Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Also pirates support children terrorist's
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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
"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?
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.
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
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?
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...
it's advertising to get people to pay the ridiculous live concert prices
music sucks, anyway...at least on MY lawn.
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.
the music industry wants people to pirate music.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
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.
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.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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).
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.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
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.
>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?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
give away recordings to attract concert attendance instead of the old concept of touring to promote the album.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
...make the best foie gras.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
> 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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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!
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.
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.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
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.
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.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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...
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
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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.
No.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
... 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?
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
(because of jews again)
That's your argument? Come back when you want to be sensible, son.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And if I make a quality hammer, a carpenter can use it to make a profit for decades. What's the difference?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
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?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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?
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.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The cheese stands alone...
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?
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.
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...
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?