Slashdot Mirror
How Long Will It Take Streaming To Dominate the Music Business?
journovampire writes with this story about the booming music streaming business. "Streaming is on course to make more money for the U.S. music business than downloads and physical sales combined within the next three years. The U.S. appears poised for streaming to become its most valuable music format in either 2016 or 2017, according to MBW forecasts – so long as you include SoundExchange royalties generated by digital radio platforms like Pandora alongside subscription and ad-supported platforms like Spotify. But in the other three biggest recorded music markets in the world – France, Germany and Japan – the public appears more hesitant to allow streaming to take over."
I already have enough monthly bills.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
>> money for the U.S. music business than downloads and physical sales
What about radio? That seems like the closest competition. (When I use a streaming service, in large part it's because I want some background music without worrying about picking songs.)
The industry will change eventually once enough momentum will be gained towards the streaming,, Currently it's taking probably something like 30-40% of sales and still not enough to convert the old physical-format-only people to the streaming age. No single change is instantaneous, it'll take time to catch on..
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
If it doesn't come on a physical CD they will not buy it. Period.
The better question is how long will it take for streaming to be viable source of income for artists? The only people who make money via streaming are the aggregators.
As long as you can be blocked based on location, it's no damn good. We have to tear down the borders to make it work the way the internet is supposed to work, wide open worldwide, otherwise just stick with torrents to get what you want when you want it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I jsut don't get why all the people that will make streaming more popular than downloading are ignoring the obvious downsides of streaming vs. local storage:
1) You can't listen to your music when you dont have an active internet connection.
2) You're basically paying regularly/multiple times to hear the same music you could just pay for/download once.
Streaming needs ubiquitous free wifi (and/or cheap/unlimited data service for phones).
This economy baffles me. I rent a house, lease a car, subscribe to a Adobe software, pay-per-view TV, stream music, and play online-DRM games and god knows what else. The day I stop having income, I don't own a thing. I am not by any means going back to the age of carrying chunks of gold on my person, but I get the impression property is quickly being replaced by service in too many aspects of our living. Although practical and convenient, this can only amplify the financial insecurity of the middle/lower classes.
Well, if the shit hits the fan, I can always listen to my vinyl collection.
I like to use BTSync to keep all of my music where/how I like it on every device, but the users in my organization along with family/inlaws all seem to be obsessed with streaming. I know people who will skip the movie/music on their HDD to stream it because it's easier to find.
Geeks, DJ's and old folks seem to be all that's left not streaming. (old folks using physical media of course)
Does radio count as streaming?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I'm not a fan of streaming. It would be okay for when I'm at home but when I'm out it would just drive up my cell bill for the data usage. Plus there are a couple of areas in my normal trips that have bad coverage which would mean the streaming would stop.
I hated when one of my favourite podcasts went streaming only. I always forget about it. Before it would download automatically and would show up in my podcast player every week. I found a lot of great new bands that way. But the CBC changed it because they wanted to more accurately count the number of people listening.
7 is the correct answer!
Since I typically don't watch the same movie twice, I think streaming video content is a no-brainer. And I love Pandora... but if you like listening to a single album at a time, where song B always comes after song A, a personal collection is still the way to go. And not that difficult or expensive. I have a system that works well-- QNAP (or Synology) NAS, with media server, and Sonos. I use SuperSync to sync everything from my iTunes accounts to the NAS and can sync to and from that from anywhere. But the music space is a bit fractured, and there are a lot of competing solutions, with no clear winners.
This is one of the reasons why I was so confused about the music industry being AGAINST streaming, in fact media industries in general.
They could make people pay out the ass to easily stream content multiple times instead of just single-purchase in the case of DVDs, CDs and such.
It appears they seem to be coming over to streaming though since the various experiments throughout the past 5 years.
I still want to see more independent sites pop up though.
I remember a very poor attempt at crowdfunding was tried for video production and it failed pretty hard, sadly. (content was fine though for the few larger things that garnered attention)
Seeing something like that done again in the post-Kickstarter era would probably work better. Having seen things from laptop-phone-tablet hybrids to videogames hitting the millions marks, it can work.
Some of the shows that did get funded on the site weren't even done on that huge a budget either, and they looked pretty decently done, even if the acting itself was average-ish, the story itself was brilliant and that is what matters. Look at Red Dwarf, done on a shoestring budget at best and it became a hit.
