The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
The Music Streaming Business Model is wrong, Should still have to purchase music
Old 2 weeks ago
  #91
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattias78 View Post
In our band, zonata, we got about 1k(x5 members)
I have a song on YouTube which some random person uploaded. The last time I checked it had 330k views. And nothing goes to me so that's that.
Hi Mattias!

If you control the rights to that song (and maybe others) you might want to consider uploading it/them to YouTube's ContentID system via a 3rd party like AdRev or Identifyy (they take 20-30%).

Those 330k views would be about $200-300. That might not be the only video using your music illegally with lots of views.

I get about $1,000 per month that way from my non-famous music that is spread out all over YouTube.

You could also get royalties from STIM for YouTube videos with lots of views. Not nearly as much as the ad revenue via ContentID, but some extra money.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #92
Deleted 6d8303c
Guest
Lying? Of course, yes, it is. Reading comprehension. I didn't write the words within definition of these laws. The only words that actually matter. They are not up for debate. If you don't like them, it is irrelevant, take it up with your local law makers, not me.

Criminal Enterprise. The FBI defines a criminal enterprise as a group of individuals with an identified hierarchy, or comparable structure, engaged in criminal activity.

Criminal activity. An act committed in violation of law.

Piracy. Piracy is the unauthorized distribution, theft, reproduction, copying, performance, storage, sale or other use of intellectual property (IP) protected under copyright law. It is a form of copyright infringement. A 200-year-old U.S. Supreme Court term, piracy was first applied to the plundering of intellectual property (IP) in the mid-17th century.


Spotify owned utorrent before bittorrent acquired it

Spotify's beta used pirate mp3 files

Napster, Utorrent, Bittorrent, Facebook, Pirate Bay (i.e. Spotify) have all been sued and lost and/or settled out of court for undisclosed amounts, on numerous occasions. There are $100's of billions of reasons why all of them are not in prison today. The amount of money and political power behind this global industry scam is truly astounding.

Spotify today is nothing more than a user data storage center, ad company and a central database for piracy. Streaming music is the inconvenient medium. There are numerous programs where if one so chooses, can easily download anything and everything in full quality, totally anonymous, totally free of charge, in the click of a button. Major labels own a stake in Spotify, without those catalogs, Spotify would disappear tomorrow. And the viscous cycle would repeat itself again. They wont leave because there is too much profit in the ad money. Indie Artists and labels are left at the very bottom of the barrel scraping up the inconvenient scraps.

Obviously, by defending this criminal enterprise, you have an agenda or you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Whatever your daft reasoning, throw on your blinders and ignore the truth all you want, it does not change factual matter at hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
No it isn't. If it was criminal by definition it would have been sued and convicted at this point.

Now more than ever it should be clear to people that words matter. They really, really matter.



Spotify acquired the other company for the technology it owned. The technology Spotify was after was the ability to enable faster streaming start, i.e. saving parts of songs locally so that when you dial up a track it appears as if it's starting to play virtually instantly. That's why the torrent company was bought. That's not illegal at all. Not even close.

As for beta testing: I honestly don't think that was illegal. Typically laws say that you can't use copyrighted material in a way that harms the owner of the copyright, and that includes either creating derivative works or simply re-selling works for profit (which the copyright holder then doesn't get).

In this case you can whine all you want but the truth is that Spotify TODAY does NOT make it a business to use pirated mp3 files. IF it had done that then it would indeed currently be a criminal enterprise by definition.

So please use language more carefully or stop lying.

Words matter.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #93
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post
Lying? Of course, yes, it is. Reading comprehension. I didn't write the words within definition of these laws. The only words that actually matter. They are not up for debate.
I agree. Look:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post
Napster, Utorrent, Bittorrent, Facebook, Pirate Bay (i.e. Spotify)
Pirate Bay is not Spotify. Get it? It's by definition not the same entity. So by writing the above you're trying to mislead the reader, or "lie" to be blunt.

