NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 944
It's a streaming poem.
Not to me or anyone I know. Isn't she just a teeny-bopper pin-up girl?
Except for Paul McCartney (#1 or 2) and Elton John (#11 or 12).
• https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/celebrities/sir-paul-mccartney-net-worth/
• https://wealthygorilla.com/elton-john-net-worth/
_____
Extra (everyone else between):
https://ledgernote.com/blog/industry-news/top-10-richest-musicians-in-the-world/
Artists get a pittance no matter the distribution method.
As for streaming music, I like to use a tool to help me so that I can listen to music offline while there is no data connection. The tool I use is called Music Recording Programs for Windows, which can record and download music and audio you play on your computer from many sources. The audio it records is with high audio quality and then you can edit the music as you like. I usually use it to download SoundCloud music, Deezer and others. With it, I can freely download and listen to music on the go.
Isn't that copyright infringement?
"If you subscribe to a subscription music service such as Spotify or Apple Music you probably pay $10 a month. And if you are like most people, you probably do so believing your money goes to the artists you listen to. Unfortunately, you are wrong.
The reality is only some of your money is paid to the artists you listen to. The rest of your money (and it’s probably most of your money) goes somewhere else. That “somewhere else” is decided by a small group of subscribers who have gained control over your money thanks to a mathematical flaw in how artist royalties are calculated. This flaw cheats real artists with real fans, rewards fake artists with no fans, and perhaps worst of all communicates to most streaming music subscribers a simple, awful, message: Your choices don’t count, and you don’t matter."
https://medium.com/cuepoint/streaming-music-is-ripping-you-off-61dc501e7f94
Not to me or anyone I know. Isn't she just a teeny-bopper pin-up girl?
Isn't that copyright infringement?
This was a very poorly done, sensationalized, and link bait article.
It is very well known that not a lot of the money goes to artists from streaming companies. Who doesn't already know that?
There have been tons of articles about it for years. The same thing happened with record companies.
Secondly they act as if all streaming companies use the exact same calculations which is all wrong and is very easy to find out if you are reading real news not link bait web sites like Medium.
Google it.
For example this article;
https://9to5mac.com/2017/03/30/music-streaming-artist-payout-rates/
"The latest RIAA report shares positive news as far as Apple is concerned. In terms of payments to music creators per 1,000 streams, Apple comes out well ahead of Spotify and YouTube. Apple pays between $12 and $15 per 1,000 streams, whereas Spotify pays around $7 per 1,000 streams, and YouTube pays around $1. The RIAA notes that what’s really hindering the music industry from growth is the low payouts from services like YouTube, which uses a “legal loophole” to pay such a low rate."
The article points to the flaw in the computation of the distribution these companies use by pooling subscriptions that makes it unfair to many of its participants. You can make it fair while keeping the same total/average payouts.
History of printed press hints on what will happen eventually: the contemporary major labels will diminish in power, while new, much more efficient networked/virtual labels will rise, yet the transition will be far from smooth.
I agree with you but this is a bit more complicated than the printing press history.
The anti-trust enquiry into companies, in particular Apple, to see if they are using monopolistic power to prop up policies that eventually results in higher cost to consumers (it does if the major labels are driving the policy) and penalizes other suppliers stifling competition (it does if it shifts their “earnings” to major labels), can be a game changer.
Apple is using its platform breadth and locked in audience to get away with this policy, whether it satisfies the bar for monopolistic practice is not so clear. Spotify et al can get way with the same as long as their major competitor is not changing that model. But they cannot continue with it if Apple changes the model.
But, it has also become political. President Trump can, all on his own, given his style so far, decide whether the DoJ will or will not rule against Apple and if it will ask for divestiture of its content business from its hardware business. This is the biggest threat to Apple at the moment. Hence presumably why Tim Cook is having multiple meetings with President Trump this year under the tariff pretense. They will need to strike a mutually beneficial agreement for the anti-trust enquiry into Apple to be called off or to find Apple not violating any anti-trust provisions. I am sure Tim Cook is trying his best to come up with something that will satisfy the President without antagonizing part of his customer base for appeasing President Trump.
Other than that, it will take an unlikely major revolt by independent creators who are not organized at all to start an alternative. Without major label participation, such an alternative is not financially viable. Shaming by Apple’s consumers based on articles like this can lead to PR problems for Apple that can lead to some moves towards fairness at least in optics if not reality.
I agree with you but this is a bit more complicated than the printing press history.
The anti-trust enquiry into companies, in particular Apple, to see if they are using monopolistic power to prop up policies that eventually results in higher cost to consumers (it does if the major labels are driving the policy) and penalizes other suppliers stifling competition (it does if it shifts their “earnings” to major labels), can be a game changer.
Apple is using its platform breadth and locked in audience to get away with this policy, whether it satisfies the bar for monopolistic practice is not so clear. Spotify et al can get way with the same as long as their major competitor is not changing that model. But they cannot continue with it if Apple changes the model.
But, it has also become political. President Trump can, all on his own, given his style so far, decide whether the DoJ will or will not rule against Apple and if it will ask for divestiture of its content business from its hardware business. This is the biggest threat to Apple at the moment. Hence presumably why Tim Cook is having multiple meetings with President Trump this year under the tariff pretense. They will need to strike a mutually beneficial agreement for the anti-trust enquiry into Apple to be called off or to find Apple not violating any anti-trust provisions. I am sure Tim Cook is trying his best to come up with something that will satisfy the President without antagonizing part of his customer base for appeasing President Trump.
Other than that, it will take an unlikely major revolt by independent creators who are not organized at all to start an alternative. Without major label participation, such an alternative is not financially viable. Shaming by Apple’s consumers based on articles like this can lead to PR problems for Apple that can lead to some moves towards fairness at least in optics if not reality.
Depending on how the contracts were structured decades back, in the old system a musician could be getting a decent share of ongoing royalties (super-stars and their estates), a pittance (a lucky few), or nothing at all (95% of "salaried" and "bulk pay" musicians in old days).
... If you have that big a moral problem with a streaming service, don't subscribe ...
I am paying for a service and receiving the service. I am not being ripped off. If the creators of the music are being ripped off, that's between them and the streaming service and/or record company. The main premise of the article is wrong. Once I give my monthly fee to Tidal, it's not my money any more so I have no claim on how Tidal spends it. As long as they allow me access to their library during that month, the contract between me and them is fulfilled. If you want to have a streaming service that has a different pay structure, start one. If you have that big a moral problem with a streaming service, don't subscribe. If you really want more money to go to the artists you like, go to their concerts and buy music from them on their web pages.