• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Streaming Music is Ripping You Off

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,862
Likes
3,380
#21
I'm not sure how going direct or having a 'nicer' company solves the click fraud problem the article talks about.
I'll read til the end of the article before posting next time :)

I agree, subscriber share would be an improvement over the current model.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,952
Location
UK
#22
It depends what people want. Do they want a music industry where the labels are able to spend megabucks on developing rarefied super-talents and recording them in super-creative ways which then go on to sell in millions, or do they want a democratic system where the band down the road can claim its full $1.50 per month rather than the 1.5 cents they currently get?

The fact that a person can make some noise with an instrument in a similar way to millions of other people is a far cry from saying that they should be able to make a living at it. Is it really is the case that a kid who spends a few tens or hundreds of hours strumming a guitar in not very original ways deserves to spend their days crafting not-very-original 'songs' while their contemporaries slave in factories and call centres? It's simply not going to happen. For amateur artists, the only problem with the streaming services at the moment is that they pay a very tiny amount to them, rather than the merely tiny amount that they should get if the system was truly democratic. But they do get the benefit of a free platform to promote their talents when advertising their live performances, etc.

At the end of the day it might be the difference between *no one* being able to make a living from music, versus a select few being able to. For the consumer, maybe it's the difference between a thousand albums by, basically, amateurs, that all blur into one and no one has time to listen to, and a single David Bowie-esque album that millions of people love. Maybe the streaming models (however they are formulated) are tending to favour the labels over the amateurs, but no one has to sign up to a streaming service if they don't want to.

As has been mentioned, nothing is stopping anyone from developing their own 'nice streaming service'. Something tells me that most amateur bands get more of a thrill from seeing their own music on the same platform as their idols, and on a basically equal footing, than on a potential amateur-but-fair platform.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,862
Likes
3,380
#23
For amateur artists, the only problem with the streaming services at the moment is that they pay a very tiny amount to them, rather than the merely tiny amount that they should get if the system was truly democratic.
But you would agree that a fairer, tiny amount is better than a less fair, very tiny amount, surely?
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,952
Location
UK
#24
But you would agree that a fairer, tiny amount is better than a less fair, very tiny amount, surely?
In one sense, but not necessarily. As I say above, if that basic 'fairness' results in there never being another David Bowie but instead a thousand bands without a tune between them, then the answer is no. And I don't think the amateur bands, if they are true music lovers, would necessarily want that either.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,862
Likes
3,380
#25
In one sense, but not necessarily. As I say above, if that basic 'fairness' results in there never being another David Bowie but instead a thousand bands without a tune between them, then the answer is no. And I don't think the amateur bands, if they are true music lovers, would necessarily want that either.
The Bowies of the world would still make more than enough out of subscriber share system to fund their art. Their music would still get exponentially more plays from subscribers than smaller artists, after all.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,952
Location
UK
#26
An aspect often overlooked, I think, is that the ability to record one's musical efforts and convey them to people all over the globe is a gift to musicians that they have had no hand in developing. They don't own that technology; they have merely inherited a facility that big business created. For them to be able to demand 'fairness' (and I don't think many of them are all that bothered, actually) in how big business deploys that technology is an illusion.

Even so, they can still develop their own streaming service thanks to net neutrality - which is a great thing.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,862
Likes
3,380
#27
An aspect often overlooked, I think, is that the ability to record one's musical efforts and convey them to people all over the globe is a gift to musicians that they have had no hand in developing. They don't own that technology; they have merely inherited a facility that big business created. For them to be able to demand 'fairness' (and I don't think many of them are all that bothered, actually) in how big business deploys that technology is an illusion.

Even so, they can still develop their own streaming service thanks to net neutrality - which is a great thing.
It's not a "gift". It's a service provided so that streaming entities are able to profit. It's a "gift" in the same way that facebook is a "gift" to users. It doesn't cost users money because their use of the service is valuable to the entity providing the service. Being "free" doesn't make it a gift.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,952
Location
UK
#28
It's not a "gift". It's a service provided so that streaming entities are able to profit. It's a "gift" in the same way that facebook is a "gift" to users. It doesn't cost users money because their use of the service is valuable to the entity providing the service. Being "free" doesn't make it a gift.
But no one forces them to sign up to the services.

It's the same in any free market enterprise. I can look back to some of the things I have done in the various jobs I have done and say to myself "If it wasn't for me, we would never have got that contract and it was worth a million pounds. Therefore I deserve a higher salary to reflect that". But this would be an illusion. *I* didn't start the business, nor create the market we were operating in, nor create the opportunity in the first place. I signed up on the basis that for better or worse I was going to be paid a fixed salary - a hell of a lot more than most people in the world get.