Whatever Pirate Bay as a legal entity has been found guilty of in a court of law is one thing, and what Spotify has been found guilty of is another.

If you can't comprehend that the two are different entities legally speaking then maybe you should be quiet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post
have all been sued and lost and/or settled out of court for undisclosed amounts, on numerous occasions.
Settling out of court does not equal 'guilty of a crime'. Sometimes the power dynamic is such that settling is simply a better deal - for both parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post
Spotify today is nothing more than a user data storage center, ad company and a central database for piracy.
Show us some cases where Spotify was found guilty of having on purpose uploaded pirated content, say in the last decade. I'd love to read up on what the official legal charges were and what the company was found guilty of, specifically.

I'll wait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post
Streaming music is the inconvenient medium. There are numerous programs where if one so chooses, can easily download anything and everything in full quality, totally anonymous, totally free of charge, in the click of a button. Major labels own a stake in Spotify, without those catalogs, Spotify would disappear tomorrow.
Excuse me? It looks like you're trying to tie the first part of the above to Spotify, which doesn't make any sense at all. Is there any proof that Spotify's software ties into other programs that then enables download in full quality and full anonymity without any charges?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post
Obviously, by defending this criminal enterprise, you have an agenda or you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Whatever your daft reasoning, throw on your blinders and ignore the truth all you want, it does not change factual matter at hand.
I'm not defending a criminal enterprise and I'm not defending Spotify.

I just god damn hate it when people disregard the meaning of words just because it suits their own crusade. You're just like all the others that hate Spotify, lumping together any number of things as if they are all the same, when in fact they are not.

I don't care for the Spotify model or the level of compensation. If there was something better I would pay for that. As a matter of fact Microsoft's "Groove Music" was better and compensated the rights holders better than Spotify so that's what I paid for when it was available - NOT Spotify. I actually stopped paying for Spotify and shifted to Groove for this exact reason. But most people didn't and since Microsoft didn't make money on it they closed it down. So now I pay the maximum for Spotify again.

So I'm not defending Spotify, it's just that I'm fx#$n tired of people making quite serious accusations and pretending that it's just all the same thing. Look around you at what the world is looking like right now. We need to be accurate when we talk about things.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #94
Deleted 6d8303c
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I agree. Look:
Yawn... argue all you want with yourself about facts.

Ignored.
Old 1 week ago
  #95
Quote:
Originally Posted by calikid View Post
Yawn... argue all you want with yourself about facts.

Ignored.
Having an opinion on what *should* be is not the same thing as what is legally *right*.

You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Copyrighted material on pirate bay does not have the copyright holder’s permission to be there.

Copyrighted material on Spotify has been uploaded by the copyright holder and a release signed.
Old 1 week ago
  #96
Here for the gear
 

Why would you be automatically entitled based on how hard you worked at something? Why does your product deserve grocery money, yet alone anyone giving a ****? Most musicians are fungible, replaceable, in a saturated market that doesn't care for them.

Just because I spent 10,000 hours on my poem or mud-pie, does not entitle me to anything. There's no such thing as "inherent value" - only the value that others assign to it -- which in the case of musicians with no money - is apparently near-zero.

Musicians that religiously moralize people to pay them more are failed entrepreneurs trying to shame the customer into paying more.
And musicians that want to force it beyond social shaming, and via regulation, are failed entrepreneurs that want a government bailout.

