So Prince got a lot of ridicule from his famous "Internet is dead" comment --which he meant as "the Internet is dead as way for artists to get paid".

Iggy Pop had something to say to NME:

http://www.nme.com/news/iggy-pop/80367

Via Salon.com

"Pop joins others who’ve pointed out the grim terms of the current economy of music, like Camper Van Beethoven/Cracker singer David Lowery, who announced that Pandora paid him less than $17 for a million plays of the song “Low.” He and others have pointed out that YouTube, Grooveshark and the Pirate Bay pay even less than Spotify’s rate ($0.006 and $0.0084 per stream, which goes typically to a label or publisher before finding its way, in reduced form, to the artist). Pop’s old friend Lou Reed made one of his last public statements before his 2013 death about brand-sponsored piracy."

17 dollars for a million plays... Meanwhile not one artist has gone platinum this year.

Aerogram said:

17 dollars for a million plays...

.

How much does an artist get for one play of one record on the radio? How many people are listening then?

.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...orke-says/

.

So, from the Guardian again, how much does radio play earn?
Radio: A play for a three-minute song on Radio 2 generates £59.73 (collected by PRS for Music) for the songwriters, and a similar figure (collected by PPL PPL -0.09%) is split between the label and the performing artists.
UK radio pays a lot more than most other radio systems. But let’s stick with this and assume that our complainer was both the songwriter and musician, and he owns his own recordings (ie, no label in there). He gets £120 or so from one play on Radio 2. That radio station has a 13 million or so weekly audience. Let’s say, just because we have to pick some number, that there are half a million listeners at that precise moment that his tune is playing.
He’s getting 0.00024 pounds per listener. Or 0.024p per listener.
We now need to correct The Guardian’s figures. They’re all arts graduates over there so they tend not to get on well with numbers. 5,000 Spotify plays brought in £20. That’s not the 0.004 pence per stream they say it is, that’s 0.4 pence per stream. They’ve got it right if it’s 0.004 pounds per stream, which is indeed 0.4 pence.
So, for a song to be played to one person (which is what Spotify is) the radio play gets .024 pence, the Spotify play gets 0.4 pence.
So, umm, if Spotify is paying 16 times what the radio station is in what manner is the Spotify royalty too small?

IDK what to think about it. I hear a lot of millionaires complaining about illegal downloads and streaming fees, that is probably about 0,05% of the people making money from a professional music career in the developped world. I'd like to hear from the other 99,95% because they hardly ever complain. I wonder how come...

databank said:

IDK what to think about it. I hear a lot of millionaires complaining about illegal downloads and streaming fees, that is probably about 0,05% of the people making money from a professional music career in the developped world. I'd like to hear from the other 99,95% because they hardly ever complain. I wonder how come...

*

I don't know, but I think that many of those from whom you don't hear is because many of them don't have the same platform or notoriety. I don't have any empirical data to support that, but I do know of many artists in various genres who love what they do and still discuss the inadequacies of how artists are paid. Also, your question raises an issue of whether or not something is wrong based on who is the victim. And, I'm not saying that you are saying it's acceptable to wrong anyone, but does it really matter how much money someone has for them to be more believable when citing a wrong? It's like me paying for food and then complaining how rich the restaurateur is. Even as someone who has tons of bootlegs, I realize that it's wrong to have someone else's work without their permission. As such, and because I love Prince's work, I always purchase an official release of something, especially if I obtained it earlier as a boot. That's just me. All I know is that as a artist who has seen my work (essays, poems, and short stories) on people's websites without my permission or for no pay is a pretty effed up feeling. If my work isn't worth paying me for it, why use or obtain it?

*

Also, to Bart's point, radio and Spotify are apples and oranges, per se, because the radio deal was brokered as a major way to sell singles over sixty years ago and the type of mass bootlegging that impacts artists earnings today was not the same as it was then. So, the radio plan/deal/payment may be archaic and must be renegotiated, but to compare it to Spotify is not an accurate comparison. (Now, there is a responsibility of artists to be more self-aware with the deals they sign and with what and how much they demand from record companies and Spotify. Artists can always keep their work from Spotify if they feel they are being wronged.) Of course, the bottom line as someone else stated on this website a day or so ago, we are living in a time when most young people are not used to paying for art, especially music or movies. I think that's sad, but that just may be the artist in me. But as someone who also paid tons of money for art, well-crafted and poorly crafted art, it was my way of supporting what I loved and using my dollar to articulate what I perceive as quality art. So, if video killed the radio star, then internet is surely crippling music careers. And for people who complain about how much any artists earns, there is a real simple solution: don't purchase their art. I know people who don't purchase music or go to movies because they see it all as just a scam, but these same people also do not bootleg art. Thus, people who bootleg an artist's work with no intentions whatsoever to purchase it legally are just as much hypocritical, greedy, selfish bandits as the artists and companies they criticize. As such, I find it laughable when people on this site state: "I hate Prince's music, but I'm going to bootleg it" like that's something of which to be proud. I don't know; maybe they are just reflecting the values that their parents gave them.

BartVanHemelen said:

Aerogram said:

17 dollars for a million plays...

.

How much does an artist get for one play of one record on the radio? How many people are listening then?

.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...orke-says/

.

So, from the Guardian again, how much does radio play earn?
Radio: A play for a three-minute song on Radio 2 generates £59.73 (collected by PRS for Music) for the songwriters, and a similar figure (collected by PPL PPL -0.09%) is split between the label and the performing artists.
UK radio pays a lot more than most other radio systems. But let’s stick with this and assume that our complainer was both the songwriter and musician, and he owns his own recordings (ie, no label in there). He gets £120 or so from one play on Radio 2. That radio station has a 13 million or so weekly audience. Let’s say, just because we have to pick some number, that there are half a million listeners at that precise moment that his tune is playing.
He’s getting 0.00024 pounds per listener. Or 0.024p per listener.
We now need to correct The Guardian’s figures. They’re all arts graduates over there so they tend not to get on well with numbers. 5,000 Spotify plays brought in £20. That’s not the 0.004 pence per stream they say it is, that’s 0.4 pence per stream. They’ve got it right if it’s 0.004 pounds per stream, which is indeed 0.4 pence.
So, for a song to be played to one person (which is what Spotify is) the radio play gets .024 pence, the Spotify play gets 0.4 pence.
So, umm, if Spotify is paying 16 times what the radio station is in what manner is the Spotify royalty too small?

.

The problem is that Spotify and the likes are not the current replacement for radio (which still exists without major changes to its business model), it is the replacement to the old-school physical copy of a record.

.

Let's assume that an album has 10 songs on it, then playing the complete album once will make 4 p for the artist on Spotify. What kind of income did one sold CD generate for the artist? Maybe 4 £? That would mean that he or she needs 100 plays of the album on Spotify to generate the same income. For albums which you dig, it might be possible that you'll play them 100 times on Spotify, but that will probably be streched over many years, while one sold CD brings in the 4 £ exactly when it's sold. If the album is not really a favourite of yours, you will only play it a few times on Spotify and therefore generate only maybe 20 p income for the artist, while you had paid them the same 4 £ in the old business model if you wanted to listen to their stuff.

.

In other words: artists who made a major profit from record sales in the old days, including many casual buyers of their records, probably lose money due to Spotify and similar services. Artists with limited record sales, who had to rely on touring to make a living already in the old days, may not detect such a major difference to their previous situation.

Personally, I think that artists today are getting paid exactly how they should be (I'm talking right now while money is tight) considering the awful music they're making, Prince excluded. Let's face it, how many of them really have the talent to call themselves musicians/singers. Most of their stuff is auto tuned and made by machines. It's the artists of yesteryear that deserved to be paid the type of money some of these so called "artists of today" make. It's true artists like Prince, and those before Prince, and during his era that truly deserves the big bucks!

