The Music Industry's Latest Shortsighted Plan: Killing Freemium Services

An anonymous reader notes that there have been rumblings in the music industry of trying to shut down freemium services like Spotify's free tier and YouTube's swath of free music. The record labels have realized that music downloads are gradually giving way to streaming, and they're angling for as a big a slice of that revenue as they can manage. The article argues that they're making the same mistake they always make: that converting freemium site listeners (in the past, music pirates) to subscription services will be a 1:1 transfer, and no listeners will be lost in the process. Of course, that's no more true now than it was a decade ago. But in doing trying to do so, the labels will do harm to the artists they represent, and shoot themselves in the foot for acquiring future customers by getting rid of several major sources of music discovery.

Comments

Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Crashmarik]

You mean more than they already do ?

From what I have seen the sites pay next to nothing and most of what they do pay goes to the labels, because the artists are still in debt to them.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I can't understand this hate from non-artists for the record labels, based on some kind of "love for the artists" - artists use record labels for so many things (of both artistic and non-artistic nature), so i think this idea of "the (ab)used by the record label artist" to be most of the times just a hypocritical justfication of piracy.

I am an amateur musician - if i wanted i could use a record label to help me in a professional career, or i could self-promote/publish my work.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Crashmarik]

Hate ?

I just don't buy into the B.S. they are doing this for the artists, or that the artists will ever see anything in their pocket from this.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Dunbal]

Personally I find it amazing that we still need "labels" and "publishers" for anything nowadays. There's a huge global distribution network out there available for almost no money, there are facebook and twitter addicts that will gladly do massive "word of mouth" advertising for you for free. I think some artists need to realize at some point that in a world where pictures of a blue/black or white/gold dress can take the whole world by storm almost overnight, maybe the reason no one wants their music is actually because it sucks.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Jason Levine]

I think labels might still have a place, but not with the kind of power that they traditionally had. They still employ people who are good at publicizing albums whereas the bands might not be good at it themselves. (Yes, social media and other tools makes it easier, but it doesn't mean everyone becomes a marketing expert.) I envision the future label to be a glorified ad agency. A singer/band would sign a contract for the label to promote their album for a certain period of time. The label wouldn't own the copyrights and would merely get a cut of the profits. (As opposed to the current "gobble all the profits and generously give a crumb to the artists" model.) If the artist didn't like how the label was doing, they could fire them or wait until the contract expired. Then, they could pack up their albums and go to another label. (No more: "Artist X can't play popular Song Y because they left Label Z who now owns the rights to it.")

Of course, these new labels will need to trim a lot of fat out so many music executives will lose their jobs. Here's an actual size tear that I will shed over their lost jobs: .

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[MightyYar]

We don't need them, but the people who use them haven't died yet.

There will always be a need for promoters - musicians will need to fill venues somehow.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite all the promise and the realized utility of the internet, your average person still doesn't know more than two bands that aren't with a label doing active, professional promotion on their behalf. That's why labels still exist.

Re: Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's white/gold -- just saying...

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Hate ?

O.K, sorry, bad word choise - hostility?

I just don't buy into the B.S. they are doing this for the artists, or that the artists will ever see anything in their pocket from this.

So, you think that the artists are "(ab)used" by the record label...

Erratum for my original comment:

"I can't understand this hostility from non-artists for the record labels, based on some kind of "love for the artists" - artists use record labels for so many things (of both artistic and non-artistic nature), so i think this idea of "the (ab)used by the record label artist" to be most of the times just a hypocritical justfication of piracy. I am an amateur musician - if i wanted i could use a record label to help me in a professional career, or i could self-promote/publish my work."

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[jedidiah]

Record labels abuse the talent and then corrupt the law.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[jedidiah]

The entire subgenre of music I used to listen back to in the great heydey of paying for physical media were all bands that had to do their own marketing before the labels would even look at them. Even that only came because a lot of 3rd party marketing that occured outside of the label system with underground clubs and tape trading done by mail.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an amateur musician - if i wanted i could use a record label to help me in a professional career, or i could self-promote/publish my work.

And if you worked just a little harder, you could be famous, rich, successful.

That's not really how it works. Double-billing is how it works. Overcharging. The information's just one Google away....

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

something is wrong with being hostile to an industry filled with talentless beurocrats that keep a stranglehold on the entire creative industry through massive wealth, lobbying power and legal intimidation?

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Record labels abuse the talent and then corrupt the law.

I disagree, as i already wrote - but (don't ask me why!) i want to ask you: piracy help artists?

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[AmiMoJo]

The difference between making a living from music and getting super rich is being promoted by a label that can get your one or two good songs on an advert out TV show, or get someone famous to talk over the first few seconds. That's why do many bands get suckered in.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[phantomfive]

The reason is, because in many cases, the skill of the markets is greater than the skill of the musicians. That's why labels make more money, and can abuse the artists. Because if the artist leaves (in many cases), there will always be another one-hit-wonder to replace them.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[hairyfeet]

Because the fans that care enough to pirate will often go to shows and buy shirts which actually DOES go to the artist?

If you want to see what REALLY goes on with the artists read up on Hollywood accounting. It was Hollywood accounting that caused Meatloaf to go bankrupt after Bat Out Of Hell I, which just FYI broke several records for length on the top 200 BEFORE there was any piracy, because the record labels said "nah it didn't make nothing". Or ask Cheap Trick who had to spend the better part of a decade suing their label because the label decided "well iTunes didn't exist when you made those albums so all digital sales? Yeah we're keeping 100%".

To paraphrase what the producer Steve Albini said about record labels and contracts, "its like fighting through a river of shit with 500 other people for a "prize" of getting mugged at the end".

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what will always keep artists with labels is that not only do they push, market and sell the "persona" that they have created, they also have writers and musicians on staff. It seems to me that a lot of the popular artists don't write their own lyrics and/or come up with their own beats. They might be able to sing, but without being told what to sing or what melody they need to put lyrics to, they don't have anything to offer.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who is a musician. He also does music production and recording. The bottom line is that the artist makes less than $.05 per track on a CD, almost nothing from music that is streamed from pay services and royalties. Bands that go on tour generally end up in debt because the labels arrange the tours, and charge the band for everything including the air that they breathe. The labels make the lion's share of the money, and mostly end up owning the rights to the music.

So while this will not harm the artists much more then the very great harm that the labels already do to them, it is true that the labels are shooting themselves in the foot again.

If I hear a track that I like, I will buy it. I will not buy it unheard, nor will I buy a track until I have heard the entire track a few times. If people cannot hear the tracks for free, how will they know it exists, let alone want to buy it? Streaming audio and video are the future. The labels are the past, and becoming more of a hindrance to the artist and the end purchaser of the music every day.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

The same Greek folk song in 3 different covers:

Vangelis and Papa - world famous enough, don't do shows, don't sell shirts

A young Greek girl - famous enough in Greece, don't do shows, don't sell shirts

Some great cover - not famous at all, don't do shows, don't sell shirts

All artists in the examples live from records (the first case is well known, the second is one well known in Greece candicate for the continuation of our traditional music, the third is my favourite cover even if the artist is not very popular) - and not all music is appropriate for "do shows, sell shirts"!

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[cheesybagel]

I see. Beaten Wife Syndrome. Or Stockholm Syndrome.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Trogre]

They often hook artists with a lucrative recording contract first, because recording with good quality is still expensive, though mixing and mastering less so now with digital workflows.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I see. Beaten Wife Syndrome. Or Stockholm Syndrome.

hahaha! You think they made me their bitch? A great Greek song about a lady leaving her husband in a winter's morning since the air asked from her a heroic decision, paying upfront for renting a new house, but when the night comes she want's to return and ask for forgiveness, but she is ashamed to confess to her husbant that without him is is half - enjoy (or not!) (it would be "Greek" for you but anyway, just for the music!).

Record labels exists because artists need them.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[tsotha]

Traditionally the labels did a few things for you: Marketing, production, advances, and shelf space. By "shelf space" I mean getting your album in to record stores, which was a bit of rent seeking you really couldn't get around as an artist.

Today you can do your own marketing, borrow money, and control over shelf space is a commodity of dwindling (if not entirely nonexistent) value. But record labels can still add value by bringing together the facilities and technical expertise you need to make professional-quality music. I think they make way too much money for this service based almost purely on inertia, but that's likely to change.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't understand this hate from non-artists for the record labels

What are you talking about? I'm an artist. I am however to signed to a label. I experience all too well what the record companies are doing.
Whenever someone buys storage media to store the things I do the record companies takes a levy on my behalf. If if call them to get my share of that they laugh at me and tells my to fuck off.
If someone hosts and event where visitors can enjoy the things I've done the record companies takes a fee to 'compensate the artists'. Never mind that it isn't any artist that is signed with them, music is played so they demand a share. Not really a share, it doesn't really matter if I don't get a cent, the record companies will just care about the number of visitors and assume that I charged as much as they do and that I played their music. If I don't do the paperwork to prove that all music played was from non-signed artists then I would have to pay about $50000 for an event with 1000 visitors.

The laws and regulations is rotten and something needs to be done about that.
There is no option to sustain yourself as an artist without the record companies, they have made sure that the laws and regulations prevent that.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Personally I find it amazing that we still need "labels" and "publishers" for anything nowadays. "

I'm more surprised that the summary failed to mention it's Apple trying to convince the labels to kill off the free streaming rather than them acting on their own.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[dave420]

Not all music is appropriate for "making money".

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[gnupun]

Record labels exists because artists need them.

For what? Aren't Spotify and similar websites just like labels, except they are e-labels? Why do you need two middlemen? You should not have deal with (or pay) a conventional label if distributing your music through an e-label like Spotify.

Paying both middlemen would be quite expensive, resulting in a very tiny fraction of profit per song played for the artist as has been demonstrated on numerous slashdot stories.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Not all music is appropriate for "making money".

Even an inappropriate for "do shows, sell shirts" kind of music (e.g., Greek traditional) must have its professional artists, who support themselves ("making [just enough] money" to exist as professionals) thanks to record labels - i, as an amateur musician, don't need them, but professional artists need so much time to develop their skills (or compose) that it is against art to force them do other stuff also.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[gnupun]

He's got a point: only very famous musicians can make money from "concerts/merchandise." The remaining artists depend upon song sales for bare minimum survival. You don't get to decide which music is appropriate for making money -- that's the artists choice.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that is a decision that must be made between them (labels -"e" and/or the conventional- and artists) based on their already existing and/or future contracts.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Radio is perfectly good for advertising bands' material. The problem is the playlists are extremely limited to what a handful of labels dictate.

Music has been dying since the double dipping days of CDs that covered over the drop, and it's the industry itself killing the sales. We simply do not get to hear anywhere near as much material as we could in the 80s with significantly less resources available. Most people aren't interested in streaming services, not that they're not successful options to those that sit at desks all day. Get real music on the radio, cut the fuckfest verbal diarrhea "DJ", and you'll see music sales start to increase as the masses tune back in.

Re: Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't get to decide which music is appropriate for making money -- that's the artists choice"

So the artist can put out crap that no one wants and they should be entitled to a living out of it?

Someobe who spends a few weeks recording an album should be paid forever more without doing any further work (shows).

What would your boss say if you went into work tomorrow and demanded payment in perpetuity for what you did over the last few months.

Copyright is all well and good if you continue to add value... new performances, new software features... but at the moment the creative industry just milks it...

Should someone's estate really expect to be paid forevermore for the work of an ancestor?