If you care about getting their money, how about you actually provide something of value to them, a label, an aristocrat (old school artist funding ), etc. --- anyone?
Old 1 week ago
  #97
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgod View Post
If you care about getting their money, how about you actually provide something of value to them, a label, an aristocrat (old school artist funding ), etc. --- anyone?
If someone really wants to get consumers money, collect the consumers data, sell that data to advertisers, then make money. It isn’t about the music anymore. It is about selling information.
Old 1 week ago
  #98
Deleted 6d8303c
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Having an opinion on what *should* be is not the same thing as what is legally *right*.
I don't have time for people who wont acknowledge even the most basic of facts and clearly just like to bait and argue with others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
As I outlined and provided definitions and links for, these are not my opinions, but historical facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Copyrighted material on pirate bay does not have the copyright holder’s permission to be there.
Unless, the copyright holder uploaded it to the pirate bay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Copyrighted material on Spotify has been uploaded by the copyright holder and a release signed.
That is (or was) not the case with Spotify, as has already been proven. You cant build a business on stolen goods or money and then suddenly decide one day to turn legit and all is forgiven. The law does not work that way.
Old 1 week ago
  #99
Deleted 6d8303c
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
If someone really wants to get consumers money, collect the consumers data, sell that data to advertisers, then make money. It isn’t about the music anymore. It is about selling information.
It stopped being about the music about 15 years ago? That is precisely what Spotify is doing today, collecting users data for sale. Still, it is the music being used as the bait to lure in users and there is where indie artists and labels must be fairly compensated.
Old 1 week ago
  #100
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgod View Post
Why would you be automatically entitled based on how hard you worked at something? Why does your product deserve grocery money, yet alone anyone giving a ****? Most musicians are fungible, replaceable, in a saturated market that doesn't care for them.

Just because I spent 10,000 hours on my poem or mud-pie, does not entitle me to anything. There's no such thing as "inherent value" - only the value that others assign to it -- which in the case of musicians with no money - is apparently near-zero.

Musicians that religiously moralize people to pay them more are failed entrepreneurs trying to shame the customer into paying more.
And musicians that want to force it beyond social shaming, and via regulation, are failed entrepreneurs that want a government bailout.

If you care about getting their money, how about you actually provide something of value to them, a label, an aristocrat (old school artist funding ), etc. --- anyone?
The problem with the above argument is;

a) people absolutely value music as art and as a product far more than they pay for it, and that is evident in its massive amount of use.

b) people won't pay more for it not because they don't value or use it, but because once piracy hit the industry the model for compensation broke. If this was all about cheaper technology enabling more to produce music it would still have looked better.

The entire line of reasoning strikes me as profoundly sociopathic.
Old 1 week ago
  #101
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post

Spotify today is nothing more than a user data storage center, ad company and a central database for piracy.
Show us some cases where Spotify was found guilty of having on purpose uploaded pirated content, say in the last decade. I'd love to read up on what the official legal charges were and what the company was found guilty of, specifically.

I'll wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6d8303c View Post
Ignored.
Translation:

Old 1 week ago
  #102
Quote:
Originally Posted by calikid View Post
Still, it is the music being used as the bait to lure in users and there is where indie artists and labels must be fairly compensated.
That is not going to happen. Period.
Old 1 week ago
  #103
Was gonna refute all calikid's points..but hey, he DID take his ball and go home!
Old 1 week ago
  #104
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

Besides, we don't need this **** right when we're dealing with a major pandemic. We need music to keep us sane. Without it I would probably die from sheer boredom. Wouldn't be a good thing.
Old 1 week ago
  #105
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I don’t really know how to reply to this!

*should* is quite a strong word, it basically means “my opinion is” in this case.

And whilst I’m thoroughly in agreement that streaming doesn’t pay anything like enough, your business idea isn’t competitive with the current model.

You can’t put the cat back in the bag. What we have to do is work out a way that it can be monetised properly.
Shall do?
Old 1 week ago
  #106
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
The CEO of Spotify (Daniel Ek) is a billionaire and artist still want to put their music up on their streaming platform - At least it's working for one person.
Our label refuses to put any music on Spotify and until artists get a grip they will continue to give away their music for pennies while Daniel Ek rakes in millions earned off artists backs.
Old 1 week ago
  #107
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
The CEO of Spotify (Daniel Ek) is a billionaire and artist still want to put their music up on their streaming platform - At least it's working for one person.
Our label refuses to put any music on Spotify and until artists get a grip they will continue to give away their music for pennies while Daniel Ek rakes in millions earned off artists backs.
What about the record labels back in the day who made all the money from artists, and sometimes even locked them into very long contracts where they often didn't make much money until they got catapulted into fame by way of radio playing etc.

