Music Streaming Service Exclusives Make Pirating Tempting Again (theverge.com)

The advent of online music streaming service has made it easier for millions of people worldwide to listen to all of their favorite songs, and convinced plenty to pay for music. But with the space of music streaming service getting increasingly crowded and artists beginning to do exclusive with select platforms, it has again become inconvenient for people to get everything they want with one subscription. The Verge's Ashley Carman writes that this is pushing many people to resort to piracy. Carman writes: Rampant piracy could make a comeback, solely because streaming service exclusives, and complete artist opt-outs, make it impossible to get all music in one place. Last week, Drake dropped two new singles off his upcoming album Views from the 6. The tracks are currently only available on Apple Music. Last month, Kanye West released his newest album The Life of Pablo on Tidal only. It came to Spotify this month after an estimated 500,000 people had already torrented it. Big Sean and Jhen's Aiko released their collaboration album TWENTY88 on only Tidal at first. Beyonce and Nicki Minaj released a Tidal-only music video for Feeling Myself. More than a million people signed up for Tidal over the course of a day just to get Kanye's new album, though it's assumed that most won't stick around. At what cost to listeners are these exclusives being made and where does it leave fans? If users wanted to subscribe to only one service, it would come out to approximately $120 per year. Two services will cost $240, and three services, say, Apple Music, Tidal, and Spotify, will cost $360, which will be a substantial cost to casual listeners.

Comments

Might?

[rockout]

When did pirating stop being tempting?

Re:Might?

[serviscope_minor]

Pirating stopped being especially tempting when the music industry realised that it ought to sell people what people wanted to buy, for a price they were prepared to pay and allow them to play their music whenever and whereever they liked without anything abusive.

Basically the various music stores, once they dropped DRM, did this. Hear a track, like it, buy it and play it back on anything, anywhere at any time. And the streaming internet radio only helped, since now there were nice options to listen to stuff more or less wherever you wanted.

But now, with exclusives, they're making it more awkward for people to get it through legitimate channels, so people go to the one channel which gives them the flexibility they want: piracy.

Here's the thing, most people aren't freeloading asshats. Most people are happy to pay a reasonable price for something they like, as long as they get something good in return. The "problem" with piracy is not that it was cheaper[*], the problem was it offered (and in the case of video still does) a *better* product.

You can play a pirated media file on any device. You never get unskippable ads with pirated media. With pirated media you don't have to connect your device to the internet because you tried to play the wrong kind of file. With pirated media, there are no DRM servers to be switched off rendering your collection worthless. And so on.

[*] Some people are freeloading asshats and will never pay anything. But you can't get money out of those people.

Re:Might?

[ArmoredDragon]

That's not a valid comparison.

The appeal of streaming services is that distribution is simplified to the point that you get everything under one roof. In order for shoplifting to be a valid comparison, you'd have to be able to shoplift just anything you could possibly desire from just one store, which you obviously can't do. Under a proper tracker (say what.cd in this case) you really do get everything from just one place.

This, by the way, is why a lot of people in other countries like to VPN to get US based Netflix instead of having to subscribe to multiple services in their own country to get the same content, which is still paying for (and not pirating) their content.

The fact that you have a job (or even no job at all) doesn't come into play.

Re:Might?

[AmiMoJo]

This is nothing like shoplifting. Music is given away for free all the time, on YouTube and Vimeo, on the radio and the TV. Downloading a copy doesn't deprive anyone of anything, except the existential concept of a potential lost sale.

Watching a music video and then changing the channel when the ads come on isn't stealing. Humming a tune you heard isn't theft. Downloading a digital copy is at worst copyright infringement. It's definitely not theft, and it's not even that hard to morally justify as at the prices being offered most of these kids weren't going to pay anyway, so not even a potential sale was lost.

Re:Might?

[Saint Fnordius]

It became inconvenient when services offered more comfort and better quality. The payment was offset by the convenience and the trust that you were getting the real deal, not some crappy rip. Yes, the biggest reason people pirated was because the music was unavailable.

If the nominal fee does not bring the wanted convenience, then I can see why people will start looking to BitTorrent, and it really is a case of the artists leaving money on the table that their fans would be more than happy to give them.

Re:Might?

[stealth_finger]

not really the best parallel. Perhaps more like "it's hard to find a car with all the features I want. I'll build my own and not bother to get it inspected or registered."

Nah that'd be closer to I cant get the music I want so I'll write my own.

Re:Might?

[stealth_finger]

This has been bothering me for a while, but why do people talk about Spotify like it solves a problem? It might be the genre of music I like, but when I look at what Spotify offers, I don't see how it's superior to Google Play Music (where I can upload 50,000 hourlong tracks and listen on 10 authorized devices, where Spotify only allows 3333 tracks and 3 devices) and see a streaming catalog that with poorly cataloged , mislabeled or missing content.

I like classical music, something that no streaming service handles well, but Google Music is free if you're just uploading stuff you already have. What's Spotify doing to make itself better than that?

I don't think people are referring to spotify specifically. It's just becoming the go to word for music streaming service, like google is for search engines, netflix for vid streaming, hoover for vacuum cleaners etc etc

Re:Might?

[Anonymous Coward]

I got into the habit of pirating everything when I was a poor teenager. Even though I have a high income now and could easily afford everything I want, I still pirate it all. I'm sure I save at least $2000/year. I can't imagine what would ever compel me to stop other than the threat of jail time.

Re:Might?

[Anonymous Coward]

When Steam got its shit together, I mostly stopped pirating games. It was easier to just pay and download than to have to deal with a crack, possible virus infection, bugs that come from the crack (or not being able to update), lost save games, and all that shit.

When Grooveshark came out, I stopped pirating music. It was any song I wanted for a monthly fee. It's far easier to just type in a song, and hit play than it was to go hunting on Gnutella or in torrents for the song I was looking for.