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[SCY.tSCc.]

Personally I find it amazing that we still need "labels" and "publishers" for anything nowadays.

Think of production costs. All the money the production of a full album costs must come from somewhere. Traditionally, the labels do the funding.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[hairyfeet]

My last band was making a good living doing it and we were strictly regional. As for non popular music? If you can't find a patron then sorry charlie, nobody is promised a living "just" because they wrote a song decades ago. I mean can you imagine if we carried this kind of "IP" thinking to every field? Just one apt would probably be $10K a month because you'd have to pay everyone from the plumber to the molding finisher for their "art".

But just because you based your life on government created artificial scarcity is not MY problem, remember this was the same arguments that were used to try to ban VCRs and cassettes. Technology and society changes, adapt or perish.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[tburkhol]

Even an inappropriate for "do shows, sell shirts" kind of music (e.g., Greek traditional) must have its professional artists

Um, no. That used to be one of the defining features of "folk" music: it didn't have professional performers.

You say the labels perform a valuable service for the performers. I say they create artificial scarcity, say by promoting only one of many "Greek traditional" bands, thus focusing as many potential "Greek traditional" customers into a single offering as possible. Certainly there is some benefit to the group chosen to be the sole commercial representative of that genre, but the purpose of the label is to take for itself as much of that revenue as possible. They're not the artists' share-and-share-alike friend. They're keeping the goose who lays golden eggs. They're a tax on the performance.

As a consumer, I would like to think that my payment benefits the artists, and that someone who sells a million albums at $15 each actually ends up with millions of dollars, not the $50-100k most will actually see. So, as a consumer, I see a label as a used-car salesman standing between me and the performers I would like to reward. Out of the 40x markup between artist and retail, label royalties may only represent 150% markup, but (as a consumer) I tend to lump all of the recording, production, promotion, and distribution cost into "The Label," and that represent somewhere around 20x markup. As a consumer, it's hard for me to understand why a CD that costs $1 to stamp and package, sells for $15, and gets the artist $0.10.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[tburkhol]

The entire subgenre of music I used to listen back to in the great heydey of paying for physical media were all bands that had to do their own marketing before the labels would even look at them.

Exactly - labels pick up bands once they've demonstrated not just their musical ability, but their ability to be part of the commercial machine. (Setting aside artificial performers created by labels, like The Monkeys or Britney Spears) The labels look for a marketable product, and the best way to identify that is to choose those that already have a modest market and make it bigger.

They're still doing it. Scouring youtube and CreateSpace looking for people who can put out several high-hit pieces, and offering a pathway to "the next level."

The labels may well be great advertisers and great PR people. The question is whether they're worth their price. It seems to me like there's a niche for an a la carte media advertiser who doesn't require copyright transfers, doesn't necessarily run a recording studio, but can get an independent band into some of the promotional areas (eg, radio play) historically monopolized by the labels.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either trolling, or you haven't been paying attention for the past 20 years. Either way, I don't think you're seriously asking the question, since you seem to be taking a hands-over-ears "LALALALALALAAAAA" stance no matter how many responses you get that both answers your question and demolishes all your arguments.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Even an inappropriate for "do shows, sell shirts" kind of music (e.g., Greek traditional) must have its professional artists

Um, no. That used to be one of the defining features of "folk" music: it didn't have professional performers.

We Greeks had professional "folk" artists for some milleniums now! And if you consider some of our newer ones, they started recording more than a century ago... for example (not of the oldest, but only because you may recognize it): Misirlou

You say the labels perform a valuable service for the performers. I say they create artificial scarcity, say by promoting only one of many "Greek traditional" bands, thus focusing as many potential "Greek traditional" customers into a single offering as possible.

But everyone can self-publish his work (many do it). Yes, some artists/bands of Greek traditional music are promoted, but that is the usual marketing.

Certainly there is some benefit to the group chosen to be the sole commercial representative of that genre, but the purpose of the label is to take for itself as much of that revenue as possible. They're not the artists' share-and-share-alike friend. They're keeping the goose who lays golden eggs. They're a tax on the performance.

Never wrote that record labels are charities!

As a consumer, I would like to think that my payment benefits the artists, and that someone who sells a million albums at $15 each actually ends up with millions of dollars, not the $50-100k most will actually see. So, as a consumer, I see a label as a used-car salesman standing between me and the performers I would like to reward. Out of the 40x markup between artist and retail, label royalties may only represent 150% markup, but (as a consumer) I tend to lump all of the recording, production, promotion, and distribution cost into "The Label," and that represent somewhere around 20x markup. As a consumer, it's hard for me to understand why a CD that costs $1 to stamp and package, sells for $15, and gets the artist $0.10.

Your numbers are very exaggerated i think. And in any case that must be an issue between the artist and its label.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what was the point of this post?

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[gnupun]

As a consumer, it's hard for me to understand why a CD that costs $1 to stamp and package, sells for $15, and gets the artist $0.10.

These number seem exaggerated. Here's the BBC's take on how 800 million pounds from CD sales are divided amongst the various players:

About 13% goes to the artists, while 30% goes to the label, with a 17% cut going to the government in the form of VAT (applied at 20% and therefore 1/6 of purchase price). About 17% goes to the retailer, while the rest goes to manufacturers (9%), distributors (8%) and the spend on administering copyright (6%).

The artist makes 1.04 pounds from an 8 pound CD.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

People like music because they form associations with music. "This is the song we danced to at prom," or, "this is the song where Bob started puking on everybody." That music is generally whatever is on the radio at the time, or whatever the DJ is playing (which is what's on the radio at the time). The majority of the population doesn't hunt for new music because they don't enjoy the process of listening to a ton of sucky shit to find that buried gem. What that means is that if it isn't free, most people will just stop. Massive consolidation of the radio industry is what has killed music sales, not the Internet.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Applehu Akbar]

So that's the story of how you became Space Nutter Troll! Thanks for enlightening us all.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[tnk1]

Artists do get regularly screwed by labels. That said, most of the hate is just due to the business practices of the publishers, the artist being screwed thing is just extra kindling.

Most people are annoyed about how the publishing business is working hard to undermine better ways of obtaining music because they want to set up their tollbooths to not just monetize, but to monetize in a manner that least upsets their current business model. That means they work to kill anything that they can't figure out how to make money off of.

I really don't begrudge them their middleman fees, but they've become obnoxious about it, and adding to that, they seem to be a glamorous business with rich and ostentatious artists and executives which sort of puts the lie to the fact that they are hurting. The only way they are actually hurting is that they still want to be selling people CDs for $20+ per disc with one song that people want to hear. They used to be leading the way to getting artists to their audience. Now, they just seem to want to charge for the privilege of letting us listen to the artists we want to hear.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[tnk1]

Of course, that is because the labels crowd out any other competition. You want to get press? Well there's a bunch of labels out there eating up PR opportunities and shutting down other methods of distribution. You show up on free internet radio? Time to shut those down.

One of the huge benefits of why I went to internet radio/streaming was so that I could discover music that the radio was much less likely to play for me, and was increasingly NOT playing for me. I recall hearing a DJ announce they were playing some "new song", which had not only been out for weeks, but was authored by someone who had actually been dead for years. And then, that song is played once an hour.

Not to mention on my road trips, I used to flip stations, only for the same song to be played in something like a 10 second time delay from the supposedly competing station I had switched from.

That's because labels do their best to write rules that keep their current hot properties hot, and squeeze out competition. You want my new hot song? You need to make sure that you are playing it x times per hour, and you have to prop it up by only playing ten year old songs around it, so it sounds fresher than it actually is.

I don't want to deprive anyone of a living, but I'm tired of being told what is "hot" and knowing there are thousands of artists out there, but I'm getting spoon fed what a label wants me to see. That's why people only know of two labels, because newer methods of distribution and promotion are still being choked off my the current industry.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[tlhIngan]

Personally I find it amazing that we still need "labels" and "publishers" for anything nowadays. There's a huge global distribution network out there available for almost no money, there are facebook and twitter addicts that will gladly do massive "word of mouth" advertising for you for free. I think some artists need to realize at some point that in a world where pictures of a blue/black or white/gold dress can take the whole world by storm almost overnight, maybe the reason no one wants their music is actually because it sucks.

Well, there's a filtering effect that labels have so in general, the approved music will appeal to a great number of people.

Because if you really looked at it, most of anything is crap. There's tons of bands out there - it's practically a rite of passage growing up that some teens will get together can make what they consider to be music. So much so that there IS a lot of crud. Sure the best indie musicians can rival or exceed that of the manufactured stuff, but finding that gem requires wading through a an ocean of sludge.

And far too often the good is often heavily buried. Marketing is hard, and there's probably a number of good musicians who left the scene because their work died in obscurity.

Sure you can promote yourself on twitter or facebook, but you're just going to appear as mere noise in the crowd. "Going viral" is extremely difficult, happens rarely, and is fickle and unpredictable, and once your 15 minutes are up, you'll be forgotten all over again.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They want their Free Shit.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you smoking? It's the exact opposite! It's only the celebrity musicians that make money off of music sales.. after paying back production of the music smaller bands have a tough time earning anything above that.. Their money is made by touring and selling tickets and merchandise.. that was always 100% the musicians money.. up until Lady Gaga, but that's another story..

The model was always that making recorded music was a form of advertising to get people to come to your shows....

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[sudon't]

Record labels had a place - when they made and distributed records. They shot themselves in the foot when they forced the conversion to CD, and then began charging twenty dollars for a ten-cent item. Had they not been so greedy, they might still be relevant.
Anybody, (excepting owners of newer Macs), can burn a CD. Not anybody can press a record. If you want to continue as a record label, I suggest you start making records again.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Half-pint HAL]

Artists negotiating direct with Spotify would be stuffed. Labels may not do a brilliant job of negotiating on artists' behalf, but they do negotiata. And they have to, because they receive a percentage of royalties, so if prices rise, both the label and the artist profit.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Half-pint HAL]

Hate ?

I just don't buy into the B.S. they are doing this for the artists, or that the artists will ever see anything in their pocket from this.

Recording contracts set out labels' and artists' shares as a percentage. Anything that increases the total income therefore benefits both label and artist. The whole point of a commission-based system is ensures that making money for the client is always in the representative's interest.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Half-pint HAL]

The problem with the "go to shows and buy shirts" mentality is that it ignores the diversity in musical culture - band shirts are only really typical in the hard to heavy end of the rock spectrum, or restricted to superstar bands.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Half-pint HAL]

Most people are annoyed about how the publishing business is working hard to undermine better ways of obtaining music because they want to set up their tollbooths to not just monetize, but to monetize in a manner that least upsets their current business model. That means they work to kill anything that they can't figure out how to make money off of.

If that "better way" doesn't make profit for the labels or the artists, then why exactly should they support it? Spotify themselves bleat about making a "loss" on the free end of freemium whenever the labels and/or artists complain about low profits. But Spotify make money on every single advert for a free user, and the "losses" on free users all are just shuffling of moneys from premium users' plays to free users' plays, and they profit from both types of user. In the end, users get a cheap service not because of efficiencies or innovation at Spotify, but because Spotifypays its suppliers as unsustainable low rate.

The only way they are actually hurting is that they still want to be selling people CDs for $20+ per disc with one song that people want to hear.