With streaming services, you don't need to be famous for someone to hear your music.

Why is everyone against the ability for others to hear your music so easily? I don't want to go back to the 20th century. It sucked. Never again.
Old 6 days ago
  #108
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
I dot want people like Daniel Ek to make millions off the backs of artists.
I would love to go back to 80's and 90 where I actually got paid for my hard work.
I remember budgets for tape on a heavy project would be $15K.
I would have never been able to afford the gear I bought back then with today's budgets.
back in the 20th century when an album dropped it was actually good b/c nobody would drop a few hundred K into a ****ty band. Today any no talent person with no budget can release a song - there is no filter.
Finding good music today is like walking into a restaurant with 1000 items on the menu and there are only 2 items on the entire menu that are actually real food.
Old 6 days ago
  #109
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
Finding good music today is like walking into a restaurant with 1000 items on the menu and there are only 2 items on the entire menu that are actually real food.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to one.

But as for me, I'd like the chance to hear lots and lots of more obscure artists. It's pretty damn hard when you can't even hear their music because it's not being played on the radio or on mainstream channels.

Streaming services solve this problem.

And the comment about needing heaps of gear to get a good song recorded is largely a mute point. I could do perfectly well with about $2k worth of gear, including the PC, some synths, and one halfway decent mike.

Enough said.
Old 6 days ago
  #110
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
I dot want people like Daniel Ek to make millions off the backs of artists.
But....didn't Berry Gordy and the like do the same thing?

Quote:
I would love to go back to 80's and 90 where I actually got paid for my hard work.
Some of us still do get paid!

Quote:
I remember budgets for tape on a heavy project would be $15K.
I would have never been able to afford the gear I bought back then with today's budgets.
The thing is - now you don't need to.

Quote:
back in the 20th century when an album dropped it was actually good b/c nobody would drop a few hundred K into a ****ty band.
I think we can all name albums and bands that disprove that theory

Quote:
Today any no talent person with no budget can release a song - there is no filter.
Finding good music today is like walking into a restaurant with 1000 items on the menu and there are only 2 items on the entire menu that are actually real food.
And on the flip side, artists that would never have been given a chance by a bona fide record label back in the day can now make a record, have a hit and become stars....

As I've said before in this thread - the concept of streaming is great, especially for small bands. I've worked with so many bands on recordings that only ever made it to self-released CDs, never on to even iTunes - distribution was incredibly limited. Now with a bit of nous you can get 40k+ streams for an unknown artist without hardly trying, and that music can be there in perpetuity.

The issue is the payout rate. If people were receiving a penny per stream, suddenly everyone would love it.

I don't 100% disagree with your thoughts above btw, but you are only mentioning the negatives, and there's many positives - I haven't even mentioned how easy it is to discover new music from locations you'd never have reached before, and things like that.
Old 6 days ago
  #111
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbital View Post
as for me, I'd like the chance to hear lots and lots of more obscure artists. It's pretty damn hard when you can't even hear their music because it's not being played on the radio or on mainstream channels.

Streaming services solve this problem.

And the comment about needing heaps of gear to get a good song recorded is largely a mute point.
That last sentence shows that you're talking about two different things: There's the technology side which enables more people to create and distribute (stream) music (which is what you want), and then the other thing is the economic system in practice in the past where artists made more money from the sale of recorded music (which is what recording artists and musicians want).

I hope you see that there's a difference there. The biggest reason we're in the financial pickle we're in is that criminal piracy killed the market and then streaming picked up the left-overs.

And it's worth noting that the legitimate criticism of streaming is that users pay a blanket fee into a pool that's then divided among artists according to how many streams they get... which means that as you have more and more obscure artists on the platform but aren't increasing either users or the fees they pay the compensation to artists actually goes down.
Old 6 days ago
  #112
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbital View Post
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to one.