Today's amateur musicians didn't create the recording industry, the charts, the very notion of 'rock' and other genres that they position themselves in and copy the style of. It is up to them if they want to try to take on the big boys or simply enjoy bashing out a few tunes in a pub on a Friday night. The little money they make from this more-or-less compensates them for the terrible trauma they are enduring on our behalf. If they are very special, then maybe a label will sign them and then they may begin to get *more* for their efforts than is strictly democratic. That's just life though.

I see most of my life as a "gift": I certainly didn't create the world I benefit from; it isn't a zero sum game.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,862
Likes
3,380
#29
But no one forces them to sign up to the services.

It's the same in any free market enterprise. I can look back to some of the things I have done in the various jobs I have done and say to myself "If it wasn't for me, we would never have got that contract and it was worth a million pounds. Therefore I deserve a higher salary to reflect that". But this would be an illusion. *I* didn't start the business, nor create the market we were operating in, nor create the opportunity in the first place. I signed up on the basis that for better or worse I was going to be paid a fixed salary - a hell of a lot more than most people in the world get.

Today's amateur musicians didn't create the recording industry, the charts, the very notion of 'rock' and other genres that they position themselves in and copy the style of. It is up to them if they want to try to take on the big boys or simply enjoy bashing out a few tunes in a pub on a Friday night. The little money they make from this more-or-less compensates them for the terrible trauma they are enduring on our behalf. If they are very special, then maybe a label will sign them and then they may begin to get *more* for their efforts than is strictly democratic. That's just life though.

I see most of my life as a "gift": I certainly didn't create the world I benefit from; it isn't a zero sum game.
I think you're the only one restricting the discussion to amateur musicians here. I have professional musicians in mind.

And I don't see why you jump from the observation that musicians don't create every aspect of the music and the market they sell it to, to the conclusion that they deserve nothing.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,952
Location
UK
#30
This question is not completely dissimilar to what happens to tips in restaurants. Some questions might be:
(a) Should the restaurant owners get to keep some of the money?
(b) Should each waiter or waitress keep their own tips?
(c) Should the money be pooled and split evenly between all the waiters and waitresses?
In this case, most 'nice' people would actually say (c). In the argument about streaming, though, the 'nice' people are going for something along the lines of (b).

But they're overlooking the overriding issue which is that without someone setting up the restaurant in the first place through their own initiative and ways of doing things, all this would be moot.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,952
Location
UK
#31
I think you're the only one restricting the discussion to amateur musicians here. I have professional musicians in mind.

And I don't see why you jump from the observation that musicians don't create every aspect of the music and the market they sell it to, to the conclusion that they deserve nothing.
No one is forcing them to sign up to anything! They can sell their own music through their own web site at $15 per CD if they want. The problem such as it is is that they then realise that they are just one of thousands of equally 'talented' people doing the same thing.

Without big business making it undemocratic, their market wouldn't exist in the first place. Unfortunately (if you think that way), big business gets to decide how it works - but also produces the gifts that mean we can record our own warblings in the first place for more-or-less free.

(When I write these things, I am not saying I am a fan of big business, but I do realise that I am a 'beta', and they are the 'alphas'. What they produce through determination and, yes, greed, astounds me every day. I think that on balance I probably benefit more from their outrageous audacity than I lose but that, yes, they may benefit from me, too. But as I say, it isn't a zero sum game.)
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,862
Likes
3,380
#32
The problem such as it is is that they then realise that they are just one of thousands of equally 'talented' people doing the same thing.
What do you mean by "talented"? What's talent got to do with it?

Without big business making it undemocratic, their market wouldn't exist in the first place.
Nonsense :) Big business doesn't create the market for music. The market is created by consumers.
 

Thomas savage

Power hungry desperado
Moderator
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
8,132
Likes
8,511
Location
uk, taunton
#33
This question is not completely dissimilar to what happens to tips in restaurants. Some questions might be:
(a) Should the restaurant owners get to keep some of the money?
(b) Should each waiter or waitress keep their own tips?
(c) Should the money be pooled and split evenly between all the waiters and waitresses?
In this case, most 'nice' people would actually say (c). In the argument about streaming, though, the 'nice' people are going for something along the lines of (b).

But they're overlooking the overriding issue which is that without someone setting up the restaurant in the first place through their own initiative and ways of doing things, all this would be moot.
The restaurant needs front of house staff, they have a severely diffrent experience for the customer without it.