That's a strawman. We're not talking about track-bundling here, we're talking about freemium services that are little more than leeches.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Crashmarik]

Sorry you missed the part where the artist gets an advance against sales, which the recording company eats up by billing for services.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[hairyfeet]

Sorry but we were roots pop, ala Old 97s and Wilco, and we had shirts, keyrings, mugs, they are actually quite cheap to get made nowadays and can be a VERY good source of revenue. We were paying on average $3.50 a shirt and selling them for $10, 2.50 a CD sold for $7.50, $0.75 a keyring sold for $2.50, its really easy to have those made you just have to get off your ass and get 'er done.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Half-pint HAL]

That's an entirely different matt. But the advances are calculated on potential sales anyway, and if they're never going to make any sells, they'll never pay any advances.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Half-pint HAL]

its really easy to have those made you just have to get off your ass and get 'er done.

Fuck off. Does that seem rude to you? To me, it's less rude than "get off your ass", because I'm not assuming anything about you when I tell you to fuck off. None of my friends who perform professionally or semi-professionally are lazy, but your statement assumes they are. They are hard-working and dedicated, but none of them sell mugs, T-shirts or keyrings because their audiences just aren't interested in tat like that. I don't buy band T-shirts, mugs or keyrings, and I'm not going to feel guilty for that. Do you know what I'm happy to pay for from musicians? I'll give you a clue: for doing their job; for making music. Should a baker have to sell T-shirts to his customers to make a living? Should I reward my taxi driver by buying a wallet with his face on it? No.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[uninformedLuddite]

in a world where pictures of a blue/black or white/gold dress can take the whole world by storm almost overnight.

That's because the world has a large population of absolute fuckheads

Re: Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the artist can put out crap that no one wants and they should be entitled to a living out of it?

All the artists are asking you is to pay them some money for it if they put out some crap that you want.

Copyright is all well and good if you continue to add value... new performances, new software features... but at the moment the creative industry just milks it.

This argument is complete tripe, and you know it. If I write a song, and your kid hears it 20 years from now and decides he likes it so much he has to have a copy - why shouldn't I get a buck from him, too? If it's not a mutually-agreed upon trade to mutual benefit, then there should be no trade at all in either direction. The presumption of shitheels to help themselves to my creative efforts simply because they "like, really want it, or something, dude," is breathtaking.

Your argument tries to paint it as if people are being forced to buy shit they don't want - that's not happening. You are PERFECTLY WELCOME to not buy my music, ever. And I will never demand a penny from you as my due. But the moment you take a copy of something I've produced, against my wishes, then yeah, we have a problem. You want the song, you pay a buck or two. Why is that so unreasonable?

Now, if you want to talk about dropping copyright protection to a smaller term, then sure...

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no option to sustain yourself as an artist without the record companies, they have made sure that the laws and regulations prevent that.

Well shit, somebody better hurry up and tell every successful indie artist, EVER, that they have no choice but to sign with a major label.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[fche]

"If that "better way" doesn't make profit for the labels or the artists, then why exactly should they support it?"

Wait a minute, didn't you say "wealth is generated by society" and "money violates all natural laws" just an hour or two ago?

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[gnupun]

The model was always that making recorded music was a form of advertising to get people to come to your shows....

Are you living in one of those states where marijuana is legal? Because the crappy playback quality of most concerts is not worth much money music-wise. Concerts are about promoting a band/album -- that's why artists don't hold concerts 365 days/year for every year -- it's not their primary job. Only idiot musicians would ruin their fingers playing instruments every day or damage their vocal cords singing everyday at a concert. This isn't the 1800s -- machines can do the job replaying a song without needing the musician for every single recital.

Recorded music sounds an order of magnitude better than the loud, out-of-tune concert music. Plus, you can listen to recorded music, when you want and where you want. Therefore unlike what pirates are fond of repeating, concerts are ads for selling recorded music and not the other way around.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[hairyfeet]

Go back to making horses and buggies, if they can't even spend 30 minutes on the fucking Internet using teh Google? Then they ARE FUCKING LAZY and they don't deserve to make shit, much less sit on their ever widening asses because they wrote a little 3 minute song a decade ago.

NEWS FLASH this ain't the 1970s Disco Dan, those days are over and they ain't never coming back. the Internet is here, its never going away no matter how much you kiss the ass of the corps, which just FYI will charge you 4000 percent interest on your studio time which is why you have bands like System Of A Down having a "steal this record" tour.

Join the 21st century or die like the dinosaur you are, because NOBODY gets paid to sit on their asses anymore unless you are one of the chosen few and the fact you are posting here? Tells me you and your little buddies probably couldn't fill a 150 seat club on open mike night. BTW thanks to sales we would make upwards of a grand even when we played the little 300 seat clubs...how YOU doing? Thought so, probably don't make enough to pay the bar tab.

Re:Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Half-pint HAL]

Go back to making horses and buggies, if they can't even spend 30 minutes on the fucking Internet using teh Google? Then they ARE FUCKING LAZY and they don't deserve to make shit, much less sit on their ever widening asses because they wrote a little 3 minute song a decade ago.

Lazy? A woma who spends all year teaching, composing, recording, touring and playing weddings, and whose holidays are almost always combined with work? A guy who plays and records with multiple bands and works as a theatre janitor because the theatre management understand his need for flexible work so he can go on tour? A guy who spent years on the breadline trying to get his break as a session musician in London, and now spends most nights in pubs singing other people's songs? Etc

Lazy people don't survive in music, and my friends all manage to make a living doing what they love. They don't do that by selling T-shirts.

Re: Labels do harm to the Artists ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what concerns me is that most artists don't seem to have the option of choosing to deliver via Spotify or YouTube or anything. So often the record label has that choice because they end up owning the music. That, to me, is the proof that the music industry rapes all the artists it can. I believe there's sufficient information to show they treat the customers about the same.

Seems legit

[Anonymous Coward]

Also pirates support children terrorist's

Re:Seems legit

[Anonymous Coward]

They do, actually. Follow the money on the ads.

Re:Seems legit

[stealth_finger]

Also pirates support children terrorist's

Is that children who terrorise or people or terrorise children.

But...

[Skidborg]

Not to be against the "voice of the people" but hasn't it been long established that most artists lose money by being on Spotify?

Re:But...

[R3d M3rcury]

"Lose" money? I don't think so. They get money from being on Spotify.

The question is, do they get as much as they could/should?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how you calculate (as always). Do they get a lot of money from Spotify? No. Would they have gotten more money somewhere if not on Spotify? I don't know, you would have to assume that people would spend money getting the music from whatever non-Spotify source the artist opts for.

There is very little direct revenue in recorded music nowadays. Successful artists make a large portion of their money from live shows. But without popular and wide spread recordings of the music, will anyone show up to the concerts? The market has changed, and only those who adapt to take advantage will be successful. Any attempt from artists or labels to force consumers into something they don't want will fail. The days when a hit song (even a one hit wonder) meant automatic riches for all involved and their entourages may be over...

Re:But...

[alen]

it's advertising to get people to pay the ridiculous live concert prices

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to play Devil's Advocate here for a minute:

Arguably, they *are* getting paid what they should, because market forces have shown this is the amount that listeners are willing to pay for a streaming service, and they don't seem too worried about the lack of restitution their artists are receiving from it.

Spotify did a great deal to slow down piracy rates of music, simply because of the ease of access. (Think Valve's "piracy is a customer service problem.") The service is finally at a price point (free, with ads) that can compete with piracy (just plain free).

Does that mean the artists don't deserve more for their art? Of course they deserve to be able to live off their work. The question is whether we, as a society, agree.

This is part of why I personally advocate more government grants for the arts, not less. When an artist lives or dies by sales alone, you're going to have the brilliant minds of our generation ignored while the most bullshit, easy-to-digest-pop becoming the only viable way to make a reasonable living in music. When an artist isn't focusing on sales, they can achieve true artistic expression without the restriction of needing to appeal to the widest audience possible (lowest common denominator).

Re:But...

[Grishnakh]

This is part of why I personally advocate more government grants for the arts, not less. When an artist lives or dies by sales alone, you're going to have the brilliant minds of our generation ignored

Ok, but how do you decide who's a "brilliant mind" who needs a grant, and who's a talentless hack who just wants free money for doing nothing but churning out some worthless drivel? I could press some keys on an electronic keyboard and call it "music" too; give me a grant so I don't need to work for a living!

If anything, this is another good case for a Basic Income.

Re:But...

[Immerman]

>Of course they deserve to be able to live off their work.

Do they? Any time prior to a few centuries ago, a musician only made money via patronage and live performances, and maybe selling some sheet music or other products on the side. And sure, I've got no beef with anyone claiming a (decent) musician should be able to make a living off their work in that fashion. Today though we've created the strange idea that an musician should be able to record their music once, and get paid for it repeatedly over the course of the next century. This is very much a historical anomaly. Even authors and other creators of much more involved and substantial works were historically only granted a decade or two of profits from their one-time labor. This is an aspect of our economic system that's still very much evolving.

There is much to be said for patronage or government grants, done well. Grants especially though have the issue of who decides which artists receive them? It's easy to abuse the position of spending other people's money to support something as nebulous and subjective as art. Especially considering the elitist "echo chamber" effect that often surrounds such things. Personally I'd consider the world to be better off without much of modern art, by what right are my taxes spent on such things?

Re:But...

[Dunbal]

Of course they deserve to be able to live off their work.

A few years ago I went to an Elton John concert. In Costa Rica, where I was living at the time. Now Sir Elton is no young puppy. Neither am I. Still I was impressed that this rather elderly entertainer was banging out these tunes, visibly sweating and working his ass off. The tickets weren't that expensive either, so he can't have been raking in a lot of money from that concert. But he worked and worked. And of course we applauded and cheered as he played exactly what we wanted to hear. Later on, I logged on and I found out that this little central america tour was just a break from his real job which was playing Vegas every weekend that year. So here is Elton John at 60 plus years old working his fucking ass off weekdays AND weekends. Yeah, Sir Elton has his own jet, and no doubt several sets of equipment and all the people he could need to keep his show on the road in many places at once. But he is working, working, working, and I don't care how many millions he makes he has earned every single penny.

Now the stupid arsehole who thinks the world owes him a zillion dollars for that one crappy song he wrote though, no, I think THAT guy doesn't "deserve" to be able to live off his "work" at all. Writing a tune is not WORK. You wrote a song. Congrats! You think you're special? I wrote a song. My daughter painted a painting. My wife wrote a poem. Big fucking deal. Now get to fucking WORK if you actually want to live off your song! Then maybe the regular people, those of us who actually DO work every day, will respect this "artist". Copyright should never be entitlement.

Re:But...

[Nethemas the Great]

I thought it was the musician until they sold the rights to a corporation, or if not sold, then to the "estate" what ever the fluff that means. Either way, the net result seems to be a perpetual toll taking.

Re:But...

[mikeabbott420]

give away recordings to attract concert attendance instead of the old concept of touring to promote the album.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is part of why I personally advocate more government grants for the arts, not less. When an artist lives or dies by sales alone, you're going to have the brilliant minds of our generation ignored

If you want better pop music, you need to be willing to pay decent coin for it, like young people did in past (pre-WWW) generations. Taxpayers shouldn't pay for that. On the list of projects that could arguably merit greater government expenditures, subsidizing pop musicians wouldn't make the first 100 pages.

Just pay excellent pop musicians (the creative ones, not talking about "American Idol" clones) so talented people can make a career in the field, and you'll be happy. Yeah, you might have to give up being able to download any album you want on the spur of the moment for free.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote a song. Congrats! You think you're special? I wrote a song. My daughter painted a painting. My wife wrote a poem. Big fucking deal.