But as for me, I'd like the chance to hear lots and lots of more obscure artists. It's pretty damn hard when you can't even hear their music because it's not being played on the radio or on mainstream channels.

Streaming services solve this problem.

And the comment about needing heaps of gear to get a good song recorded is largely a mute point. I could do perfectly well with about $2k worth of gear, including the PC, some synths, and one halfway decent mike.

Enough said.
When you get older - your musical tastes defiantly evolve. for example when I was 10 years old all my friends liked Kiss - I thought they were horrible I liked bands like SuperTramp Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Rush, Yes. Yes I ha pretty progressive musical tastes as a kid but I knew what was good long before I know WHY they were good.
I don't think I said heaps of gear but back when I started a Studer 24 track was not $2000.00
Old 6 days ago
  #113
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
When you get older - your musical tastes defiantly evolve.
Last study I saw on that said the opposite is true. We settle in our tastes fairly early and don't evolve much from there.

I think for musicians and artists it can of course be different.
Old 6 days ago
  #114
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
When you get older - your musical tastes defiantly evolve. for example when I was 10 years old all my friends liked Kiss - I thought they were horrible I liked bands like SuperTramp Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Rush, Yes. Yes I ha pretty progressive musical tastes as a kid but I knew what was good long before I know WHY they were good.
I don't think I said heaps of gear but back when I started a Studer 24 track was not $2000.00

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Last study I saw on that said the opposite is true. We settle in our tastes fairly early and don't evolve much from there.

I think for musicians and artists it can of course be different.
I was gonna say - very few people's music tastes diverge past the early 20s I think. As musos we are definitely the exception! there's a reason radio stations playing the latest hits or emerging artists are referred to as "youth" stations.

I know my school friends are still listening to the bands we listened to from 15-20...and similar artists they've since discovered in the same genres maybe.
Old 5 days ago
  #115
Gear Head
 

Two names that are rather special to me, although I don't know enough about them, are Seymour Stein (Sire Records) and Daniel Miller (Mute).

They were responsible for bringing us a lot of good music. I remember this Sire sampler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_Yo - all good stuff. Perhaps they were responsible for rescuing the pop music world from a period as dull as the current one.

So Sire and Mute represented some kind of artistic vision, and if you liked one act on the label you would probably like others. Their vision was outside the mainstream, although a degree of crossover occurred.

Who is the Stein or Miller of today? I think someone like that is much needed to fix the state of music distribution. In particular, to strengthen the "long tail" of music that isn't aimed at the masses. The role of small record label as discoverer, curator, and developer of talent may be as essential as ever - but is it being filled?

How would a neo-Miller handle today's challenge? He'd somehow assemble a critical mass of good acts under the same stylistic umbrella, a big enough mass to attract interest from a sector of listeners. He'd find better ways to monetize music distribution based on the fans' emotional/subcultural connection to the label and the acts. He could ignore Spotify altogether, or gain enough leverage to make a better deal with these giants.


My fear is that the Stein or Miller of today is working at Goldman Sachs, making seven figures collateralizing debt obligations or otherwise helping to engineer the next financial crisis. Or doing something equally lucrative and empty in law or corporate management.
Old 3 days ago
  #116
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverOctave View Post
Two names that are rather special to me, although I don't know enough about them, are Seymour Stein (Sire Records) and Daniel Miller (Mute).

They were responsible for bringing us a lot of good music. I remember this Sire sampler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_Yo - all good stuff. Perhaps they were responsible for rescuing the pop music world from a period as dull as the current one.

So Sire and Mute represented some kind of artistic vision, and if you liked one act on the label you would probably like others. Their vision was outside the mainstream, although a degree of crossover occurred.

Who is the Stein or Miller of today? I think someone like that is much needed to fix the state of music distribution. In particular, to strengthen the "long tail" of music that isn't aimed at the masses. The role of small record label as discoverer, curator, and developer of talent may be as essential as ever - but is it being filled?