The restaurant relays on the available labour then to function, what the ‘market’ sets the wage at does not reflect this but more important it’s better for the restaurant to pay a fairly low wage that’s universal and let the customer make up the difference to those individuals they judge as worthy..

It’s a terrible analogy to use.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
3,862
Likes
3,380
#35
This question is not completely dissimilar to what happens to tips in restaurants. Some questions might be:
(a) Should the restaurant owners get to keep some of the money?
(b) Should each waiter or waitress keep their own tips?
(c) Should the money be pooled and split evenly between all the waiters and waitresses?
In this case, most 'nice' people would actually say (c). In the argument about streaming, though, the 'nice' people are going for something along the lines of (b).
The problem with the analogy is that (at least in most parts of the western world) waiters are paid an adequate wage regardless of what happens to the tips.

Systems which function on (b) and in which waiters rely wholly on tips to survive are frankly diabolical.

Also, (c) is not what you're proposing here. If (c) were the system, every artist would get paid a fixed share of the profit stream for each track or album uploaded, with no relationship to the number of plays.
 

Thomas savage

Power hungry desperado
Moderator
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
8,132
Likes
8,511
Location
uk, taunton
#36
What do you mean by "talented"? What's talent got to do with it?



Nonsense :) Big business doesn't create the market for music. The market is created by consumers.
Your right and customers , especially since the creation of the internet want everything for free. That’s changing a bit now but still still customers are not informed about the slice of the pie the artist gets so this is all happening through ignorance. In this way it very much the responsibility of the labales and distribution end points to inform the market and offer choice.

If I started a streaming company I’d make the service cheap, pay the artists a fairly low set amount but offer the ability for the customer to ‘tip’ them directly with the associated costs in building in this facility being considered in the original artists share rather than being taken via the tip amount.

There’s all sorts of reasons why this would be good, you can think them all up on your own though lol.

So @Cosmik terrible analogy actually can offer a fair model for all.
 

Thomas savage

Power hungry desperado
Moderator
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
8,132
Likes
8,511
Location
uk, taunton
#37
I thought it was quite good! :)
For your analogy to be comparable the waiters would have to be cooking and serving the food. Your missing the creative intangible in your proposition.

And it’s food related so you must now put the nearest pair of pants on ya head,,, still think it was a rather good idea?
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,022
Likes
4,175
Location
Milton Keynes, England
#38
I mainly buy CDs and rip them to FLAC then archive the disc. I have no idea what the artist makes from me but I (probably naively) trust they get something out of it. I have no objection to paying for music as I do believe artists should receive their cut. I would be happy to pay for high quality downloads, funnily enough although I have no real interest in high res per se I can see myself paying for improvements in mastering if high res versions correct overly compressed mush resulting from older re-mastering.
 

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,999
Likes
552
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
#39
When I walk downtown I always give money to all street musiciens.
It's my token of appreciation. Even by the liquor store, by the bank, the grocery store, the old downtown neighborhood where street vendors like to hang (drug dealers, prostitutes, carjackers, pickpockets, all the worst scumbags of our society, including politicians preying on the poor, looking for a prostitute, for a ride, a high, all that jazz).

I want to make sure I give money to all people in need, and in particular the musicians who are extremely poor.

When I purchase music I want to make sure I'm not ripping anyone off.
When I stream YouTube music I make sure the musicians get their fair share.
When I stream the radio I donate to the radio owners so that they can distribute the money equally among all the musicians they spin, stream.
When I stream music I pay for the music server providers, and it makes me feel good to know that it goes into the right pockets.
When I stream @ night I sleep good.
And I wake up good the next morning.
When I stream music I don't feel ripoff and I don't feel I'm ripping off.
I float with the music, above it, above all that is bad in this world.
When I stream music I am free and happy and nothing can terrorise my world.
When I stream music I hear nothing I see nothing I'm only transported by the music above the clouds, where below them acid rain is falling and toxic mist is hanging.
When I stream music all the news channels shut down completely.
When I stream, music I become blind and deaf, I have no more worries.
When I stream music I am @ peace inside me, with the world, for eternally.
 

Thomas savage

Power hungry desperado
Moderator
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
8,132
Likes
8,511
Location
uk, taunton
#40
When I walk downtown I always give money to all street musiciens.
It's my token of appreciation. Even by the liquor store, by the bank, the grocery store, the old downtown neighborhood where street vendors like to hang (drug dealers, prostitutes, carjackers, pickpockets, all the worst scumbags of our society, including politicians preying on the poor, looking for a prostitute, for a ride, a high, all that jazz).
<snip>
Looks like Bob here has found the destination for the ASR Christmas party..
 
Top Bottom