Have you ever taken even an introductory course in economics? If you have, it doesn't sound like it made much of an impression. The difference is that there is a rather large demand for many of Elton John's songs (recorded as well as live, even 40 years after he recorded them), while I'm guessing there is negligible demand for songs or poems you or your family members wrote (not trying to be insulting, of course the same could be said about the demand for most other amateurs' works).

It doesn't matter whether the particular song came to in a dream one night and he recorded it on one take the following morning. It's about demand, and more than likely he worked his ass off his entire life (when "normal" people were watching TV and hanging out at the mall with friends and so forth) so he could reach that point.

Re:But...

[jedidiah]

> The difference is that there is a rather large demand for many of Elton John's songs

This whole thread appears to flatly contradict that idea.

That is why the music industry is whining.

They're whining that they can't milk the cash cow after 40 years.

I suspect that everyone that has any interest in buying a copy of something representing Elton's work has already done so and did rather a long time ago. That particular well is tapped out and they they can't "frack" it with another change in formats.

Many people aren't particularly attached to some random performer. Those that are likely already have an aging collection of CDs or MP3s. The rest are content to listen to things "for free" just like they always have since the dawn of radio nearly 100 years go.

Beyond that, what the music industry really needs to worry about entirely new forms of distraction that have arisen in the last 40 years.

Re:But...

[brantondaveperson]

It's easy to abuse the position of spending other people's money to support something as nebulous and subjective as art

No it isn't. It's extremely hard, and is fought for every time these things come up for review.

Personally I'd consider the world to be better off without much of modern art, by what right are my taxes spent on such things?

They used to say the same thing about Matisse. Or they would have, if grants had been around then. In any case, the amount of money spent on the arts is microscopic when compared against any other public spending. It's pretty cheap, and it's good for everybody.

Today though we've created the strange idea that an musician should be able to record their music once, and get paid for it repeatedly over the course of the next century

I have often thought the same thing. But if the company I worked for was not able to charge, over and over again, for the software that I write once, then the company would not exist, and I would be out of a job. There's nothing wrong with expecting payment for a copy of your performance. Not for a century thereafter, sure, but for a reasonable period of time. Twenty years seems reasonable.

Re:But...

[WheezyJoe]

I never met him, but I'll bet Sir E. and Bernie worked hours and days and weeks just to get one of their songs hitworthy.

Yes, with a computer and something like GarageBand, recording a passable song is doable. But writing a GREAT song is still really fucking hard and time-consuming as it always has been.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they? Any time prior to a few centuries ago, a musician only made money via patronage and live performances, and maybe selling some sheet music or other products on the side.

And how many centuries have people been able to make a living programming or administering a computer? So Slashdotters don't deserve to be paid for what they do, by that logic.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Grants done right" for me would have an "instant entrance into the public domain" clause. Maybe all that publuc television should be the first in line.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really a fan of Elton John's, I don't have any of his albums or songs. But I'm still kinda amazed when I'm sitting in a restaurant or waiting room and "Saturday Night's All Right For Fighting" comes on the radio. Check it out, it's a '50s rocker and mid-70s rocker at the same time. He is not just some average rock dude.

Re:But...

[Immerman]

Perhaps, sort of like has been done by those kickstarter campaigns that commissioned public domain performances of various pieces of famous classical music. I could also see going with a sort of intermediate state - free redistribution rights, but no derivative or perhaps just no commercial derivative works, such that an artist need not immediately see their work in ads pimping the latest bit of degrading consumerism.

Re:But...

[Immerman]

Admittedly it's not a simple question. But yeah, if I put in a year worth of labor on a software product, am I really entitled to a lifetime of income there either? There's also a matter of degree - how many man-hours go into producing your average $1 music track, versus your average $1 smartphone app?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to a few centuries ago, farmers were slaves to the land owners. Doesn't mean that they're not entitled to earn a living today.

That said, our century-long copyright laws, graciously written and paid for by Disney, need to go.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

if someone used your copyrighted work to make millions of dollars off it without your permission you don't feelyou should be compensated for a non-talented parasite (jew) stealing your art?

it's simple economics really, it doesn't matter how hard someone works. someone could work 100x harder than elton john and be just as talented, and still not make it (because of jews again)

really, you ought to rethink your position

Re:But...

[liquid_schwartz]

If anything, this is another good case for a Basic Income.

A basic income is flawed. The concept of money for nothing, song jokes aside, rots people. If nothing at all is required from people many give back exactly nothing. I know too many people who live off no strings attached money, be it disability / child support (yes there's no requirement it be actually spent on the children) / alimony. They are a complete waste. They don't volunteer, don't produce anything. Nothing of any value society at large. Instead they watch tv, play video games, or go out to eat with other loser friends. I love ideas that support workers like a sales tax on stock sales with the proceeds evenly split between all workers. However I will never support money for nothing because I don't like dead beats who spend their whole lives taking and never giving anything in return. That practice should be reduced, not encouraged.

Re:But...

[Jack Griffin]

No.

Re:But...

[Jack Griffin]

Elton John wrote one of his biggest hits 'Your Song' in 20 minutes. Even if it takes a whole month, it's still not worth 70 years of royalties.

Re:But...

[Jack Griffin]

. But without popular and wide spread recordings of the music, will anyone show up to the concerts?

There is still popular and wide spread recordings via radio and streaming. The death of the studio distribution monopoly doesn't change this.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. They are not being paid what they should. Currently I believe that the artist receives a proportion of all revenue dependent on their share of the total number of streams (by all users). It would be fairer, especially to smaller artists, for each subscriber's fee (and advert revenue from each free user) to be split amongst the artists that user streamed during the period, proportion to the number of tracks streamed by each artist. So, to make the figures simple, if a half of each subscribers $10 fee were paid to artists/labels and 20% of a particular subscribers streams were from artist A, then artist A (or their label, on their behalf) would receive $1 for the streams listened to by that user. If artist A only had 10 listeners during a subscription period then, under the current system they would get almost no revenue - but with the system I outlined they would get considerably more revenue.

Re:But...

[gnupun]

if I put in a year worth of labor on a software product, am I really entitled to a lifetime of income there either?

Umm, why not? Your employer will use that software to generate revenue (or reduce expenses) for a long time (many years). Why shouldn't the person who created the software get a cut while the software is making money? If the naive programmer takes a small fixed salary, the boss ends up with all the profit for someone else's work. All he paid for was $100,000 for increasing revenue by $2M.

Re:But...

[gnasher719]

Elton John wrote one of his biggest hits 'Your Song' in 20 minutes. Even if it takes a whole month, it's still not worth 70 years of royalties.

If it is good enough that people are willing to pay for it 70 years after it is written, then surely it deserves the royalties.

If I build a house and rent it out, surely I deserve the rent payment as long as the house is in a good enough state where people want to rent it?

Remember that all these artists only get royalties when people actually listen to their music.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people need to produce things or volunteer in a world where there are enough resources they they no longer need to? Should we work 10 hours a day if we only need to work 8? What if we only needed 6? Should we continue working 8? If not, why should we work even one hour if it's not required?

Re:But...

[wowbagger999]

> Today though we've created the strange idea that an musician should be able to record their music once, and get paid for it repeatedly over the course of the next century. Much worse: in most cases the money doesn't even reach the artist or if only a small part of it does. content industry has managed to lobby "a right to print money" for themselves.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over yourself. Your puritan work ideals are an outdated concept, and apply less and less in a increasingly automated world.

Re:But...

[Grishnakh]

Ok then, what do you propose people do for work in the near future when all the easy jobs are automated? Let them starve? There simply won't be enough jobs to go around.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

On a certain level, I agree with you. But we're in a situation where those types of people not only won't work, but if they do, actively make things worse. I had a neighbour once who was trained as a carpenter, but he made every project he did worse. I can't tell if it was a genuine lack of skill or if he simply didn't care - but the net effect was that whoever hired him inevitably had to hire a different carpenter to fix the job.

At some point, it becomes cheaper to just pay people off just so they sit down, watch TV, and don't actively break anything. I'd love it if we could get them to actively contribute to society, and, y'know, actually buy in, but it's hard to force someone to emotionally engage with something.

People who want to do things will do things. People who don't, well... it does no one any good for them to show up and make things worse.

Re:But...

[Dunbal]

Yes you're right. I've heard all of Elton John's music 30 years or more ago. I haven't bought one of his albums since I was a kid. Hell I don't even think I have bought an album of his, rather I "inherited" them from my dad. We're talking vinyl here. That's how old his stuff is. But you know what - I like the music and when there was an opportunity to attend a concert near my home, I took it. It's the concert experience that was meaningful for me - that I was willing to PAY for.

Re:But...

[Dunbal]

Gee I've brought dead people back to life, you think I haven't put a lot of hours in to my studies and my work? Anyone who is reasonably competent at what they do has invested a lot of themselves into it. Heck but I don't expect to treat one patient and then retire, living off that income for the rest of my life.

Re:But...

[Dunbal]

No, it doesn't "deserve" royalties. It does deserve protection in the fact that not just every punk can start banging out his song without permission and try to make money from it. Recognition that Sir Elton wrote it and gets to decide if he lets others play it or not. But in order to make money from it, Sir Elton is the one who has to put the work in, not receive welfare cheques from it. And he does put the work in. Oh boy does he ever.

Re:But...

[Dunbal]

(because of jews again)

That's your argument? Come back when you want to be sensible, son.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, this is another good case for a Basic Income.

A basic income is flawed. The concept of money for nothing, song jokes aside, rots people. If nothing at all is required from people many give back exactly nothing. I know too many people who live off no strings attached money, be it disability / child support (yes there's no requirement it be actually spent on the children) / alimony. They are a complete waste. They don't volunteer, don't produce anything. Nothing of any value society at large. Instead they watch tv, play video games, or go out to eat with other loser friends. I love ideas that support workers like a sales tax on stock sales with the proceeds evenly split between all workers. However I will never support money for nothing because I don't like dead beats who spend their whole lives taking and never giving anything in return. That practice should be reduced, not encouraged.

Yet interesting when Basic Income was tried as an experiment they found that the majority involved still worked as well, very few were actually content to sit around all day and be only able to afford basic necessities. In a way that's good as it gets the truly lazy out of the way of those who are willing to work to afford the things they want.

Re:But...

[Immerman]

And if I make a quality hammer, a carpenter can use it to make a profit for decades. What's the difference?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

UK's PM Cameron is working on starving the poor and disabled already...He was envious of America's lead!...

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Greatly increase the Earned Income Tax credit, simultaneously eliminating traditional welfare programs. It doesn't matter so much what the recipients (can) do, just that they must do something.

Re:But...

[gnupun]

The model is different. Suppose software is part of a machine that manufactures hammers (assuming hammer manufacturing is 100% automated which it is not currently). Due to software automation, the hammer manufacturer can cut staff resulting in millions saved in salary payments. The hammer manufacturer sells 1 million hammers/year at $10 profit per hammer. Do you think he owes the programmer who wrote the software for the machine only $100k one time payment, instead of 10% of his profit which is $1 million/year? With this machine, the manufacturer can easily make $10million profit per year. Do you think it's fair, he makes $100 million in 10 years, but pays only about $1 million ($900k hardware, $100k software) to obtain it?