How would a neo-Miller handle today's challenge? He'd somehow assemble a critical mass of good acts under the same stylistic umbrella, a big enough mass to attract interest from a sector of listeners. He'd find better ways to monetize music distribution based on the fans' emotional/subcultural connection to the label and the acts. He could ignore Spotify altogether, or gain enough leverage to make a better deal with these giants.


My fear is that the Stein or Miller of today is working at Goldman Sachs, making seven figures collateralizing debt obligations or otherwise helping to engineer the next financial crisis. Or doing something equally lucrative and empty in law or corporate management.
Ah ok so you're talking about Republic and Interscope? Sounds like what you're describing.
Old 3 days ago
  #117
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverOctave View Post
Two names that are rather special to me, although I don't know enough about them, are Seymour Stein (Sire Records) and Daniel Miller (Mute).

They were responsible for bringing us a lot of good music. I remember this Sire sampler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_Yo - all good stuff. Perhaps they were responsible for rescuing the pop music world from a period as dull as the current one.

So Sire and Mute represented some kind of artistic vision, and if you liked one act on the label you would probably like others. Their vision was outside the mainstream, although a degree of crossover occurred.

Who is the Stein or Miller of today? I think someone like that is much needed to fix the state of music distribution. In particular, to strengthen the "long tail" of music that isn't aimed at the masses. The role of small record label as discoverer, curator, and developer of talent may be as essential as ever - but is it being filled?

How would a neo-Miller handle today's challenge? He'd somehow assemble a critical mass of good acts under the same stylistic umbrella, a big enough mass to attract interest from a sector of listeners. He'd find better ways to monetize music distribution based on the fans' emotional/subcultural connection to the label and the acts. He could ignore Spotify altogether, or gain enough leverage to make a better deal with these giants.


My fear is that the Stein or Miller of today is working at Goldman Sachs, making seven figures collateralizing debt obligations or otherwise helping to engineer the next financial crisis. Or doing something equally lucrative and empty in law or corporate management.
There's still people like that in the world. Over here in Aus we have a label called Future Classic that has the Mute sort of ethos...there's also Wonderlick (who are a combined management/label, and have clients such as Amy Shark, Boy and Bear, Montaigne, The Paper Kites, Josh Pyke and so on), or Lemontree Music (home to Tones and I, Tash Sultana amongst others). The latter two are distributed through majors but still curate themselves.
Old 2 days ago
  #118
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgod View Post
Why would you be automatically entitled based on how hard you worked at something? Why does your product deserve grocery money, yet alone anyone giving a ****? Most musicians are fungible, replaceable, in a saturated market that doesn't care for them.

Just because I spent 10,000 hours on my poem or mud-pie, does not entitle me to anything. There's no such thing as "inherent value" - only the value that others assign to it -- which in the case of musicians with no money - is apparently near-zero.

Musicians that religiously moralize people to pay them more are failed entrepreneurs trying to shame the customer into paying more.
And musicians that want to force it beyond social shaming, and via regulation, are failed entrepreneurs that want a government bailout.

If you care about getting their money, how about you actually provide something of value to them, a label, an aristocrat (old school artist funding ), etc. --- anyone?
Huh? Who ever said anything about automatic entitlement?
Old 2 days ago
  #119
Gear Addict
 
barbital's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearrhea View Post
Huh? Who ever said anything about automatic entitlement?
There is of course no such thing. If we want to get anywhere in this world we have to do what we have to do to get by.

But streaming services have really changed mine and others' lives for the better. There is so much music out there that I never knew about because all we had were CDs and tapes. Streaming changed all that so much. Now I can find artists I never even knew about.

Why should this change, for any reason?
Old 1 day ago
  #120
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbital View Post
There is of course no such thing. If we want to get anywhere in this world we have to do what we have to do to get by.

But streaming services have really changed mine and others' lives for the better. There is so much music out there that I never knew about because all we had were CDs and tapes. Streaming changed all that so much. Now I can find artists I never even knew about.

Why should this change, for any reason?
Why is this a point to not pay artists properly???
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump