maneuvers is supporting putting more money in executive's pockets. It's not really supporting the artists. If you cared about the artists you'd be fighting the record companies' normal practices and working to put a completely different system in place.

Here's just one good example: For decades, Bill Nelson made nothing from Be-Bop Deluxe. Read this for details: The Story of Be Bop Deluxe’s Bill Nelson and How His Record Label Ripped Him Off

|
Dangerous Minds
4
Share
Old 4th January 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Stedman View Post
Why?
Because of their laughably tiny payment rates, which make the most corrupt corporate or mafia owned record labels of the past look extremely generous in comparison, and their habit of just deciding they can sell whatever music they like under terms they pick without bothering to actually come to an agreement with the copyright owners first (the subject of the suit).
2
Share
Old 4th January 2018
  #9
I don't care for Spotify, either, though I'm definitely a fan of the concept of subscription streaming.

But they did not 'just decide' to 'sell.' For one thing, they're not 'selling' they're providing performances on demand. Subscription streaming falls under two copyright licensing provisions: 'mechanical' licensing of the underlying composition (with royalties going to publishers and then, depending on the publishing contracts, distributed 'down' to the composers themselves) and 'digital performance' licensing of the actual recording (with performance royalties going to the label, who then [hopefully] passes a percentage to the performers -- dependent on the label's contract with the artist).

In the early days of streaming, we saw some some truly ridiculously tiny pass-through of royalties from labels to performers based on existing contracts -- even as artists who owned their own rights were able to see substantial income from what was often even less sales. (Labels can be valuable for artists because they can increase the marketing reach of the artist; but they don't 'work for free.') Since then, we've seen substantial efforts to renegotiate streaming rights between individual performers and their labels (and no doubt between certain publishers and composers).

It's well worth noting that, in the US, the seemingly small publishing sector's royalties are based on existing court decrees setting radio play rates. (In the US, publishers/composers are paid for underlying compositions performed on the radio but labels/artists do not receive ANY compensation other than airplay, which has traditionally been considered valuable promotion in the US.)


As a songwriter/artist who owns his own rights, I'm all for higher revenue --but as a former marketing professional, I also understand the critical nature of 'just-right' pricing. (Many of us Internet music pioneer types may recall a certain rather iconoclastic art song writer/performer who tried to sell her albums for $300 each -- because, she said, they were worth it. Didn't work out. )


By the way, I just came across an article on a whole DIFFERENT kind of fraud that appears to be afflicting the stream industry -- though it will be oddly familiar to the aforementioned Internet music pioneers from Mp3.com days and their PFP [pay for play] program that (for a while) gave artists $.02 for every downloaded track. (Mp3.com's model was super lo fi preview streams and then, if the visitor liked it, he could download a 128 kbps copy for free; obviously, they were counting on ad revenue and actually had started breaking even on a monthly basis just before they were bought by Universal and scuttled in the aftermath of an unrelated lawsuit by a consortium of labels responding to a music-locker system that Mp3.com was very ill-prepared to defend in court.) But while Mp3.com was running the PFP program, there arose a HUGE click-fraud problem with a handful of Russian techno bands and some others suddenly shooting to the top of the charts. Other artists complained and the company finally ran an audit, found that they were getting defrauded by programmed plays from server farms and withheld most of the money.)

Anyhow, this new fraud problem is strikingly similar...

Music streaming has a nearly undetectable fraud problem — Quartz
Old 4th January 2018
  #10
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
But they did not 'just decide' to 'sell.' For one thing, they're not 'selling' they're providing performances on demand.
Of course they are selling. These are "streaming services". Services are things that can be sold. That's what we call it when money is paid in exchange for something.
1
Share
Old 4th January 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
Of course they are selling. These are "streaming services". Services are things that can be sold. That's what we call it when money is paid in exchange for something.
so when you subscribe to HBO or Showtime they are selling you all those movies and shows?

his point: the music is not being sold
2
Share
Old 4th January 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave.R View Post
so when you subscribe to HBO or Showtime they are selling you all those movies and shows?

his point: the music is not being sold

My point is that extremely common monosyllabic words don't need to become existential debates the way they constantly do around here.

Obviously people are subscribing to cable in order to watch those movies and shows. Access to them is the thing being sold. People don't get those cable channels just because they like the HBO logo.

The shows are copyright protected intellectual property that has to be specifically licensed by the cable network. They don't just buy a DVD, put it on their network, and decide where to send a check in an amount of their choosing later on if they get called on it.