You can't charge royalty per hammer because its design the same for every hammer. You can't charge royalty for cookie cutter designed parts. Software is meta level, that is, it is used to make multiple hammers. Also the software is unique compared to hammers whose designs are more or less, the same.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people need to produce things or volunteer in a world where there are enough resources they they no longer need to? Should we work 10 hours a day if we only need to work 8? What if we only needed 6? Should we continue working 8? If not, why should we work even one hour if it's not required?

Setting aside the fact that there are absolutely not enough resources in the world that no one needs to work, you describe a stagnant world of slow decay. The "good enough" or "getting by" attitude that allows people not to make any meaningful contribution to society.

There is no limit to how much better the world can be. Why would you refuse to help?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez. It's like I wrote it! Get out of my head!

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the real question is: do you support chicks for free?

Re:But...

[Grishnakh]

So what do they do if they can't find any jobs? There aren't going to be any low-skill jobs left pretty soon, thanks to automation and outsourcing.

Re:But...

[Quirkz]

While I'm dumbfounded by repeated arguments that there can't be any business model other than "selling a hammer" I also don't agree that 70 years is a reasonable span for royalties. A decade or two? Sure. That's a pretty good span for getting your money back from a creation. But by the time a work of art has spanned a generation, let alone two or three, it really ought to be open to the public to make use of it. Without getting too specific about where to draw the line, it seems to me like a decent rule of thumb that if something existed before you were born, by the time you're a fully grown adult it ought to be available for use in your own art without continuing to pay royalties.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the article was specifically about the industry wanting to put limits on streaming, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...

Re:But...

[Immerman]

I should have made clear that I do agree the wealth distribution should be more equitable - but that could as easily be accomplished by demanding much higher wages up front. And regardless of method would almost certainly require that the software development industry unionize so that we have enough bargaining power to demand such a thing - just like doctors, lawyers, etc. have done.

And sure you could charge royalties per hammer - it happens all the time. That's exactly what patents are for. But lets take it up a notch, so it a bit more comparable to software, and say I designed a software-free hammer building machine (after all automation pre-dates software substantially). Should I be entitled to a share of profits from hammer sales in perpetuity?

Re:But...

[Scroatzilla]

I sense a lot of ignorance regarding how much work goes into a professionally recorded song. Regardless of whether or not you enjoy the final product, the team that brings professional recordings to the public includes one or more songwriters, recording engineers, producers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, graphic designers, manufacturers, distribution channels, etc. So yes, a song that you may not like *does* have a production cost associated with it and, yes, the people associated with that song *do* deserve compensation for their work, like any other professional.

This is why/how an "industry" exists behind recorded music nowadays. It is clearly possible for you, with your "good taste in music," who only admires "working musicians," to only attend live shows. Just keep in mind that there is more "work" involved in creating a professional recording than you apparently realize.

As for the songwriter-- without him/her, there wouldn't be anything for those people to work on! Why should songwriters not demand just compensation? And why should there be a limit to the spoils that can be enjoyed by those who helped create songs and recordings of those songs? What if the consumers of $your_product suddenly decided that, because $your_product is so ubiquitously enjoyed by so many people, you should just give $your_product away for free; and, worse, these consumers did nothing but complain whenever you tried to speak up for your right to compensation for providing $your_product?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

But even "sitting around playing video games" could be argued as doing something productive. If you define "something productive" as something that makes money. e-sports are a market that produces something despite everyone apart of that is "sitting around playing/watching/talking video games".

maybe instead of "producing something" it should be "to the betterment of something". Better yourself, your game, your education, your work, your community, your society, your music, anything.

An artist sitting around bettering their art is the point of being an artists isn't it?

Re:But...

[sudon't]

Well, usually, it's about some other arsehole, who did not write a song, or anything else, making money off of your work. That said, I do think copyright is getting out of control.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright should never be entitlement.

For the artist or the Label.

Re:But...

[gnupun]

but that could as easily be accomplished by demanding much higher wages up front.

That's doubtful. Payment for creative work like music, books and software should always be based on percentage of sales/profit. Distributors and retailers usually charge a percentage to move a product because it's impossible to guess ahead of time how many (if any) units will sell. Fixed wages should be paid for non-creative tasks, both for simple menial tasks or highly technical jobs like that of a doctor or lawyer -- where the output is more or less exactly the same each time the task is performed.

say I designed a software-free hammer building machine (after all automation pre-dates software substantially). Should I be entitled to a share of profits from hammer sales in perpetuity?

Why not? Software is just a cheaper but slower method to control various pieces of lower level hardware. The control method can be software or hardware depending on the performance/cost requirements.

Software = cheap, easy to implement, slow, less parallel.
Hardware = expensive, difficult to implement, fast, more parallel.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me think of the dystopian Earth society in Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" where work was so scarce that people would sell their jobs to other people on the black market so long as they got a cut of the salary...then those people might also sell it to someone else for a smaller cut, etc. etc. oh, and the currency is in calories.

Re:But...

[spazzmo]

Who do you collect taxes from? I think you'll find they are the government's taxes, and once they have them you have very little say in how their taxes get spent. Just as well too, with the number of raving bigots around nothing good would ever happen.

Re:But...

[liquid_schwartz]

In the 30's the CCC did lots of public works projects. Hiking trails and other forms of public improvement. There is still lots of room for things to be done. As long as old people are lonely in retirement homes there are worthy uses of time. Creating speaks to the best of humanity. Do you personally know people who do nothing? They become less capable, slower in all ways, less able in all ways. They complain more, demand more, yet produce nothing. I get the point of what will these people do in a slow economy with high unemployment? My view is that if we're paying them anyway then in a sense they are already hired. By we the people. Think up things for them to do. What charity couldn't use a few more volunteers?

Re:But...

[liquid_schwartz]

You know full well pro video game players are a corner case. Moreover my argument wouldn't apply since they already have an income. If they want to better their art fine, give it back to the public. At core it's not reasonable to take and not give back.

Re:But...

[liquid_schwartz]

At some point, it becomes cheaper to just pay people off just so they sit down, watch TV, and don't actively break anything...

Not when they have kids and you pay for the second generation and beyond. It's a modern form of Danegeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:But...

[Jack Griffin]

If I build a house and rent it out, surely I deserve the rent payment as long as the house is in a good enough state where people want to rent it?

Sure, but what if you build a house a rent it out, and while you still own the house, no-one is allowed to build a house that looks similar or has the same number of bedrooms?

Downloading MP3s FTW!

[TechyImmigrant]

The last two records I purchased I paid for and downloaded from the artist pretty directly. I assume they were paying the hosting service a fee.

This is the way of the future. I'm sure the artist in question got > 50% of the revenue direct into their pockets, compared to the tiny slice a record company would pay them, this is huge.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[tepples]

I've been thinking of doing that: writing some music, recording it, and offering paid downloads of zipped albums. But how would I go about making sure I don't accidentally infringe some other songwriter's copyright like Robin Thicke did?

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you attempting to imply that a record company offers protection against this? Perhaps you are simply asking a question that you should be asking other artists instead of /. about..

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[flopsquad]

The good news: Independent creation is a complete defense to copyright infringement.

The bad news: You can still be liable for subconscious copying.

The upshot: You are statistically unlikely to make enough money to raise the ire of $label_with_a_song_that_sounds_like_yours, but if you do and that song got even modest play in your region, they could come a-knockin.

The bottom line: If you're going for safety over listenability, maybe try weird chord progressions in odd time signatures. That will help your song sound less like any other song ever, and also help keep you from making too much money from people buying it.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm old school. The last several records I purchased were CDs in stores (which I subsequently rip to put onto my MP3 player).

However, I discovered the artists involved on YouTube. No YouTube (or other free service) would mean no new purchases from me. (I don't listen to music radio, or watch videos on TV, etc).

So, music industry stopping free music on YouTube means you will get less of my $, not more. Your move.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[tepples]

Where would one go about asking other artists? Music: Practice and Theory Stack Exchange considers "business or legal issues" to be off-topic.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[dbIII]

Steeleye Span did it for decades by rocking up some out of copyright folk, but the real issue is that "accidental" infringing that makes it as far as a courtroom isn't very accidental. However some stuff where the copyright was never enforced previously (eg. Kookaburra song from the 1930s that was owned by the Australian Girl Guides until recently) has ended up in the hands of music companies using it as a legal blunt instrument.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[Undead Waffle]

I'm kind of disappointed sites like bandcamp aren't more popular. Most of the money goes directly to the artist (not sure how much they take) and I get to download the music in FLAC, mp3, or a number of other formats. And the artist can set a minimum price and let the customer pay more if they want. I only found a couple of artists on there I was interested and they each only had 1 album available.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[TechyImmigrant]

Bandcamp is the service I used. The artist I recently found and downloaded was Lily & Madeleine, following comments on First Aid Kit videos on YouTube.

So without being able to explore music online I wouldn't be able to find it.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[gweihir]

Same here. I actually listened to them on youtube for free and decided I liked them enough to buy. Anybody that does something worthwhile listening to will get enough money that way. And people that just pirate things will never pay for them, regardless the restrictions. You can piss off legitimate customers though that way. Several artists that I kind of liked did that to me by having the first CD I bought from then being unable to play on my PC. Turns out I never listened to them again, because I feel ripped off by them and that offsets the quality of their music rather strongly to the negative. DRM does not even help publishers, but it can kill artists.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[tepples]

Steeleye Span did it for decades by rocking up some out of copyright folk

You appear to agree with this post by mcgrew. But the stated purpose of copyright, according to the U.S. Constitution, is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". If copyright causes people to stick to pre-1923 works rather than creating new works out of fear of accidental infringement, it is fulfilling the exact opposite of this purpose.

but the real issue is that "accidental" infringing that makes it as far as a courtroom isn't very accidental.

Are you claiming that "My Sweet Lord" was not in fact accidental? In any case, it appears your answer is "prepare to settle out of court". In that case, how can a songwriter plan to avoid being financially ruined by a music publisher that demands an amount greater than the related revenue that an allegedly infringing work has produced?

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[dbIII]

If copyright causes people to stick to pre-1923 works rather than creating new works out of fear of accidental infringement, it is fulfilling the exact opposite of this purpose

That's right.

Re:Downloading MP3s FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the money goes directly to the artist (not sure how much they take)

I am sure of X (I am not sure of X).

Napster bad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Beer good!!!

Go ahead ... shoot yourself in the foot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... see if I care.

I haven't purchased any new music in a long time; and have no plans to do so any time soon. There hasn't been that much that captures my attention or interest.

Re: Go ahead ... shoot yourself in the foot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what makes you think this article is for you?

Re:Go ahead ... shoot yourself in the foot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bought my last music in 2001. I paid $40 for 2 CDs at Best Buy. I only wanted one song off either CD. One of the CDs was utter junk except for that one song. I swore I would never pay again. I have kept my oath. I have never spent another dollar on music purchases.

That is not to say that I have not pirated a shitload of music and ripped a shitload of library CDs.

Music discovery

[Loopy]

That's a good phrase. I've purchased perhaps a third of the music I own because I heard a song (or snippet of a song) in a video or just tripped across something I liked while surfing youtube. "This video has been muted due to an audio copyright claim by FuckMeI'mAnIdiot Publishing" would seem to be quite as self-defeating as normal folks claim.