[Edited 10/21/14 14:25pm]

EmancipationLover said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

The problem is that Spotify and the likes are not the current replacement for radio (which still exists without major changes to its business model), it is the replacement to the old-school physical copy of a record.

.

Says who? There is a fundamental difference between a record you own and a stream.

.

For albums which you dig, it might be possible that you'll play them 100 times on Spotify, but that will probably be streched over many years, while one sold CD brings in the 4 £ exactly when it's sold.

.

Back when I was young I barely owned records. Know what I did? Taped songs from the radio, got a tape copy of a friend's tape which he got by making a tape recording of his uncle's record,... Note that I now own a great collection, with multiple copies of several records. But back then I simply didn't have the money to spend on records.

.

One Spotify account costs more than the average person spends on music in one year. That's a shocking but true fact.

.

If the album is not really a favourite of yours, you will only play it a few times on Spotify and therefore generate only maybe 20 p income for the artist, while you had paid them the same 4 £ in the old business model if you wanted to listen to their stuff.

.

Nonsense. That stopped being true in the late 1990s with the rise of CDRs and later MP3s + filesharing. But before that we already had tapes. Hence the "hometaping is killing music" logos on 1980s vinyl.

.

In other words: artists who made a major profit from record sales in the old days, including many casual buyers of their records

.

Who buys records casually? A small amount of freaks, sure. But other than that?

1contessa said:

Personally, I think that artists today are getting paid exactly how they should be (I'm talking right now while money is tight) considering the awful music they're making, Prince excluded. Let's face it, how many of them really have the talent to call themselves musicians/singers. Most of their stuff is auto tuned and made by machines. It's the artists of yesteryear that deserved to be paid the type of money some of these so called "artists of today" make. It's true artists like Prince, and those before Prince, and during his era that truly deserves the big bucks!

[Edited 10/21/14 14:25pm]

I know you know but many people don't know you know and therefore you may seem to convey the wrong message. You oughta specify "mainstream" artists, we discussed it before

1725topp said:

Also, to Bart's point, radio and Spotify are apples and oranges,

.

It's a helluva lot better than comparing Spotify to physical sales.

.

per se, because the radio deal was brokered as a major way to sell singles over sixty years ago and the type of mass bootlegging that impacts artists earnings today was not the same as it was then. So, the radio plan/deal/payment may be archaic and must be renegotiated, but to compare it to Spotify is not an accurate comparison. (Now, there is a responsibility of artists to be more self-aware with the deals they sign and with what and how much they demand from record companies and Spotify. Artists can always keep their work from Spotify if they feel they are being wronged.)

.

That ship has sailed. Such actions merely annoy people: "why isn't artist X available?"

.

Of course, the bottom line as someone else stated on this website a day or so ago, we are living in a time when most young people are not used to paying for art, especially music or movies.

.

Which is the result of the entertainment biz refusing to cater to customer demands. Look at how long it took them to figure out that people wanted to use songs as ringtones: that business was a goldmine for a short period, and the music biz only woke up at the tail end of it. It took fucking iTunes to finally have an industry response to filesharing and MP3s.

.

Look at what's happening now with TV and streaming: everybody is announcing their own fucking platform. SO GODDAMN STUPID. Look at how godawful the menus are on some Blu-ray releases, especially when compared to an illegal download. I want to watch a movie, not an FBI warning and a disclaimer about how the opinions aren't those of the company etc. Why am I fucking punished when I buy the actual product? Why do I have to navigate through an impossible menu to activate subtitles? Why aren't there subtitles for the extras?

BartVanHemelen said:

1725topp said:

Also, to Bart's point, radio and Spotify are apples and oranges,

.

It's a helluva lot better than comparing Spotify to physical sales.

.

Oh, really? Let's see...

.