Sometimes restrictions force you to innovate or become very character driven, and really play to the people you are aiming at, make them feel part of it, and Red Dwarf did that very well, as did things like Star Trek where they made the show more for themselves, a show that made them feel happy.
Likewise, the same for audio would be nice.
I mean, sure, people could use Kickstarter, but competition is always good. And kickstarter isn't really well suited to media production goals, and one of the good things about the previously failed site was it let people fund on an on-going per-episode basis, or series basis, which Kickstarter obviously lacks since it is all or nothing, Indiegogo has flexible funding, which is closer, and patreon is more of a personal support basis.
I can't buy a physical music CD that is more than 3 months old in any physical store any more. Even at that, if the CD isn't top40 it is highly unlikely I can find it anywhere. We used to have used music stores all over the place too, and they are all but extinct. Now the best music selection in town is ... at a book store, where their music area is less than the size of my kitchen.
I'd say streaming and digital sales have already won.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Streaming really only makes sense to me for disposable music, like modern pop music. You know the stuff. The candy sweet radio friendly tunes that are auto-tuned to hell and EQ'd and processed to sound just like a previously successful pop song. The stuff you can hear a few times then want to turn off the radio if it comes on again. I don't listen to that sort of music, it bores me, so I don't bother with a streaming account.
I'm the sort of person who still buys albums, albeit on CD these days. I only buy the ones from artists which I think have a long shelf life and a lot of re-playability. I like the fact that I can toss on an album I've had for almost 30 years and just listen to it again, without needing an internet connection or a current subscription. I like that I get to hear the 'b-sides', the tracks which don't get promoted or aren't considered good enough for radio / streaming highlighting. I actually enjoy many of those tracks far more than the one or two that are there to sell the album. If an artist can't place 6-10 good tracks on a record, then I'm not really interested in hearing what they have to say.
I rip all my CDs to lossless FLAC, iTunes, and MP3 at the same time, then store the archive quality FLACs on my media server. ITunes can't play back FLAC, so I basically don't use it any more, preferring XBMC to get the job done.
I have about 350 albums now that I own and can playback whenever and wherever I choose without needing an internet connection or the permission of some greedy corporation who lock my playback down to only work on their hardware (I'm looking at you Apple!).
I've been collecting music for about 30 years now and still have access to every track I bought (bar the early stuff on LP). If I subscribed to a service for 30 years, all I'd have at the end is the sense of regret I couldn't listen to any music any more, despite the thousands I had spent on it over the years. That's approximately $5400 at today's rates, about the same as I pay for close to 380 albums. The cost is about the same, but if I stopped collecting today, I'd still have 350 albums to listen to.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
.. until we start hearing stories about how even though people are listening to streaming music and paying for it, it isn't enough, and the studios are "losing revenue" that "they deserve".
The business model is amazing:
1 - Claim you should be making more than you are based on whatever stupid math you can put in front of the congressman you're lobbying where everybody pays for everything they ever listened to all the time.
2 - Profit from special taxes on sales of CD-Rs, internet subscriptions (everybody infringes at some point!), etc.
3 - Rate hikes bordering on collusion
4 - Never ending copyright extensions
When internet connectivity is ubiquitous and free.
And not before.
Until then, streaming won't dominate, because everything else is still needed to deal with the gaps in, and cost of, Internet connectivity. When cars start coming with radios which will no longer play music from AM, FM, or SirusXM, don't have CD or DVD drives, even for navigation data, and will only play streaming, THEN streaming will have dominated the music business(*). Not before.
(*) I am well aware the article is about revenue; revenue is, however, not the question the headline asks.
Myself, I prefer physical copies that I can rip to electronic format to travel with me. If something happens to my e-copies, I can restore them to a new device or system.
Hopefully it will take forever. That's definitely the message we paying customers should be sending to the people who are looking for ways to start saying NO to our money. I currently don't pirate any music, but it's never too late to start, if they insist.
Music streaming would be a major technological regression, and a rather unpleasant one. It would basically suck in most of the ways that video streaming sucks, except that since it requires much less bandwidth, it'll happen to work better (so it'll suck just slightly less). But all the availability problems, potential reliability problems, privacy problems, increased expenses, etc would still be there.
What we should be asking and encouraging, is how long until streaming stops dominating the video business. That one has been streaming since the 1940s, and in the mainstream it's starting to digress from multicast streaming (e.g. OTA and "cable") to less efficient non-multicast (e.g. Netflex and Amazon and even "on-demand" cable falls into this), as bandwidth becomes more abundant to support the inferior delivery tech.