Re: Music discovery

[jd2112]

Most of the music I've purchased over the past few years I discovered on streaming sites. I've discovered artists I've never heard of in genres that I thought I knew very well. I've even discovered genres I didn't know existed. Of course none of it is top 40 pop, country, R&B or hip hop so the record companies couldn't care less that I'm supporting some obscure band even if it is one they represent.

Re:Music discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly I've simply "pirated" (yarrr!) most of the recent albums I've gotten. Like the latest Nightwish album. Downloaded it. Somehow I doubt they mind too much though, considering I've bought 4 tickets in the past three years to their shows (myself and a friend) and have purchased shirts, etc, at the show. And at their show a couple years back in Portland they were encouraging people to record them and youtube it. :) Last hot water music album? Pirated it! (arrr!) Bought a vinyl copy just to have it, cuz it's neat (i don't even have a record player). So I guess I didn't "pirate" it because I have a legal copy on vinyl. But I think the RIAA would consider buying a vinyl copy then downloading an album piracy! Oh no, I feel terrible. I'm sure the band hates me for my evil dastardly deeds, too! Bought 2 tickets to their last show. Bought shirts. I've spent hundreds on concert tickets in the past couple years. Almost all the bands I go see I learned about from either a download or from the old school "piracy" (let's face it , the RIAA hates it just as much) of borrowing a CD from a friend. I've spent way more on concert tickets than I EVER spent back in the day buying cds or tapes... it's not even CLOSE.

Honestly IP is bullshit. It's not a legit right. I do buy albums sometimes. Or digital downloads. More often than not though I just download it then if I like it I buy their merchandise and go to their shows. And bring friends to the shows.

Imho, download away. If you like the bands, you need to support them though. Do this by going to the show! Buy merchandise at the show! Yes, even if it's a long drive.

If you want to buy the album, that's cool as well, but I feel it's neater to buy the CD and leave it sealed up, or buy a Vinyl just for the lols and leave them sealed. Then download it. =p

What the record labels hate is that we might not funnel our money to the big pop and country artists that they want to push. Instead we might simply find music that we like that isn't played on the radio, then go to their shows and buy merchandise, etc. When doing this the label doesn't get that big cut.

Re:Music discovery

[Zaelath]

I've literally just ordered over $100 of CD's after listening to some free samples on Pandora.. guess they don't want my business, again. They lost me for 10+ years when I didn't have any way to legally preview music that wasn't awful mass market pop.

Every time they clamp down on sharing they lose revenue and then blame the sharing.. hilarity ensues.

Re: Music discovery

[kammermusik]

Similar here, though for me, it's probably 80% or more. I listen to that bi-weekly show playing progressive rock (http://canvasproductions.net/the-prog-hour) for music discovery. Its host explicitly says something like "We'll play enough tracks from that album [in focus album] and a whole bunch of others in the hopes of getting you to go out and buy what you hear on the show.". Well, he needn't say it, but that's what I do. For me, the good music is worth buying, no matter whether it's from a big label or directly from the artists.

Re:Music discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole "discovery" argument is pointless and irrelevant in this case.

The music industry doesn't want you to discover music. Discovery is harmful to them. They want you to only consume what they advertise. Monopolies are where the money is.

Re:Music discovery

[gweihir]

Indeed. The publishers are stupid bean-counters that have forgotten that most illegal copying does not equal a sale, but some does and will because people had a chance to try before buying. Now making copying impossible will not get any of those that did not buy before buying now, but you lose the latter group that wanted to try first. There are now some scientific studies that confirm the effect, but it just does not fit the world-view of the bean-counters. Even some artists have forgotten that they life and die by the good-will of their audience.

Re: Music discovery

[jd2112]

http://canvasproductions.net/the-prog-hour

I'll have to check that out.

Re:Music discovery

[rgbscan]

Same here. Just last night I was looking for the chords to "Wonderful tonight" and couldn't get the solo figured out from the tab. I went to Youtube to watch some covers and look for a tutorial. I ended up finding someone covering it, and then went on to see what other songs they covered since they did a good job, and stumbled across some music I'd never heard before. Far and away, this is how I discover music.

how about we go back to the old days?

[alen]

Artists pay the radio stations play their music and pay the labels to market their albums to convince me to buy your $10 collection of songs and selling the same songs two and three times over as live versions and in greatest hits collections

Re:how about we go back to the old days?

[NoMaster]

I think you meant this:
"Labels lend money to artists to pay the labels for recording their music, then the artists pay the labels to pay the radio stations to play their music, pay the labels to market their album to convince you to buy their $10 collection of songs, and pay the labels to pay the royalty services to collect money from the radio stations (who have been paid by the artists out of the money paid to the labels to pay the radio station to play them) to pay the labels.

The artists then pay the labels to pay them - and what's left is called 'profit'."

Re:how about we go back to the old days?

[WinstonWolfIT]

Amen. If you love music and hate how artists make out, Before I Get Old (The Who by Marsh) is essential reading.

Re:how about we go back to the old days?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tin Pan Alley. They made records or even earlier, set up performances in theatres so that they could sell the printed music scores to people who would play them at home on their pianos, guitars, banjos etc.

Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah as I type this I'm listening to pirated music that I just started downloading due to Grooveshark getting shut down.

On the 30th they shut it down. By the 3rd of May I downloaded 250 gigabytes of pirated music and got back every song I had on my grooveshark playlist.

Now I will *never* use the internet to stream music. I keep losing my damn playlists which took hard work to properly set up. Then whatever site gets shut down or bought and I'm suddenly lost one morning unable to even get my playlists (lost many great obscure songs I loved and couldn't remember the names/bands to)

First I was an Imeem user, then that got shutdown and bought by Myspace. (Fool me once)
Then I went to grooveshark who also years later got shut down. (Fool me twice)

Now I'm just pirating like a mofo and working on streaming software (which I'll be keeping private and not sharing) to give to people close to me (friends, family, etc) which will just provide a front end to the massive collection of music I've pirated. Basically creating my own streaming service which can't be shut down if no one but my close circle knows about or has access to.

Here I thought by disabling adblock on streaming sites I was actually being a "good person". Now I regret that decision after they shut it down anyways. If they don't want me watching ads to listen to music I guess I'll just fucking pirate all of it then... They had their chance.

Now I'm using my prowess as a software developer to stream my pirated collection to everyone I know with a custom program that can't be stopped. Darknets will be built by people like me.

Anyone remember that one no-name company with source code control tools that tried suing the Linux Kernel Developers? I don't either, they prompted Linus to write Git which is all everyone uses these days..... That crappy product from that crappy company isn't at a single place I've worked. Are they out of business yet for their greed?

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they think they're going to make more money from shutting down more sites? I'll just download them some(PB)where else.

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Anonymous Coward]

working on streaming software

Does something like Plex handle this? Dunno personally; I keep hearing about Plex this and Plex that, but haven't bothered with it, since streaming media from the NAS sitting twenty feet away from me seems kind of pointless.

But yeah. This is the way the wind is blowing. Your average Joe still isn't clued in, of course, but pretty much every nerd I know is streaming all their shit to all their devices, even over the Internets, while granting friends access.

It's like the good ol' days of clandestine FTP sites, but only better. (Because FTP blows.)

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Kumiorava]

I have different approach. I got Spotify Premium, so I have access to all the music I listen to. When Taylor Swift pulled her songs from the service I said to myself: "I'm not going to bother, I don't have to listen to her songs anymore!". I have same approach with Netflix, if a movie or TV series is not there, I don't watch. I don't feel entitled to listen/watch content that is outside of the services I pay for.

My approach costs less and keeps my free time free from stress. On the other hand if you do enjoy making a private streaming service for your friends and family then by all means, but try justifying your effort better.

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[stealth_finger]

I have different approach. I got Spotify Premium, so I have access to all the music I listen to. When Taylor Swift pulled her songs from the service I said to myself: "I'm not going to bother, I don't have to listen to her songs anymore!". I have same approach with Netflix, if a movie or TV series is not there, I don't watch. I don't feel entitled to listen/watch content that is outside of the services I pay for.

My approach costs less and keeps my free time free from stress. On the other hand if you do enjoy making a private streaming service for your friends and family then by all means, but try justifying your effort better.

They could do with a million more like you. Hand over your cash and consume whatever they shove down your throat no questions asked.

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Ericular]

Check out Subsonic.

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[lexman098]

The problem with Grooveshark is that it wasn't sending the ad revenue to the copyright owners. You were already pirating. As you explained though, it's kind of hard not to if you want reliability. The best thing to do is make sure to see the artists you like in concert whenever possible. Songkick is great at facilitating that.

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Alexandria project should eventually make this easier... http://blocktech.com/

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Grooveshark didn't pay license fees to the labels, that's why they got shutdown. So you were already listening to pirated music, don't delude yourself. Unlimited services that do pay the labels cost more and are already available, you just voluntary ignore them.

Re:Writing a custom darknet to fix this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get 250 Gb of good music, and not mixed with trash?

Soulseek

[Anonymous Coward]

Soulseek forever

make my day

[turkeydance]

music sucks, anyway...at least on MY lawn.

Record companies had their run

[glsunder]

Their model for distributing music has only been around a little over 1/2 a century. New technology invalidated their business model. Guess what? That's how it's always worked. They can either adapt, or they can die.

So a few bands will make less because they won't have the album sales. Most musicians have traditionally made their money by playing live, and that's what'll happen. The difference now is, streaming services will help introduce people to new music, and some of those will go to their live shows. Some of those will buy the $30 t-shirt to further support the band. You might not have as many multi-millionaire musicians, but the internet should benefit the ones who never sold enough to make a profit on an album anyway.

Re:Record companies had their run

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, in the really old days musicians didn't make very much money at all. It wasn't untill the recording industry and radio came along that there was any *real* money in music at all. As others have probably said, the conditions for making money from music are rapidly disappearing. Making serious bank from music relies on there being a choke point in the music economy between the musicians and the consumers, the companies that control that choke point can charge significantly more for music than it's actually worth. That's what we've had for the last fifty years but in reality it's an aberation. The internet is removing the choke point, prices should drop from what they are now to practically zero.

Re:Record companies had their run

[BitZtream]

The difference now is, streaming services will help introduce people to new music,

Why do people keep acting like this is 'new'.

Radio has been streaming music since before you were born.

Re:Record companies had their run

[glsunder]

True, but I've never really had more than 3 to 4 stations that I liked to choose from, whether that was growing up in the 80s in the midwest, or in my 30s & 40s in SF. Now, it's really easy to wonder what a particular style of music sounds like, find it on youtube or something else, and check it out. My tastes in music have broadened tremendously over the last 10 or so years, and while I don't buy every album, I've went to concerts of bands that I would have never known that I liked before the internet.

Someday, someone will figure out how to make money by using the internet to reach the wider audience than CDs, tapes, or LPs ever could. Making $0.10 per person per year * a few billion people should be in the same ballpark as $10 per person per year * 10 million people.

Plus, when I was growing up in the 80s, I had hundreds of albums, but only paid for about 1/3 of them. 2/3 were copied from friends. So it's not like people have always payed for everything that they had access to.

Re:Record companies had their run

[Anonymous Coward]

I rarely buy music downloads, but I just shelled out $100+ to go to a concert for a group that I discovered via the Freemium model.

Re:Record companies had their run

[Anonymous Coward]

Their model for distributing music has only been around a little over 1/2 a century.

Bzzt, wrong. The Victor Talking Machine Company (which eventually became RCA Victor) was founded in 1901.

Of course, the sale of books and magazines went back hundreds of years before that.