Spotify:

- You can listen to the music you choose.

- You can listen to whole albums.

.

Records:

- You can listen to the music you choose.

- You can listen to whole albums.

.

Radio:

- You are forced to listen to the music that is played on radio stations.

- You normally do not get the chance to listen to a full album (unless it's a special program).

.

Hmmm...

.

On top of that: the radio business has only slightly changed, while the business of record sales has changed dramatically with a severe drop in sales numbers. Spotify is nothing else than the industry's attempt to prevent at least a bit of filesharing and make at least a bit of money from records. It's not internet radio.

.

But that doesn't matter, because the only truth Bart accepts is his truth anyway...

BartVanHemelen said:

.

It's a helluva lot better than comparing Spotify to physical sales.

*

Unless I'm mistaken, I think that the person was comparing what radio pays to what Spotify pays not comparing what Spotify pays to how much an artist earns for selling a physical copy of single. I don't think anyone is saying that an artist should earn as much for a Spotify play as what one earns for the sale of a physical unit. But, the point is that the internet has yet to be proven any more secure for artist not to be "ripped off." Thus, all of this still proves Prince's point that "once the internet gets going artists won't make any money" or words to that effect. The bottom line is that the internet is not anymore fair or decent as record companies. And, to be clear, when I say internet, I do include so-called fans. So, when people are upset that Prince or anyone does not allow their work online, my response is: I don't want anyone stealing from me, and that includes a stranger or a family member. As such, whether it is a record company or fans downloading work for free, it's all theft.

*

BartVanHemelen said:

That ship has sailed. Such actions merely annoy people: "why isn't artist X available?"

*

So, just because I'm annoyed gives me the right to steal? If something isn't available, I would think that the reasonable response is to find something that is available. I do it all the time. If I'm in the store and I want a particular name brand and the store doesn't have it, I get what's available. I don't hunt the "black market" for it. However, my real point is that if artists are willing to have the courage of their convictions and are willing to lose money or fame by withholding their art from the internet, how is that a bad thing? I don't think you mean this, but your argument is essentially "Just because I want something I have a right to it." That's a little to "Manifest Destiny" for me. But, to be clear, I don't begrudge artists who make their work available to the internet, and I don't begrudge artists who prohibit their work from the internet. I just don't understand people who think that they have some moral right to steal someone else's creation. I would respect these people more if they just said: "I'm a sorry, no-good MFer who steals from artists just like record companies." Then, my only response would be: "Hey, enjoy it until you get caught."

*

1725topp said: Of course, the bottom line as someone else stated on this website a day or so ago, we are living in a time when most young people are not used to paying for art, especially music or movies.

.

BartVanHemelen said: Which is the result of the entertainment biz refusing to cater to customer demands. Look at how long it took them to figure out that people wanted to use songs as ringtones: that business was a goldmine for a short period, and the music biz only woke up at the tail end of it. It took fucking iTunes to finally have an industry response to filesharing and MP3s.

.

Look at what's happening now with TV and streaming: everybody is announcing their own fucking platform. SO GODDAMN STUPID. Look at how godawful the menus are on some Blu-ray releases, especially when compared to an illegal download. I want to watch a movie, not an FBI warning and a disclaimer about how the opinions aren't those of the company etc. Why am I fucking punished when I buy the actual product? Why do I have to navigate through an impossible menu to activate subtitles? Why aren't there subtitles for the extras?