Copyright protection provides the copyright owner with exclusive distribution rights during the period of time that the copyright is in force. The operative word here being exclusive.
2
Share
Old 5th January 2018
  #13
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
If you cared about the artists you'd be fighting the record companies' normal practices and working to put a completely different system in place.
spotify IS the "record companies'" (major labels). literally they are one in the same. ten years ago and beyond we had a vibrant indie middle class, today we dont. now its all hobbyists or product spokespeople and "content influencer" robots. so what happened? daniel ek happened. and our former dumbarse potus allowed and endorsed this schmuck all along the way. I do care about artists because I am one of them. I dont use spotify and I dont allow others to stream my music there. with my groundbreaking "system", if you want MY product you have to pay ME for it.

streaming as it is today will only last so long as WE the artists allow it to. when people finally come to this realization things will change for the better.
1
Share
Old 5th January 2018
  #14
Gear Addict
 
Nick Stedman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
Because of their laughably tiny payment rates, which make the most corrupt corporate or mafia owned record labels of the past look extremely generous in comparison, and their habit of just deciding they can sell whatever music they like under terms they pick without bothering to actually come to an agreement with the copyright owners first (the subject of the suit).
Understood. Spotify has been around for some time, but I recently started spotify premium last month. For me it's the best thing I have to pull up any song, save to playlist, etc. I mainly play music in my car and not the radio It's like what iTunes use to be in it's simplicity. There's always some type of corruption and things the consumer doesn't know about, but I probably won't continue to support something like that after this month.
Old 5th January 2018
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
Of course they are selling. These are "streaming services". Services are things that can be sold. That's what we call it when money is paid in exchange for something.
Of course, I get what you're saying. But the conventions of the music business -- and the laws that inform it -- make clear distinction between selling a CD, LP, or digital file (and the implicit use license) and providing a paid subscription music service where users' access ends with the end of subscription.

As with cable TV movies, the user is paying for temporary access to content. When he stops paying, his access terminates. The ex-movie subscriber doesn't get to keep any movies and the ex-music subscriber doesn't get to keep any music.
1
Share
Old 5th January 2018
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
My point is that extremely common monosyllabic words don't need to become existential debates the way they constantly do around here.

Obviously people are subscribing to cable in order to watch those movies and shows. Access to them is the thing being sold. People don't get those cable channels just because they like the HBO logo.

[...]
There is much to be said for economy of expression -- but with greater frugality in that regard, it can fall to the reader to try to understand and correctly interpret personalized use of language. And that can lead to misunderstanding.

I prefer precision of expression where I try to say precisely what I mean using commonly accepted meanings of the words I use, so as to avoid the sort of misunderstanding and contention that, as pointed out, has so often beset this community. (I'll rush to stipulate that I'm not always successful. But I generally try.)



Quote:
[...] The shows are copyright protected intellectual property that has to be specifically licensed by the cable network. They don't just buy a DVD, put it on their network, and decide where to send a check in an amount of their choosing later on if they get called on it.

Copyright protection provides the copyright owner with exclusive distribution rights during the period of time that the copyright is in force. The operative word here being exclusive.
Are you under the notion that a stream company can just decide to stream a given recording without prior licensing from the performance rights holder? That is certainly not the case. While many artists have found themselves 'trapped' in disadvantageous streaming arrangements, that can only happen if they do not control their own rights. If you are signed to a label (and it's not your label), it is generally the label that enters into distribution arrangements.

With regard to publishing licenses and royalties, the arrangements are, of course, very different -- but the compulsive licensing arrangements long predate streaming. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf

Last edited by theblue1; 5th January 2018 at 04:03 AM..
1
Share
Old 5th January 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I prefer precision of expression where I try to say precisely what I mean using commonly accepted meanings of the words I use, so as to avoid the sort of misunderstanding and contention that, as pointed out, has so often beset this community. (I'll rush to stipulate that I'm not always successful. But I generally try.)
I appreciate these comments and your measured approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Are you under the notion that a stream company can just decide to stream a given recording without prior licensing from the performance rights holder? That is certainly not the case.
I am saying that this is illegal, and that it is exactly what Spotify has done, as outlined in detail in this article

Why Exactly Is Spotify Being Sued and What Does This Mean? - Digital Music News

Specifically, Spotify did not contact publishing rights holders to negotiate mechanical royalty rates, did not send out NOIs as required, and did not obtain licenses for composition royalties as required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
While many artists have found themselves 'trapped' in disadvantageous streaming arrangements, that can only happen if they do not control their own rights. If you are signed to a label (and it's not your label), it is generally the label that enters into distribution arrangements.
I understand and I do not mix up these issues. Artists that sign their rights away for terms they don't like should live with that decision, and learn from it if they aren't happy with it. It is not anything to complain about as far as I am concerned; doing so is a form of corruption, because it is an attempt to have it both ways by getting the promotional benefits of the deal and using those benefits in a competitive way against others who wouldn't or couldn't do the same, while claiming victim status.