It is almost as if

[lq_x_pl]

the music industry wants people to pirate music.

Re:It is almost as if

[Jason Levine]

If more people pirate music, they can blame bad sales (where bad is defined as "We sold X and we think we should have sold 10,000*X") on piracy. Then, they can use the piracy claim to get some music industry-friendly, consumer-unfriendly laws passed. (E.g. "You need to pay a $5 a month piracy tax whether or not you pirate." or "Three copyright infringement accusations and your ISP must disconnect you.") Best case: An executive blames piracy on a bad album sale instead of on the fact that he signed a band with no talent.

Even if piracy went away tomorrow, I'm convinced that the music industry would still claim that piracy was increasing more and more.

Re:It is almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like you're happy when you get mugged in the street.

Re:It is almost as if

[Anonymous Coward]

If more people pirate music, they can blame bad sales (where bad is defined as "We sold X and we think we should have sold 10,000*X") on piracy. Then, they can use the piracy claim to get some music industry-friendly, consumer-unfriendly laws passed. (E.g. "You need to pay a $5 a month piracy tax whether or not you pirate." or "Three copyright infringement accusations and your ISP must disconnect you.") Best case: An executive blames piracy on a bad album sale instead of on the fact that he signed a band with no talent.

Even if piracy went away tomorrow, I'm convinced that the music industry would still claim that piracy was increasing more and more.

This is one steaming pile of rationalization. Just suppose that the record companies did not appreciate piracy - how would they behave that is different? Maybe they would stop suing individual pirates, or trying to shut down sites like Grooveshark?

But of course, it passes for Insightful on Slashdot, because the mods are pirates too.

Re:It is almost as if

[lq_x_pl]

I don't usually feed the trolls, but I'm curious about this one. You're saying that ad-supported streaming services are akin to a mugging?

Lets not forget other group behind this....

[arbiter1]

Apple is one the big pushers behind this move as well as they are about to launch their own PAID music series. They want the free tier killed off so they can be more competitive in music streaming market. Now cue Apple fanboyz to defend Apple for this crap.

Re:Lets not forget other group behind this....

[ArcadeMan]

Apple does need the money. How else are they going to come up with revolutionary products like computers which can't even have their RAM upgraded or still sell computers with slow 5400 RPM* laptop hard drives in their low-end models?

* I might be wrong. It could be 4200 RPM...

Re:Lets not forget other group behind this....

[Anonymous Coward]

But Apple offers their own free, ad-supported music streaming service, iTunes Radio. According to a quick Google search, it's more popular than Spotify -- which I find hard to believe, but several sites make the claim.

So why would they kill off a market that they're already succeeding in? And why would they launch the service in late 2013, only to work kill it less than two years later? Not saying that they're not doing it. Corporations are often irrational. I just don't see what their goal would be.

Re:Lets not forget other group behind this....

[stealth_finger]

But Apple offers their own free, ad-supported music streaming service, iTunes Radio. According to a quick Google search, it's more popular than Spotify -- which I find hard to believe, but several sites make the claim.

It's probably de facto installed with iTunes and they count every installation rather than use. Probably bundled with safari and quicktime too.

Re:Lets not forget other group behind this....

[ArcadeMan]

I see the moderator hasn't seen the specifications of the 2014 Mac mini.

Broadcast radio FTW

[kheldan]

The more stupid crap like this I read or hear, the more and more I'm glad I still listen to nice, free FM radio, and my own collection of CDs.

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[T-Bucket]

Oh yeah, I love FM radio. 85% commercials with the occasional song thrown in. There's a reason I haven't listened to that shit in years.

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[Nethemas the Great]

The RIAA loves you too.

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

The more stupid crap like this I read or hear, the more and more I'm glad I still listen to nice, free FM radio, and my own collection of CDs.

I only use the radio, both AM and FM stations. I can't stand being tied to the shitty internet to listen to music (and also I love radio)

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA loves you too.

Ok then, guess we're all happy? I don't see a problem, I listen to the radio and if I really like the artist then I'll buy their CD. Why should I have to deal with this internet bullshit.

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[kheldan]

There's this little thing called 'presets' that allow you to jump around between stations with a simple push of a button, you should try it. I don't listen to commercials. :-)

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[Nethemas the Great]

How are your 20+ year old CDs doing? Tried to play them lately? Do you still carry around the 15x15x5 inch binders filled with CDs. Enjoy listening to a single artist for ~60min stretches or did you take over your trunk with a carousel? Can you even buy a CD playing walkman anymore or do you prefer to fill your Aiwa with D-cells and mount it to your shoulder?

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the magic minutes that pop up every few hours where you jump around and every station is on commercial.

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[kheldan]

There's also this magic device called a 'volume control' that allows you to turn the sound all the way down. Some even have a more magic button called a 'mute' button.

b-b-b-but I have to have constant stimulation or I'll cry!

Get over it, Nancy. People will eventually get tired of having to pay for 'streaming services' one way or another, and they'll come back to free broadcast radio.

Re:Broadcast radio FTW

[toddestan]

I grew tired of having to flip channels every few minutes. Add in that the radio stations play the same few songs over and over and over (even the "classic rock" stations rotate the same hundred or so songs over and over, despite literally decades of source material to choose from). Oh yeah, don't forget the station blurb they insert between every single song they play. I gave up on commercial radio years ago. My car doesn't even have the presets programmed, it's been that way for years.

Damned if you do...

[rsilvergun]

not sure I see a problem with this. If the users were going to stay on the unpaid model and the ad revenue isn't enough to pay for it why bother hoping they convert? It only works for Candy Crush because a few "whales" buy a tonne of stuff, but with music those folks are buying CDs and vinyl for their collection. Might as well cut off the guys who want freebies...

Only a fool would buy music

[rmdingler]

I remember thinking "this is a freakishly crazy business model" when I could play any song I wished, completely and utterly gratis, whenever I wanted.

Suddenly, I own a focking paid for library of signature party mix.

Best con of all? I'm not even sure how they got me, so I think they can do it again.

Re:Only a fool would buy music

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember thinking the same, and I haven't paid for music since 1997 or something. And I don't plan to start anytime soon.

I'm using youtube (and I download videos and/or audio tracks with appropriate firefox addons) just because it's easy and it offers any songs I could look for. And I don't see any ads due to AdBlock Plus. As soon as they make it a premium service, I will switch back to piracy.

In any case, no money from me, ever.

Try a carrot

[pushing-robot]

Offer tiers of service ranging from free (ad-supported) to dirt cheap (fewer/no ads) to cheap (mobile/offline support) to still reasonable (higher quality, international content, user uploads).

Allow artists to choose whether to make their content available at the 'free' tier.

Write the contracts such that paying users will always be able to access music they've added to their library, even if the artist/label throws a fit and leaves.

Re:Try a carrot

[Amouth]

try

https://magnatune.com/

i personally love it, and a few years ago bought a life time membership (even after buying several albums from them).

Only thing i wish was that their phone app was better (and had random across favorites) and that they had a desktop player like PandoraOne so that i don't have to leave a web browser always running to listen (and the player would work with media keys for play/pause/stop)

Re:Try a carrot

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the idea, but have to point out that Artists are not the problem for the most part. Just like certain comedians started putting out their own media, musicians are doing the same (or attempting). "Labels" eat the majority of an artists revenue, end up owning all the song copyrights due to artists having to either give them up or not get paid, etc... etc...

The MPAA and RIAA have no visible interest in changing.

Re:Try a carrot

[stealth_finger]

The MPAA and RIAA have no visible interest in changing.

Of course they do. As long and the change gets them more money for less work.

shoot themselves in the foot

[MrKaos]

Good. The music industry is like a puss filled infection on the ass of humanity that needs to be lanced and drained so something better can take its place.

Re:shoot themselves in the foot

[ArcadeMan]

Something like this?

Re:shoot themselves in the foot

[MrKaos]

excellent! probably not as comical!

In the immortal words of George Lucas

[steelfood]

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

It's too bad Lucas wasn't a better filmmaker/storyteller.

Music industry screwed up with Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

What really happened is the music industry allowed Apple to run their show. Of course Apple's solution to all the illegal downloads was DRM and selling individual songs. This was suppose to appease those who simply want a couple songs and not pay for a whole album. Of course that steamrolled into nobody buying anything they just pay a subscription to listen. Even that has not gone over so well with so much non DRM finding ways onto devices with or without a subscription.
Personally a lot of young people seem to still like music. But they don't seem to find much value in paying for it? The solution for artists may be to distribute on their own terms or simply pull content from free services.

We are done buying CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

The music industry is always behind, back when they could sell us an album at 15$ a pop its all you could buy, each labl had a monopoly on each artist, and you had to but it their way. Now that we have the internet it is virtually free for distribution, the cost of sharing music is zero. So if you have to compete with somebody that is selling stuff for free, you either have to give your product away or sweeten the deal. The music industry instead of innovating its business model, wants to keep the status quo. They will lose sales this way and someone will figure out a better way.

But geese that lay golden eggs

[jd2112]

...make the best foie gras.

How dumb can you be and still breathe?

[BevanFindlay]

Yep, real smart. "Oh no, people are discovering new music for free, let's stop them."

Users: "Oh, my free streaming service went away. You suck! How do I get music now?" Googles for 'free music download', or asks friends, eventually ends up at the Pirate Bay or something. "Cool, all this stuff is free and I can even keep it without some service disappearing from underneath me!"

When will these people realise that they cannot support their old business model because technology has made it redundant. The longer they try and abuse their customer base, the more of their customer base they are going to lose. Eventually technology will steamroll them into obsolescence, but it's mainly because they never thought to give people want they want soon enough (if, back in the Napster days, they had provided an easy way to purchase any MP3 online, DRM-free, for a low price, everyone would have done that instead of finding more and more ways to avoid paying at all. Now, it's too late and the market has left them behind).

It's the horse-feed sellers complaining that everyone is using jet aircraft - and then trying to force them not to by suing? I have for quite some time been saying that they need to wake up and adapt to the technology, but I honestly think it's too late for that. The recording agencies have dug their own grave by being so backward. P2P tech and other options have left them irrelevant, and their trying to beat people up with legislation changes just makes the rational people who don't mind paying a fair price angry.

Sorry, but if I'm looking for new music, I'm still going to look at places like YouTube. If the big businesses are too stupid to put their stuff there, then it won't be their content I'm seeing - it'll be indy artists, and I'm more than happy to pay an artist directly if I think their stuff is good enough, and if I can get it without DRM (or other vendor lock-in like iTunes).

Of course, most of the big-label stuff is rubbish anyway, so I guess I'm not losing much. Perhaps YouTube will stop suggesting crap pop songs now - yay!

No sources listed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The article you link to is completely un-sourced. It's basically yelling fire in a movie theater. When they can point to some actual industry reports saying what they claim, hit us back up...

who needs the big labels

[Dan667]

anymore, I find a lot of the music I like is self published by the band. It is getting to where you don't need the labels and that is a good thing.

Radio

[garphik]

In my case, I no longer buy stuff from itunes / any other online stores - put it on the devices to listen, I listen to the radio, it keeps me upto date and no fuss... I have a good audio system at home for which is no longer used because of mp3s - the way we listen to music has changed - and it will change more in future...