*

I don't disagree that much of this is the fault of the entertainment biz. We all know it costs about thirty cents to manufacture a CD, and record companies were charging $19.99 per CD, which was all but daring/forcing people to bootleg their stuff. Yet, again, how somebody sells their work does not justify my immorality of stealing it. There is always the solution of just not purchasing it. And, yes, we can go on and on about how industries were slow reacting to what people wanted. I still say it took automobile manufactures too long to respond to people's desire to play their iPods in their cars. Luckily, I didn't have to steal anything, but I just found a mechanic who knew how to install my iPod in my car. But, before that technology was available, I just accepted playing CDs until something better came. Now, since I don't plan on purchasing another car again, ever, rather than upgrading, I plan to play my iPod in my 2004 Mustang forever. Of course, if the technology changes and songs are sold on a medium that can no longer be played on my iPod, I'll have to make the decision to purchase the new device or just listen to my old music. (At that point, I'll become like you and say that all of Prince's music after that point sucks so that I don't have to purchase the new device. :^))

*

As for your issues with the FBI warning/disclaimer and navigating the menus, I can't say that ever bothered me. In fact, I'm surprised that it bothers anybody. But, then, again, maybe I'm a bit older than you and not as used to getting things "right now" as you are. I don't mean that as a dig at you or young people, but I'm just trying to understand how the FBI warning/disclaimer and clicking a few times to get somewhere on a menu is bothersome. Now, to be honest, since my reading schedule is usually from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., I usually don't get to watch a lot of prime-time television. However, now I do use On-Demand to watch the one or two programs that are worth anything. But, before having On-Demand, I simply programed the VCR. And, if I missed something, then it wasn't the end of the world.

*

So, I guess my ultimate point is that we should not use the greed of the record companies to justify the greed and theft of individuals.

BartVanHemelen said:

Aerogram said:

17 dollars for a million plays...

.

How much does an artist get for one play of one record on the radio? How many people are listening then?

.

http://www.forbes.com/sit...orke-says/

.

So, from the Guardian again, how much does radio play earn?
Radio: A play for a three-minute song on Radio 2 generates £59.73 (collected by PRS for Music) for the songwriters, and a similar figure (collected by PPL PPL -0.09%) is split between the label and the performing artists.
UK radio pays a lot more than most other radio systems. But let’s stick with this and assume that our complainer was both the songwriter and musician, and he owns his own recordings (ie, no label in there). He gets £120 or so from one play on Radio 2. That radio station has a 13 million or so weekly audience. Let’s say, just because we have to pick some number, that there are half a million listeners at that precise moment that his tune is playing.
He’s getting 0.00024 pounds per listener. Or 0.024p per listener.
We now need to correct The Guardian’s figures. They’re all arts graduates over there so they tend not to get on well with numbers. 5,000 Spotify plays brought in £20. That’s not the 0.004 pence per stream they say it is, that’s 0.4 pence per stream. They’ve got it right if it’s 0.004 pounds per stream, which is indeed 0.4 pence.
So, for a song to be played to one person (which is what Spotify is) the radio play gets .024 pence, the Spotify play gets 0.4 pence.
So, umm, if Spotify is paying 16 times what the radio station is in what manner is the Spotify royalty too small?

Am I really going to need to explain the obvious difference between radio and Spotify? Because a song on radio isn't always there for you, it doesn't discourage sales the way an acceptable quality copy always available to the listener does. People don't need to buy a song to hear it when they want as many times as they wish -- where did all the sales go? Streams, leaks, Torrent, YouTube, the ability to buy just one or two songs even when they are not singles -- it all adds up to creators not making much money from recordings, they become more a promotion for the tour. Those that do move a relatively decent number of units often make more money from merchandising and endorsements than from their musical product -- emphasis on product.

One thing is for sure: if things are fine the way they are right now, I'd hate to see how dismall things would be if you admitted there is a problem.

There doesnt seem to be a solution to pirating. Unless someone invents a new kind of media that cannot be pirated, it will continue unhindered. The internet is one of human kinds greatest inventions, but ironically it is also one of the most destructive inventions when it comes to one of human kinds greatest assets - art.

Rebeljuice said:

There doesnt seem to be a solution to pirating. Unless someone invents a new kind of media that cannot be pirated, it will continue unhindered. The internet is one of human kinds greatest inventions, but ironically it is also one of the most destructive inventions when it comes to one of human kinds greatest assets - art.