Obviously, the above is about decisions made by artists, not about companies that are not doing what they contractually agreed to do. That is a different matter. Everybody should do what they say that they are going to do.

My concerns as an independent artist with little commercial potential and a particular code of ethics that I try to avoid going into here specifically (except as it applies to IP), are with systemic fairness, involuntary access and use, assumptions about motives and values, and exploitation, whether by businesses or individuals.

Last edited by teleharmonium; 5th January 2018 at 08:22 PM.. Reason: grammar
Old 5th January 2018
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
I appreciate these comments and your measured approach.



I am saying that this is illegal, and that it is exactly what Spotify has done, as outlined in detail in this article

Why Exactly Is Spotify Being Sued and What Does This Mean? - Digital Music News

Specifically, Spotify did not contact publishing rights holders to negotiate mechanical royalty rates, did not send out NOIs as required, and did not obtain licenses for composition royalties as required.



I understand and I do not mix up these issues. Artists that sign their rights away for terms they don't like should live with that decision, and learn from it if they aren't happy with it. It is not anything to complain about as far as I am concerned; doing so is a form of corruption, because it is an attempt to have it both ways by getting the promotional benefits of the deal and using those benefits in a competitive way against others who wouldn't or couldn't do the same, while claiming victim status.

Obviously, the above is about decisions made by artists, not about companies that are not doing what they contractually agreed to do. That is a different matter. Everybody should do what they say that they are going to do.

My concerns as an independent artist with little commercial potential and a particular code of ethics that I try to avoid going into here specifically (except as it applies to IP), are with systemic fairness, involuntary access and use, assumptions about motives and values, and exploitation, whether by businesses or individuals.
I figured we were talking at slightly cross purposes, which seems to have been somewhat the case. Thanks for elaborating on your thoughts!

That Ari Herstand article does a pretty good job of laying out the problems that have fed into the unmatched/unpaid song credit/mechanical royalty problem. While much of the focus has been on Spot, as he notes, other streamers face the same challenges in matching publishing rights with song titles for payout of mechanicals.

Now, the Audiam lawsuit has been settled (Spot has pledged US$43.45M + an extra $5M for attorney's fees) but other lawsuits continue -- and that seems to be largely because of the lack of a central rights database where streamers could make sure the publishing royalties set aside to pay mechanical licenses actually go to the correct parties.
In $43 Million Settlement, Spotify Forced To Confront A Persistent Problem : The Record : NPR

This follows a settlement between Spot and the National Music Publishers' Association which established a $30M pool to pay NMPA's constituent members for monies owed.
Spotify and Publishing Group Reach $30 Million Settlement Agreement Over Unpaid Royalties | Billboard

But more are coming... Why? It's still the unmatched song/rights issue as discussed in the following two articles:

Why Can’t Spotify Stop Getting Sued? It’s More Complex Than It Sounds

Understanding David Lowery's Lawsuit Against Spotify: The Insanity Of Music Licensing | Techdirt
Old 6th January 2018
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgriff View Post
spotify IS the "record companies'" (major labels). literally they are one in the same. ten years ago and beyond we had a vibrant indie middle class, today we dont. now its all hobbyists or product spokespeople and "content influencer" robots. so what happened? daniel ek happened. and our former dumbarse potus allowed and endorsed this schmuck all along the way. I do care about artists because I am one of them. I dont use spotify and I dont allow others to stream my music there. with my groundbreaking "system", if you want MY product you have to pay ME for it.

streaming as it is today will only last so long as WE the artists allow it to. when people finally come to this realization things will change for the better.
Under the current system, streaming will only last as long as we artists allow it to, but we're never going to get rid of people downloading/sharing music for free.

I've been making my living from music my entire life, and I first started making money from music in the mid 70s. Part of my income is from royalties. But I don't at all agree with copyright law; If it were up to me, I'd institute a radically different sort of copyright law. I'm very pro-streaming, and I'm pro downloading and sharing music--I do both myself.

The systems that have been in place since I started making a living with music aren't to the benefit of artists. They're to the benefit of record companies. I know lots of people who made at least a handful of albums, albums that sold reasonably well, where those folks basically never made a cent off of that music. The record companies did.
Old 6th January 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 
bgood's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
The people who have done the most harm to the industry over the past 50 years or so are the suits (executives)--record company suits, management suits, etc. They've regularly ripped off artists. Even the very small percentage of artists who have gotten wealthy have been regularly ripped off, and they didn't earn anywhere near the money they should have earned. Supporting the industry's financial maneuvers is supporting putting more money in executive's pockets. It's not really supporting the artists. If you cared about the artists you'd be fighting the record companies' normal practices and working to put a completely different system in place.

Here's just one good example: For decades, Bill Nelson made nothing from Be-Bop Deluxe. Read this for details: The Story of Be Bop Deluxe’s Bill Nelson and How His Record Label Ripped Him Off

|
Dangerous Minds

All true... But, at least in the olden days there was somebody making money. The work itself generated money. Whether that money was stolen by labels, management, etc, represents a vastly different reality than we have now.

What's so interesting to me is to consider the general feeling the industry had towards napster... Evil, theft, etc. 20 something years later, those same suits (and artists, sadly) actively contribute to the current system (streaming) which barely rewards the artist financially more than napster did.

It's crazy!
1
Share
Old 6th January 2018
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgood View Post
All true... But, at least in the olden days there was somebody making money. The work itself generated money. Whether that money was stolen by labels, management, etc, represents a vastly different reality than we have now.

What's so interesting to me is to consider the general feeling the industry had towards napster... Evil, theft, etc. 20 something years later, those same suits (and artists, sadly) actively contribute to the current system (streaming) which barely rewards the artist financially more than napster did.

It's crazy!
Hmm...

U.S. Music Industry's Revenue Growth Accelerates As Paid Streaming Subscriptions Rise 50 Percent

Quote:
In what's now become a familiar story, the U.S. recorded music industry has seen revenue growth accelerate again in the first half of 2017, up 17 percent over the first half of last year to $4.0 billion, according the the RIAA's 2017 mid-year report. That's more than double the percent increase the RIAA reported at this time last year, when the industry was up 8.1 percent over the first half of 2015 to $3.43 billion.

And once again, the main driver of that growth is streaming -- more specifically, paid streaming subscriptions.
Old 12th January 2018
  #22
Lives for gear
 
DougS's Avatar
 


Last edited by DougS; 12th January 2018 at 07:28 PM..
1
Share
Old 12th January 2018
  #23
Lives for gear
 
DougS's Avatar
 

Spotify, in accordance with copyright law, says they have cash set aside in an escrow account to pay all their unmatched streams (streams for which they do not know whom to pay - because they don't know who the songwriter is - due to gaps in their DB).

They are obviously lying.

They say they have $17M in escrow (a ridiculously low number). They settled this current lawsuit for about $45M. So how can they negotiate a settlement (which you know is for cents on the dollar) for $45M (that accounts for a fraction of their unmatched streams) when their escrow account, which is supposed to cover 100% of their unmatched streams only has $17M in it?

Clearly the escrow account is way way underfunded. Underfunding this account IS actually their business model.

As part of the settlement they will setup a portal for claimant of the lawsuit to indicate which tracks they should be paid for (which tracks they own songwriter rights against). Why are they setting up such a portal for just the claimants to this lawsuit and why do they need a lawsuite to push them to create such a portal. If they are actually trying to be a good citizen here and findout whom to pay they should have such a portal up all the time for all tracks. Some of the claimants indicate that they repeatedly contacted Spofity to try to get them to update their DB but Spotify ignored them. Clearly Spotify is trying not pay.

Only existentially large punitive fines will fix it.
1
Share
Old 12th January 2018
  #24
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
Because of their laughably tiny payment rates, which make the most corrupt corporate or mafia owned record labels of the past look extremely generous in comparison, and their habit of just deciding they can sell whatever music they like under terms they pick without bothering to actually come to an agreement with the copyright owners first (the subject of the suit).
Their payment rates are best in business, for the most part! Now that SONY shut down their streaming service which paid very nice. TIDAL appears the criminal player. Pandora appears slightly more aggressive in pushing their rights and using the law to get free.