Dinosaurs

[Trogre]

Seriously, there are plenty of ways a band can publish their music now with no need for a distribution contract. Here's a few off the top of my head:

Bandcamp
ReverbNation
cdbaby
Magnatune (Haven't checked if they still exist - they made a big deal about not being "evil")
Google Play
iTunes
Hell there's YouTube if you're desperate :)

Meh

[tsotha]

But in doing trying to do so, the labels will do harm to the artists they represent, and shoot themselves in the foot for acquiring future customers by getting rid of several major sources of music discovery.

I'm pretty sure the labels only worry about the artists when their own interests aren't involved. You're right about the music discovery, but from a label's perspective discovery is only worthwhile if it leads to a sale. If people just listen to youtube whenever they have the itch to hear a song without ever buying the track, that looks a lot like parasitism to the people who produced it.

Re:Meh

[Jack Griffin]

What the industry has to accept is that just because they had a monopoly for 50 years of human history doesn't mean they deserve that for all eternity. There's no law of nature that says musicians should be millionaires, even a popular one.
I can't see any issue where artists publish their recordings on streaming services and only earn a token income, while music enthusiasts (DJs and critics etc) vie for attention by recommending and publishing playlists, to which consumers listen then pay to see their favourite artists live and/or buy a T-Shirt. A popular artist can gross $200million on a successful tour, without a single penny being earnt from record sales. That alone will ensure there are always musicians producing music, no draconian copyright laws required.

Re:Meh

[tsotha]

Well, that may be true, but for the time being we do have draconian copyright laws, and the copyright holders are well within their rights to have unauthorized copies taken down. Whether or not the legal environment make sense is another question.

Re:Look. Listen. Pirate = Shoplifter

[Anonymous Coward]

Shoplifter? I don't think so. Why should i go to a store to buy a CD, then hunt all over the web for a simple mp3 for my mp3 player (and pay for that too), then of course because the industry 'wants' me to, pay yet again for another mp3 for my car, and so on and so forth? This business model of making the user pay and pay and pay and pay yet again for the same stuff gets annoying. People are getting tired of being abused in this fashion. And the industry wonders why we stop buying their crap? Geez......

Who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, who even listens to music anymore?

Nearly 100% of the music I listen to is tracked by scrobbler (aka last.fm). I recently printed out a database of my listening history from the service and discovered that in the last twelve years, I have not even listened to an average of *one* song per day.

People will pay

[Anonymous Coward]

One just needs to look at Bandcamp's figures to see that if the music is good then people will pay for it even when it can be streamed (from the same site) for free. With the 'pay what you want' system , most people who pay actually pay more than the minimum price quoted. At one time Spotify used to have the facility to purchase albums/tracks which you had discovered, which provided a simple way for the listener to reward the artists they like, but this was stopped.

More lies, more bullshit, more crap laws

[Anonymous Coward]

So they sold us stuff manufactured by person A, but showing person B (people got bent out of shape over Milli Vanilli, but the wrecking crew did the same thing with over 10,000 songs in the 1960s and 1970's, likewise the Nashville Cats and Motown Funk Brothers), lately you don't need talent, just a lot of time, and autotune, and a crapload of software on your computer. And the demographics listening to their crap has shifted (gotten smaller), and that demographic is poorer and can't afford to overpay for something that isn't necessary for life. There are about 20 pop songs I find I really like that have been made in the last 10 years. I haven't felt the urge to pay for any one of them. The radio provides a lot of music. If its not what I like, I shut it off or put on something I have at hand. I have elderly relatives who have downloaded music from the internet with no intention of ever paying big music a nickel. The ass holes who created the DMCA deserve to die broke and shunned. If there is a local artist I like selling copies of their music for a few dollars, I pay them directly. Big media gets nothing.

Happens in every industry when...

[Anonymous Coward]

the executives, managers, agents, and lawyers realize that a technology shift is happening (or has happened) and that THEY, as people who've never actually created anything but who have lived very comfortably on the backs of the actual creative people, are about to be left high-and-dry. Such people rarely admit it, but there is a severe form of insecurity that comes from being wealthy and successful based not on your own abilities but rather based entirely on riding on the back of some other person who is actually the productive/creative one.... it's a dependency every bit as much as the poor single mom depending on a welfare check but masked with a veneer of success.

Unlike the actual creative people, these white-collar leeches lack the skills to start something new, so they madly claw for ways to keep the old paradigm working just a little longer. The dumber ones think they can keep it going forever. Te smarter ones know they just need to the buy time to find some other group of creative or productive people to latch onto. They're like horsemen who've ridden a horse to its limits and are looking to ditch it and hop onto a fresh horse, but they have not yet spotted that next fresh horse so they'll whip the current horse a bit more without regard to the harm they are doing since they just need it to go on a little bit longer so they can find that next horse.

Like I say every time

[Anonymous Coward]

If artists aren't happy with the money they are making, stop making music and get a real job.
People that do it for fun will replace you, and barely anyone will miss you.

And what about library pirates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the music execs even know that libraries exist, and have a plethora of music CDs from which patrons can *freely* choose? Hope they never find out!

From $33 bln worldwide revenues, to $15 bln...

[Anonymous Coward]

From 1999 to 2014. That's according to IFPI statistics. The recording industry is just a dead industry, a corpse which is releasing empty threats that nobody is buying. In 20 years they won't exist anymore. They completely lost the war with piracy, they had to offer all of the music for free to make it "legal", and now they are desperately trying to switch to paid services because most majors are close to bankruptcy.

It's just a pathetic illusion. They lost the war with piracy once, they'll lose it again now that they are ridiculously weaker than 10 years ago.

Re:Look. Listen. Pirate = Shoplifter

[stealth_finger]

Pirates OOOooo

Look. Listen. If a pirate wanted to pay for it he wouldn't steal it in the first place. Don't fall for this mouthy group's agenda. It's like try to say I should let shoplifters get away with it since they are my best customers. Yeah, right. It keeps me buying ammo is what it does.

Get it through your fucking skull that copying is not the same as stealing. If it was then telling you you're an idiot is the same as shooting you in the face. Especially as that seems to be your preferred method.

He didnt do any work to make those copies.

[Anonymous Coward]

The people in the packing department sweated their balls off FOR 70 YEARS whilst Elton sat around and got paid for the result of their work.

5 years is plenty enough time to payback. If your song can't make it back in 5 years, then either you're going to fail anyway (90% of new ventures fail, and each song is a new venture), or you've already made your money back and have to do it again to get paid again.

Just like everyone else.

Or do you think Elton works as hard as a unranium miner, fireman or serviceman at war? We don't pay ANY of them if they stop working for 70 years. Hell, we whine giving them two WEEKS off work.

Re:Look. Listen. Pirate = Shoplifter

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of ammo if you're not killing people with it?

And murder for petty theft is a criminal offence, and can see you up for death by the numbers.

So quite why that internet hard man thought he needed to brag about his .32 caliber penis loads is anyone's guess.

Maybe they're just a psycho nutbar.

They've been doing that...

[gTsiros]

... the foot-shooting, that is, for what? Ten years? For as long as i can remember on /. , that's what we always say. Yet they are still here...

Anyone got any hard data to determine whether they are gaining or losing from all the foot-shooting?

Learn to work with peoples inclination to share

[Anonymous Coward]

What artists and labels should do is to learn to work with people's inclination to share things. Let them share the songs. Create the torrent yourself in fact. Include maybe your latest tour schedule as a side file, maybe a link to your site that sells t-shirts, mugs, signed pictures, etc. Use youtube and its advertizing model. Your real money is made off of touring. Ride your popularity if you put out good stuff and rather than try to sell copies of each song, sell the concert experience and the other merchandise that can't be pirated.

However this also means that artists have to plan for their retirement just like any other person. You won't get paid forever. When you have to put up that guitar or microphone or drumsticks, you have to either find another source of income, or you retire and run off of your retirement money like anyone else. Labels could include this type of planning (like a 401K, etc) as part of their benefits package for an artist using them as a platform to record songs and plan their concerts. Where does an artist get the money to start up? Gofund me, kickstarter, etc. "Hey we are doing a new album! Fans. go to our kickstarter to donate if you want to help us get it out there, this money will go towards using our labels recording studio and equipment, and buying, fixing or updating our instruments and such." Talent will do well and make a fun career and retire happy. The not talents? They fail and fans walk away and they find out that the music biz just isn't for them.

Re:Look. Listen. Pirate = Shoplifter

[Anonymous Coward]

Owner: He said he had a gun and threatened me.

Cop: Well done, Mr. Owner.

DA: Justifiable homicide.

Owner: I need more ammo. My "best customer" used up my last shots.

The labels are dead

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good thing for independents. These days you really don't need a label. If you've got something and worth hearing good record it at home. You can build a computer studio for around $3000 that will turn out studio quality work. So you get to record on your time table. As many takes as you want without having to worry about burning up hours. Mix it til your heart is content. And as an added bonus no indentured servitude to the label. I love it. When you're all done release a single to youtube, get your grassroots fans to spread the word on facebook and then there are multiple ways to distribute online. The music industry has changed and the majors have totally missed the boat. They are as irrelevant as buggy-whip manufactures now.

Re:Look. Listen. Pirate = Shoplifter

[Anonymous Coward]

Get it through your fucking skull that copying is not the same as stealing.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Good, go for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking forward to a rejuvenation of piracy.

Oh Noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've not been so concerned since my Napster account got shut down and that was the end of getting any free music... Oh wait.. Radio...TV.... Whatever music industry.. no one even cares anymore.

People still buy music?

[carbonates]

I stopped buying music, and mostly stopped listening to any sort of prerecorded music in about 2000 when the RIAA starting suing the bejesus out of all sorts of people for minor file-sharing incidents that essentially was legal terrorism by the RIAA- no one they sued had the ability to defend themselves against such a well-funded plaintiff. When I realized I was paying a tax on blank CD's to the music industry that I never used for recording music I was so outraged I decided to boycott the music industry. So far I am pretty happy listening to the birds sing instead. I still have a huge collection of vinyl records that I listen to occasionally, and still listen to the radio, but I never bother paying for music. They can shut down all the music services they want, but they will never get another dime of my money.

False premise, false dichotomy

[Dixie_Flatline]

This article is bad and the author should feel bad.

1) The conversion rate doesn't need to be even close to 1:1. Spotify makes 87-91% of its revenue from the customers that subscribe (depending on what report you read). This is despite the percentage of people paying is around or less than 25%. I've read that Spotify would be profitable if it could just get freemium users to pay $1/3 months.

2) Psy was rich before he was available in North America. The article makes it sound like exposure to the west MADE him. That's exceptional cultural egocentrism.

3) Consumers don't DESERVE free music.

A lot of people on here (rightly) say that nobody DESERVES to make a living being a musician, and that's fair enough. But nobody DESERVES free music, either. But it DOES take work and money and time to make music, so if you're going to listen to it, you should pay for it, one way or another. The thing I can't stand is people listening to music with no intention of giving back. If an artist makes music and nobody listens to it because the music isn't good, or they didn't do a good job spreading the word, well, fair enough. They don't deserve money for that. But I'd be pissed if my company decided to use my work without paying me, and it's understandable that artists (and to a more limited extent, labels) want to be paid for what you're consuming.

If you don't listen, you don't pay for it. Fine. But if you're streaming someone's music, *you should pay for it*. It's not free to make. If you don't want to pay, YOU DON'T GET TO LISTEN. That's the way it works for everything else in your life. Don't want to pay for an Apple Watch? You don't get an Apple Watch. Don't want to pay for a car? Walk. You're not entitled to music just because it's easy to obtain.