*

To paraphrase poet/essayist Amiri Baraka, the internet is more of the "changing same" of the human dichotomy in which man's iniquity seems more powerful than man's morality. So, we have the capacity for great intellectual advancements but sully that advancement with our fear, greed, lust, and selfishness. As such, the poet Horace was right. Man is controlled by two forces: emotion and logic. We engage ourselves foolishly in emotion by night and regret that engagement by day in logic.

Aerogram said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Back when I was young I barely owned records. Know what I did? Taped songs from the radio, got a tape copy of a friend's tape which he got by making a tape recording of his uncle's record,... Note that I now own a great collection, with multiple copies of several records. But back then I simply didn't have the money to spend on records.

No wonder you were so poor -- must have taken a lot of time to stand by the radio to record those.

*

First, allow me to say that your response to Bart is vey funny, but, and as much as I love zinging Bart, I must admit that I spent a lot of my youth recording songs from the radio and from videos because it was cheaper. Yet, I also spent my summers chopping cotton, my Saturdays mowing lawns, and my days after school practicing sports and cleaning the house. Damn, no wonder I'm a lazy bum now. In fact, I've gotten tired just writing this post. Lemme go lie in the bed and listen to AOA and PlecElec. The funk allows me to forget my troubles.

Rebeljuice said:

There doesnt seem to be a solution to pirating. Unless someone invents a new kind of media that cannot be pirated, it will continue unhindered. The internet is one of human kinds greatest inventions, but ironically it is also one of the most destructive inventions when it comes to one of human kinds greatest assets - art whiny rich musicians.

Countless artists who wouldn't have a shot at being noticed have tools like YouTube, Tumblr, DeviantArt or Bandcamp, the Internet is a miracle for artists, be they painters, musicians, photographers, especially filmmakers. Artist doesn't mean "person out to make money." It's progressing art, not destroying it. The music industry will adapt and find a way to make more money.

EmancipationLover said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

It's a helluva lot better than comparing Spotify to physical sales.

.

Oh, really? Let's see...

.

Lemme compare: try to sell a Spotify stream second hand.

Aerogram said:

One thing is for sure: if things are fine the way they are right now, I'd hate to see how dismall things would be if you admitted there is a problem.

.

And once again you're making shit up. I said no such thing, otherwise you woudl have quoted me.

.

Did you ever read what Mick Jagger said, about the 25 years when the mus...otsa money?

It's interesting that someone actually looked into it. I had no idea thats what Radio 2 was paying (Far too much of my licence fee)

The problem comes when music is more than entertainment - if it's art. Then whats the value in a copy? If it's art then it's "out there" to be seen/heard or it's not.

Once money comes into the equation then you're not making art you're making a product to be sold. If thats the case then it's worth what people will pay. Most people will always go with the cheapest option. If you embrace capitalism to sell your product you can't blame your audience for being consumers.

The internet is being blamed by established artists because they're not selling millions anymore. At the same time we're being told another artists album is the fastest selling ever. Both can't be true We've already seen the cycle of established artists popularity declining over time.

Relitively few musical artists have sold millions of anything. Those that did were in the "golden age" where there were 10/15 new albums out each month. Those days are over. If the internet is killing music careers how come so many MANY artists have made their name because of the internet. Ed Sheeran springs to mind he used the internet for exposure and his album hasn't left the UK charts since it was released. Of course he's also worked his arse of - TV performances, Festivals, working with other credible artists, gigs for fans... etc.

BartVanHemelen said:

EmancipationLover said:

.

Oh, really? Let's see...

.

Lemme compare: try to sell a Spotify stream second hand.

.

Lemme compare: try to listen to the whole "Purple Rain"-Album tonight on your local radio station.

EmancipationLover said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Lemme compare: try to sell a Spotify stream second hand.

.

Lemme compare: try to listen to the whole "Purple Rain"-Album tonight on your local radio station.