Spotify quite frankly comes across like the streaming service that cares the most about finding support levels in the fight against free music and is equally supportive of independent and major music. The Majors and Industry could have taken a different approach when Napster days came their way and they could have started their own Streaming Platform. They could invest in their own node system instead of buying data from someone else who puts it together. They could stop some War on tech and pull their heads out of their butts but instead they choose to be silos of the old guard unable to answer phones or be anything other then the same arrogant stubborn thing day after day regardless whos right or wrong.

I have yet to find the information where it clearly states they are taking music they dont own to do what they like with however they want. In all the cases ive so far read or seen it doesnt appear its Spotifys fault, it appears its the mess of the music business not even knowing whos uploading or sending or authorizing songs to services, distributors and aggregators. These streamers and distributors have to rely on simple contracts alleviating them of liability should the song not have the necessary rights attached on upload. Spotify seems to want to settle issues and is clearly setting money aside. The hype and buzz about the Majors working aggressive deals with Spotify et all seems to have flown right by and over most publishers and artists as they should have been in touch with them long long ago if they thought any of their sound recordings had been uploaded and distributed illegally and against the contracts in place. The music business is a mess, always has been. I long ago got tired with the music businesses lame and desperate efforts to claw money from anyone and anywhere on large whines and claims, instead of them dealing with reality. I had/have lawsuits I need to send to persons that may or may not even exist with pseudo Publishing Companies that don't respond or don't answer anything, and an industry not interested in helping in any way.

It will be a Win for the Music Business when it stops whining and stops firing ludicrous and silly lawsuits all over the place to anyone at any time. They are worse then people who slip on coffee at McDonals and look for a milly.
1
Share
Old 12th January 2018
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougS View Post
Comparing it to last year does not tell the story. As you can see over the long run the industry is delivering a lot more units and capturing a lot less revenue (and this revenue is not adjusted for inflation):

What SHOULD we compare this year to for purposes of business trajectory plotting?

Of course we should use year over year figures, just like every other industry.

No one is claiming that the music business didn't see a steep downturn over decades due to a number of factors from changing lifestyles (the rise of cable TV, the rise of video gaming), changing musical tastes, to advances in consumer technology (the rise of consumer taping and, in the digital era, of casual piracy).

But in order to chart the health of any business, a core metric is year-over-year metrics.

And by conventional business thinking, the trends are very, very healthy, with a 17% increase in the first half of 2017 over 2016 -- which, itself, saw an 8.1% increase in revenue growth. Total revenue in 2015 saw a 3.2% increase, then the highest year-over-year increase in 20 years.

Everyone is free to interpret the numbers in their own way, of course, but in most sectors of the business world, those kinds of extremely robust revenue growth tend to be seen very favorably.
1
Share
Old 12th January 2018
  #26
Lives for gear
 
teleharmonium's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
Their payment rates are best in business, for the most part!
You are showing no evidence for this claim.

If it's true - if - it ain't saying much.




Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
Their payment rates are best in business, for the most part! I have yet to find the information where it clearly states they are taking music they dont own to do what they like with however they want. In all the cases ive so far read or seen it doesnt appear its Spotifys fault, it appears its the mess of the music business not even knowing whos uploading or sending or authorizing songs to services, distributors and aggregators.
Nonsense. As previously detailed above, Spotify is required to obtain licenses for composition royalties before distribution, among other things. They did not do that. There is no way can be the fault of anyone else and no way that is not illegal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwest View Post
It will be a Win for the Music Business when it stops whining and stops firing ludicrous and silly lawsuits all over the place to anyone at any time.
More nonsense. If "the music business" means people that make music, they - we - must get paid, or cease to exist except as de facto volunteers in a pirate economy.

Very large amounts of money are made off of music. Whether the people that actually make it in the first place are going to get anything other than a symbolic joke of a percentage of it is up to us. If you don't care about getting paid, all you need to do is keep lying down while other people take the profit.
1
Share
Old 12th January 2018
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
The people who have done the most harm to the industry over the past 50 years or so are the suits (executives)--record company suits, management suits, etc. They've regularly ripped off artists.

Sorry, but the people who have done the most harm to the industry over the past 15 years or so are the people who d/l music for free, w/o at some point buying the artist's work. I am not saying the suits are completely innocent here - they are not. But they have not harmed the industry and the artists anywhere nearly as much as the freeloaders who belong to the everything should be free crowd.

Cheers.
2
Share
Old 12th January 2018
  #28
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
You are showing no evidence for this claim.

If it's true - if - it ain't saying much.
Hi. Im really not going to get dragged into stale debates and old angered pointed rhetoric of persons fighting some propaganda war or other.