Currently, pirates (and strangely: iTunes users!) are the only ones who get the top tier tech (async downloading of video files, combined with local playback), but eventually everyone else will want it, too. And storage is getting so ridiculously cheap, that it's even outpaced the advances in bandwidth increases, so the tech lead and attractiveness over streaming, will just continue to widen.
Unless you are getting streamed music that delivers the *full* recording experience, a lot of musical nuance will be wasted. How many people today, especially young people, have ever heard *all* of the audio quality that was recorded, delivered via streaming? It's true that much of the musical experience in a streamed file can be enjoyed, but it's a shame to see the fine nuances of musical overtones and distinctive instruments missed because you're not getting a full bandwidth or recording experience.
Please don't confuse "music" vs. "recording" business. Recording = (big) labels (incl. the so-called "made men" among musicians) = RIAA and everything it stands for. While you can live-stream, most streams are streams of registrations by the recording industry. It would help if we can see quality streaming with proceeds going directly to artists, rather than their masters.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
I don't give money to the US music business.
I live in Sweden, where Spotify rule. I, my family, all my relatives and all my friends have not bought a CD or an iTunes/whatever song for...sheaa..I don't really remember when I saw one of those... Maybe 2-3 years ago? Either way, the streaming music has already replaced the old way of doing things. It's just the music-industry trying hard to not make it look that way, since they make so much more money the old way. If my grandmother would actually buy me a CD, I would ask for the receipt. (She wouldn't though, since she knows I have Spotify).
I'm thrilled with what I get for 9.95 [per month] with Google play.
Plus how much per month for the cellular data plan so that it'll work while you're away from home?
Performing artists don't get paid for radio play
What you say is true for musical performers who don't write their own songs. Singer-songwriters get songwriter royalties at whatever rate BMI or ASCAP is paying out.
Most of the time I am listening to music I either have an internet connection or am in my car with XM
You drive; I don't. I'm not aware of any city that provides XM receivers on its buses.
I really like being able to say 'today I want to hear classic rock, yesterday it was jazz, tomorrow maybe classical, maybe some trop rock later on, maybe some new adult music. Streaming lets me do that for a pretty low price.
So does FM radio, but if you just choose by genre, you can't be assured of ever hearing a particular song or even a particular artist.
Well, you should be mortgaging the house rather than renting it
That depends on how often you plan to move to another state to follow the jobs. Transaction costs of buying and selling a house whenever you relocate can add up.
I like Netflix's subscription model too, but that's because I never rewatch the same movie over and over and over again. If I really liked a movie *that* much, I could just buy it on Blu-Ray
Children are more likely to rewatch because they value familiarity more than novelty. This is how Disney and DreamWorks Animation make their money.
but if it's on Netflix instant viewing, even that isn't necessary
Until the film expires from Netflix. Or until your ISP starts charging you overages every time you watch. And it's not just cell ISPs that do that; satellite ISPs and even DSL in parts of Iowa do it too.
When cars start coming with radios which will no longer play music from AM, FM, or SirusXM, don't have CD or DVD drives, even for navigation data, and will only play streaming
City buses already lack radios. Passengers are expected to bring their own entertainment, be it local audio files or streaming or (in my admitted edge case) a hobby programming project.
revenue is, however, not the question the headline asks.
"Dominate the Music Business?" suggested revenue to me.
What we should be asking and encouraging, is how long until streaming stops dominating the video business.
If a work is viewed only once, streaming is more efficient than having to ship a disc around. Music is listened to on playlists that are repeated or shuffled. With video, on the other hand, conventional wisdom holds that rewatching is mostly for cult classics and children's animation ("I wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh again").
You are basically giving up all control for the product you are paying.
I have used it myself and find it convenient, however is it worth what we are losing?
At any time the controlling entity on the other end can revoke at their discretion your ability to listen to you music.
Not to mention if you happen to have bad luck and live in an area where they have bandwidth caps ... :(
Not to mention they are collecting information on your and selling it as well......double dipping....
I made that argument for a while, but I lost. Turns out people don't "listen" to music anymore. They play it while doing other things, so the subtle nuance is lost anyway because they're not paying attention. I tried to queue up some music on my big speakers for the neighbor kid one time. He couldn't sit still long enough to hear it.