I still pirate TV shows, even though I have cable. Better watching experience without the commercials.

I still pirate movies. There have been many times where the digital version of a movie cost more than buying the media and waiting for it to show up. Redbox rentals are by far the best deal, but I have to put on pants and drive to get to a Redbox. Make things easier to watch from your service than it is to download a torrent, and I'll switch. That includes a reasonable price.

Shooting themselves in the foot.

[whoever57]

In the UK, music publishers got a ruling that ripping CDs is illegal. What is the likely outcome of that?

If I can't legally buy the CD, rip it and listen to the music on my devices, then I might as well fire up a torrent app and skip the whole "buy the CD" part.

False Equivalence

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting aside the debated-to-death difference between stealing and copyright infringement, your argument is based on another false equivalence;

I have a large choice of stores from which to purchase physical items. I may not be able to afford all the items that I want, but at the very least I do not have to pay $7.50/month in order to access WalMart, another $8.00/month in order to access Bed Bath & Beyond, and yet another $5.00/month to access my farmer's market - when I might only be interested in a few items from Bed Bath & Beyond that WalMart doesn't offer because WalMart doesn't like those things, and that one thing from the farmer's market because the vendor doesn't like WalMart. I can go to each one and pay piecemeal.

While understanding that streaming services have effectively brought the cost of music down to unprecedented levels, those services do have an upfront cost - and when you've got artists doing exclusives to services - where you cannot purchase this music piecemeal anymore - you're not at all being equivalent to stores.

Also, shoplifting isn't the same as copyright infringement. Thank you.

Re:False Equivalence

[Anonymous Coward]

I may not be able to afford all the items that I want, but at the very least I do not have to pay $7.50/month in order to access WalMart, another $8.00/month in order to access Bed Bath & Beyond, and yet another $5.00/month to access my farmer's market

Your argument is bollocks. Complete bollocks. You don't pay a monthly fee to those places because that's not their business model. Those places DO have exclusivity contracts - and if you want to buy something that ONLY Wal-Mart sells, then you're forced to either:

1) Pay WalMart's quoted price;
2) Do without it;
3) Steal it from WalMart;

Only the first two of these are *ethical* solutions to your dilemma. Furthermore, there ARE stores that charge monthly or yearly fees - Amazon Prime, BJ's Wholesale, Sam's Clubs, and others charge monthly fees for the "privilege" of shopping there - and if you want BJ's brand stuff, you're going to have to shop at BJ's, and pay their membership fees.

Also, shoplifting isn't the same as copyright infringement. Thank you.

So what? Your argument is equivalent to saying "Shoplifting isn't the same as murder." They may not be the same, but that doesn't make either one of them moral, ethical acts. If you decide to take something that does not belong to you, which the owner has not consented to give to you, then you are engaged in a profoundly immoral activity. Your ethical choices, when presented with terms and prices which you object to for music are:

1) Pay the price the owner is asking for, and abide by the limits and restrictions they stipulate as part of the sale;
2) Negotiate with the owner for a better price, or fewer/no limits/restrictions as part of the sale;
3) Do without the music, and either make your own, or patronize other artists whose terms of sale are more palatable to you;

Notice there is no option that says, "take what you want, fuck the creator, he has no right to control the products of his labor."

Re:Price ain't the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I will still buy physical discs as an "archival copy", when available; but when publishers screw us all (artists included) with these service-exclusive deals, it leaves only one rational option.

Not listening to that artist?

Not all artists even release CDs

[tepples]

every so often, visit an online used cd store like secondspin.com

Until a recording artist decides to stop releasing music on CDs, such as Kanye West. Or unless a recording artist never starts selling CDs in the first place and stays digital-only because "major labels are for chumps".

When the artist owns a stake in a service

[tepples]

What point is there to have an exclusive? They should be trying to get the music on as many services as possible

To drive subscriptions to the service in which the artist owns a financial stake. It's the same reason that Nintendo releases the vast majority of its games only on Nintendo consoles.

Re:The labels get paid anyway

[dj245]

The ridiculous thing here is the labels get paid ANYWAY when you stream the music, regardless of whether it's on Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music, Amazon, etc... It's in the contract.

What point is there to have an exclusive? They should be trying to get the music on as many services as possible, so the stream count is as high as possible (across all services) since they are paid by the stream.

The various different services are in heated competition. They are all offering mostly the same thing to people who mostly want the same product. Exclusivity is a negotiation point. In order for the artist to accept such a clause, they must have gotten something of equal value in return. Maybe that "something of equal value" was cash money up front, maybe it was higher rates, maybe it was satisfaction in helping a friend's company, maybe it was something else. But there are lots of reasons why an artist would accept exclusivity. These people are business folk. It isn't always about getting as many people as possible to hear their music.

Re:It is harder to find stuff in general...

[tnk1]

So... fuck albums.

I admit, an album can be a beautifully crafted work of art through proper song selection and a general mood that one wishes to convey.

Unfortunately, most albums are compilations of one or two singles, one, maybe two, non-singles that are decent and the rest is 10-12 tracks of shit. On some of the worst albums that actually sell, there is only the one hit single. And sometimes that filler shit is some random person talking or the sound of pigs fucking just so the album can sound edgy and not really require any studio time.

An album should not be the default unit of sale for music. It encourages the release of mediocrity. I'd rather pay more for one good song than be forced to pay for an album of shit. Perhaps they can figure out how to do that. I wish they would.

As far as low streaming prices, let's be honest. Music probably just isn't worth that much per unit. There is no reason that Music has to exist for everything and support the release of new groups every year. If people want to have variety they need to pay for it, but I think there has to be a different way than ramming out songs like they are industrial product and bundling them together.