Ultimately I'm under no obligation to provide evidence. This is what the statements show, from years of experience and multiple aggregators and streaming sites. I don't get paid to promote other persons businesses, I'm only conveying my personal experience dealing with the streaming companies. Ultimately the statements I receive are technically private and confidential and proliferating it online without written permission is not allowable therefore I apologize.

It's really the truth, the odd site will pay more, the odd type of stream may pay more, but overall it truly has some of the best pays per stream with one of the better user groups with premium subscriptions.


Quote:
Nonsense. As previously detailed above, Spotify is required to obtain licenses for composition royalties before distribution, among other things. They did not do that. There is no way can be the fault of anyone else and no way that is not illegal.
I don't see it as nonsense. Please just post an article to the contrary beyond people firing off large lawsuits.

These companies are not legally required to do anything other then provide a contract that states where the blame and illegality goes and to alleviate themselves. Your fight may be with the legislation or other bodies that might be able to change the rules or the laws.

Ultimately if that is the case, being nonsense, then it is nonsense that Universal Music, SONY Music, Warner Music and any other Corporation get to abscond and alleviate themselves through written contract of other persons wrong doing.

How much of Universal Musics catalog is completely Illegal then? A gargantuan amount. How much of did they abscond and alleviate themselves of anyone elses actions and choices? The whole way.


Quote:
More nonsense. If "the music business" means people that make music, they - we - must get paid, or cease to exist except as de facto volunteers in a pirate economy.

Very large amounts of money are made off of music. Whether the people that actually make it in the first place are going to get anything other than a symbolic joke of a percentage of it is up to us. If you don't care about getting paid, all you need to do is keep lying down while other people take the profit.
There isn't lots of money made off of music, overall its still a slim small industry on the Global Scale, albeit still rather influential. If you are able to coagulate a ton of property, regardless the game, or scale up to large large volume, regardless the game, then there is bigger money to make.

It isn't nonsense. Tech isn't the industries fight, nor its enemy. I'm personally tired of some muso standing there with a guitar in hand, an amplified mic in the other, loud speakers, mixing boards, lights etc. while they whine and panter off about tech being so so evil. Look buds, without tech not one of those things would have existed to help you. Hollywood and the whole movie music showbusiness would be vaudeville still and only broadway with zero video camera to capture everything. Tech is the only thing that helped move music to the forefront back in the old day. Without the radio and then the video camera, it would not have become what it is today.

Its specific persons, archaic legislature, and often times, terrible awful actions and words often times criminal and near evil from the industry itself, that overall causes the most problems. Over-saturation, competition for peoples time, fickle millennials, the overall change in consumer habits, those things.

Lets put it this way, I make profit from music, even with zero marketing and promotion and streaming works for me and my company. While revenues are up, hows Universal and Vivendi currently doing? How much PROFIT are they making?

None of what I'm into music wise is as big as Id like across the board, but tech has never been the problem from making money. Persons have, some using tech, some just being rotten persons, over supply, large costs of entry to compete where more money is, those kinds of things.
1
Share
Old 12th January 2018
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Muser's Avatar
Old 13th January 2018
  #30
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teleharmonium View Post
More nonsense. If "the music business" means people that make music, they - we - must get paid, or cease to exist except as de facto volunteers in a pirate economy.

Very large amounts of money are made off of music. Whether the people that actually make it in the first place are going to get anything other than a symbolic joke of a percentage of it is up to us. If you don't care about getting paid, all you need to do is keep lying down while other people take the profit.


-----

"Spotify (which IS a utorrent 2.0 + napster + facebook band of pirates + major label + 1% artist owned/click farm/advertising product sales agency/cheap all you can eat buffet... among others) quite frankly comes across like the streaming service that cares () the most about finding support levels in the fight against free music (YEAH! take for example utorrent and napster!! which again, IS spotify ) and is equally supportive of independent () and major music. The Majors and Industry could have taken a different approach when Napster days came their way and they could have started their own Streaming Platform. They could invest in their own node system instead of buying data from someone else who puts it together (utorrent aka napster aka facebook aka spotify made sure they couldnt do that and had no choice but to join 'the pirates of the sweden and profit big time or sink). They could stop some War on tech and pull their heads out of their butts but instead they choose to be silos of the old guard unable to answer phones or be anything other then the same arrogant stubborn thing day after day regardless whos right or wrong."

just plain delusional...
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump