Slashdot Mirror
Music Streaming Sales Outstrip Digital Downloads For First Time (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this news, which might worry you if you'd like your music (or videos, or books) to be safely stored on your local PC, phone, or offline storage: Music streaming has surpassed digital downloads in terms of revenue, according to a report released by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Its 'News and Notes on 2015' review shows that music streaming in the U.S. brought in 34.3% of the overall revenue for the year – generating $2.4 billion out of a total $7 billion. If the numbers are accurate, streaming beat music downloads by 0.3%. While this growth is an encouraging result for those in the industry backing streaming services like Spotify and the new Apple Music, many remain unconvinced of its value. RIAA chairman and CEO Cary Sherman noted an 'alarming' disparity between the growth in the number of ad-supported streams, and the growth in revenues generated by these.
who cares, $10 a month i can listen to as many new releases or songs I haven't heard of as I want at any time that i want my music library peaked at 200 some CD's back in the day and most of them i would only listen to once a year. no value in buying music anymore for a huge collection
They have a warmer sound!
So I have it whenever and wherever I want
Music is something you listen to many times, it is inefficient to stream it every time (especially if you're outside your Wifi and would have to pay your mobile carrier for extra data use.
Steaming music subscription instead of MP3s/CDs. Video streaming subscription instead of DVDs. Satellite radio instead of free radio. Cable TV instead of OTA. Pay-to-play games instead of one-time-cost games. Office365 instead of MS Office Suite. Hell, Windows 10 is the last Windows OS that you can "own" instead of "rent" (where "own" means a perpetual license and "rent" means time-limited license). This is all part of a wider trend to a Rentier Economy where ownership is a privilege only the very rich can afford and everyone else is on a treadmill of ever-increasing subscription fees.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I disagree.
Not only do I not have a nearby place with live music, let alone playing the kind of music I want ... I want to be able to listen to music while I work, while I'm on a plane, while I'm on vacation, while I'm in my backyard while in my car, or hanging out with friends in my living room.
I also want a large amount of variety in my music, and have little interest in going to a live venue where I get gouged for cover, over-priced drinks, and leave with ringing ears. And, no, I don't want to hear yet another damned version of Mustang Sally by a cover band. I want to listen to music FAR more often than that, and I sure don't want whatever pop tune is going to play 10 times that day.
Why was the concept of owning music farcical? We had it for a VERY long time as a model, and for some of us it still works quite well.
Artists get paid far better from a CD purchase than a streaming play, and I have no fucking interest in having ads shoved in my face so some asshole can track me and try to monetize my listening experience.
Me, I buy CDs, rip 'em to MP3, and use them on all of my devices how I see fit, where I see fit, and when I see fit. Two or three times a year I buy 20-30 CDs (more if you account for multi-disk sets), rip 'em, put in my library and as much as possible try to play through my entire library through the year -- because I have big giant random playlists based on least recently played.
No ad company gets money when I play my music, no asshole can tell me the DRM has expired and I'm not allowed to listen to it, no analytics company can gather information about me when I play music, and I'm not dependent on an internet connection to re-download something I already own.
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to avoid the corruption of the music industry is buy CDs from artists I like, or buy compilation CDs I like, let them get paid, and then never have them have any inputs on how I use my music ever again.
Sorry, for me buying a CD and ripping it to MP3 is pretty much the only way I can freely enjoy my music in the way I choose to listen to it without allowing someone to try to apply constraints or make more money off the purchase. It's a one shot deal, and then the recording industry is out of the picture ... and I'm not supporting artists I don't like.
No way I'm willing to hand control of how I play my music to anybody else, and no way I'm going to rely on the radio or live venues to provide all of the music and variety I choose. I'll take care of that myself, precisely by owning my own music library.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I just call up Aerosmith and have them come over and play for me in the living room.
I wont listen to Metallica anymore after what Lars did to the carpet last time....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
But what if there aren't any local artists playing the kind of music I like? They've basically been selling recorded music since they figured out how to record sound. Recorded music does have it's place. There are albums that I have bought that I've definitely got my money out of. Concert tickets don't really allow everybody to really see the concert anyway. A musician can only spend a finite amount of time touring, and can only do a finite amount of shows. You can't afford to go to a show for every band you like.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The music industry has carefully tried to redefine digital downloads as different from purchases, pushing DRM which is later sunset and stripping us of our first-sale rights with the approval of the courts. Everyone knows that a CD which I can rip, trade or later sell legally is worth more than a digital download which I never really own, but rather license. So, the market adjusted. Streaming is clearly cheaper than amassing an aging collection of purchased music. The digital "licensed" albums were never that much cheaper than a CD or LP. It should come as no surprise that when the industry redefined what it means to "buy" an album stripping many long-held rights from consumers, the market adjusted as efficient markets do, and now we're paying a lot less. This is the market at work folks; it's called capitalism, and it's the basis for our whole economy. If the music industry doesn't like it, maybe they can find a more hospitable environment in China.
Wrong on so many things: artists who don't perform live, artists who can't perform live (dead, wrong location), back catalogue, artists who aren't 'signed', artists who choose not to be on streaming services. The list goes on.
Drop recordings? You understand that a lot of live music actually uses elements of recordings? Of course you do...
Only support Industrial music? You mean like Skinny Puppy, NIN, Ministry? That I'd agree with.
No, Mr. Sherman, what you are seeing is the competition that results from customers having more choice about formats and having a relatively large number of competing services trying to win customers driving prices down instead of a handful of companies essentially operating a price-fixing cartel and relying on customer lock-in. That you think this is a problem speaks volumes.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Amazingly enough, a lot of people still listen to music created in the 1990s, 80s, 70s and even 60s and 50s. Just because millennials only care about the flavor of the month doesn't mean everybody is as fickle as that.
Some of my most heavily played tracks are from CDs I bought 25 years ago. I can listen to that same music for the next 25 years without paying anyone another damn penny.
So tell me again how software 'good enough for a decade' is worth buying while music I might enjoy for 50 years isn't.
His point was also directed at the decline of music superstars. Why listen to Aerosmith when there is a local band performing great music.
Wait, you live in L.A. or New York, right?
Cheap storage VM.