So, it's settled. Streaming is not like radio OR buying albums... Next!

Noodled24 said:

It's interesting that someone actually looked into it. I had no idea thats what Radio 2 was paying (Far too much of my licence fee)

The problem comes when music is more than entertainment - if it's art. Then whats the value in a copy? If it's art then it's "out there" to be seen/heard or it's not.

Once money comes into the equation then you're not making art you're making a product to be sold. If thats the case then it's worth what people will pay. Most people will always go with the cheapest option. If you embrace capitalism to sell your product you can't blame your audience for being consumers.

The internet is being blamed by established artists because they're not selling millions anymore. At the same time we're being told another artists album is the fastest selling ever. Both can't be true We've already seen the cycle of established artists popularity declining over time.

Relitively few musical artists have sold millions of anything. Those that did were in the "golden age" where there were 10/15 new albums out each month. Those days are over. If the internet is killing music careers how come so many MANY artists have made their name because of the internet. Ed Sheeran springs to mind he used the internet for exposure and his album hasn't left the UK charts since it was released. Of course he's also worked his arse of - TV performances, Festivals, working with other credible artists, gigs for fans... etc.

*

I think that all entertainers are artists though not every artist is interesting in the concept of entertaining, as it relates to making an audience happy. In most cases, artists are crafting something that causes one to think often by causing the receiver some amount of pain, sorrow, or discomfort because most people will not be moved to change a negative situation until they are made uncomfortable about or within that situation. This is, of course, the evoking of the catharsis. Yet, even with that given, art is entertainment; it's just that some people's idea of entertainment is being intellectually or emotionally challenged or provoked. As such, I am entertained by art that challenges my aesthetic and socio-political notions because I know that I grow from that experience.

*

You make a very interesting distinction regarding the definition of art that I would like for you to expand because people paying money for art may impact one's artistic integrity--or one's integrity in general--but people paying for something does not keep that something from being art, even if one embraces the so-called "art for art's sake" fallacy. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly that "if you embrace capitalism to sell your product, you can't blame your audience for being consumers," but I think there is also a difference between consumers who balance inexpensive costs with quality of craftsmanship and people who steal someone's art because they think they are entitled to have it just because they want it. As a consumer, I may make the sacrifice of purchasing only an album by my favorite artists because I can't afford to purchase an additional album by somebody that I don't like as much. Or, as a consumer, I may decide not to purchase an album by my favorite artist if the few songs that I have heard don't move me. In both cases I am making a financial decision as a consumer that says more about my financial circumstance than it does about the quality or craftsmanship of the art. Yet, as a person with integrity, I will not bootleg something that is available for legal sale no matter what my financial circumstance is.

*

I also agree that artists like Sheeran or others who understand the new marketplace and do what is necessary to navigate it to get what it is that they desire from it, whatever that is, should be celebrated. However, I also think highly of those who have decided that they reject the new market place and are willing to lose money and fame by withholding their art from the new market place. As such, those who obtain their work illegally are, as I've stated before, a bunch of thieves with no low morals, if any, because they should respect a person's/artist's right not to participate in the new market place.

djThunderfunk said:

EmancipationLover said:

.

Lemme compare: try to listen to the whole "Purple Rain"-Album tonight on your local radio station.

So, it's settled. Streaming is not like radio OR buying albums... Next!

.

It is not identical to either one of them, but one should consider the overall supposed function of streaming services within the music business.

.

Radio is helpful to get new music promoted and played to potential customers - it's been like that prior to the internet age, and it is the same in the internet age.

.

Why should the music industry attempt to replace or complement a promotional tool (i.e., radio) that obviously still works even in the internet age? That does not make sense. It does make sense though that the music industry has invented streaming services to make at least a bit of profit from records even if filesharing is available. A streaming service such as Spotify is nothing else than a giant record collection, with the notable exception that you (as a user) don't own the recordings, but you simply buy a license to listen to them. Apart from that notable exception, there is no major difference between making your way through a large pile of CDs listening to them or making your way through a large pile of online streams listening to them.

.

Back in the days, people heard a good new song on the radio and went out to buy either the single or directly the whole corresponding album. That generated income for the artist. Nowadays (if things worked better than they actually do), one ideal situation would be if people were inspired by a new song on the radio to either listen to it or to the whole corresponding album on Spotify, if they are not willing to buy the stuff from iTunes or from the good old CD store. So, in a way, it does make sense to compare a service like Spotify and record sales functionwise and from an economic perspective, particularly considering the artists' income.

BartVanHemelen said:

Aerogram said:

One thing is for sure: if things are fine the way they are right now, I'd hate to see how dismall things would be if you admitted there is a problem.

.

And once again you're making shit up. I said no such thing, otherwise you woudl have quoted me.

.

Did you ever read what Mick Jagger said, about the 25 years when the mus...otsa money?

I'm not making shit up when you show up on a thread seemingly defending the concept that artists are being paid their just royalty from Spotify.

As for Jagger, he's got it wrong. It wasn't just in the music business that people did not make as much money before 1970 from the more technical arts. All sorts of actors and directors were paid relatively low "company wages" before the sixties and it got more on the side of individuals until 1990, like he states, then things changed.

As a person intensely interested in music and movies, I do have a problem with the way art is remunerated. Mick Jagger is rich enough to be philosophical about it. In the meantime, we need to fix the problem of creators not getting paid as it does tend to be reflected in the stuff we see and hear.

[Edited 10/22/14 15:36pm]

Rebeljuice said:

There doesnt seem to be a solution to pirating. Unless someone invents a new kind of media that cannot be pirated, it will continue unhindered. The internet is one of human kinds greatest inventions, but ironically it is also one of the most destructive inventions when it comes to one of human kinds greatest assets - art.

I remember in the 90s when Prince was battling Warners,he talked about pirating in an interview.He gleefully said "File-sharing is like rain...it's gonna happen" and he was happy that the big record companies were gonna lose money.What he failed to realize is that,that problem was going to affect HIM,too He tried to do the "independent" thing and he soon found out that piracy is causing him to lose money,as well.That's why he came up with that infamous phrase "the Internet is dead",lol.

But back to your original point....there really is no solution to pirating.Artists simply have to find other ways to generate income.They can't rely solely on record sales anymore.They have to rely on performing.A concert experience can't be downloaded.Fans have to pay for the ticket and experience it in person.We're living in an era where a popular band like U2 gives their new album away for free.Young kids are not gonna pay for something that they can easily get for free.

SoulAlive said:

EmancipationLover said:

It does make sense though that the music industry has invented streaming services to make at least a bit of profit from records even if filesharing is available.

.

Except they didn't. Spotify for instance was a start-up; what did happen is that the music industry finally stopped demanding absurd amounts of money for their catalogue. There are plenty of stories out there of music services desperately wanting to work with the music industry but instead getting demands for high fees or simply getting no answer at all except for threats from lawyers.

.

Back in the days, people heard a good new song on the radio and went out to buy either the single or directly the whole corresponding album.

.

A fraction of the people did. I've met plenty of people whose record collection consisted of a dozen CDs.

.

Putting the blame on the internet is silly. The reality is that the music industry refused to play nice for years, even decades, and now we're at a point where there's simply no going back.

.

Should there be fair renumeration? Sure. But what is fair? Is it fair that when Married With Children now is broadcast it doesn't have its original theme tune anymore? Is it fair that it has taken ages for The Wonder Years to appear on DVD with most of the original music still in place? Is it fair that a guy posting a 15 second video of him singing When Doves Cry in his car gets a legal threat?

Aerogram said:

I'm not making shit up when you show up on a thread seemingly defending the concept that artists are being paid their just royalty from Spotify.

.

What is that just royalty then? Compared to what?