We’re simply not going to get that back if we give people the option to perhaps, maybe pay some small amount to listen to all music ever recorded by anyone, anywhere, anywhen. Such a system may be good for whomever taking a cut off the top (such as Spotify), but it’s going to suck for anyone actually contributing products into the system.
Tag Archives: music business
Spotify Is Paying $2.77 Million a Month In Rent for Its World Trade Center Offices
And, look, while all of this shakes out, musicians and labels continue to pursue a strategy that caters to building relations on all these services. Some of them have great success stories with YouTube, with SoundCloud, with Spotify.
But maybe that’s the point. It seems to be the businesses in between that are non-functioning – or (in the case of futuristic blockchain propositions) just not ready for primetime.
Musicians and labels keep doing the hard work of making the music and fighting to get it heard. Yet investment and attention pours into the middleware between us and listeners – and that middleware really isn’t working terribly well.
“We were emerging from this bubble,” she told me, “and I realized, ‘I have this hit. This is going to be good! Nearly three million streams on Spotify!’ And then my check came, and it was for seventeen dollars and seventy-two cents. That’s when I was, like, ‘What the fuck?’ So I called Kay.”
Yes, Daniel Ek is a smart guy, getting very rich and I know there is a culture out there commending this.
I find it sad that it’s don on the back of the people who helped shaped almost everyones personalities in their formative years.
And yet, we’re talking about a day this year when new investors in Spotify will earn more than $100m, pretty much guaranteed, for doing nothing more than answering Daniel Ek’s call.
We’re also talking about a day where the major labels, who’ve taken somewhere between 15% and 20% in Spotify, get a ginormous one-hit windfall that looks almost impossible to attribute or audit to individual artists.
There are a couple of interesting thoughts in this eassy.
I would add that some of the devaluation also stems from the fact, that music is ubiquitous and devalued because the act of creating it has been so much simplified, that everyone with a computer and some software (and I’m guilty of adding to this!) can now create a professional sounding song in minutes. Which in and of itself is a good thing, but the result is more than we bargained for so to speak.
There is a small revolution going on at the moment. The very successful and great content creators of the internet start to understand how their business model actually works.
These are the same people who have turned a blind eye for years at the issues surrounding music and the monetizing of music.
They kept saying: look for a new business model, look for a new business model, look for a new business model, look for a new…
I don’t mind them and their content going away. Even if it’s the New York Times.
What I like to see come back is a business model between creators and end users based on open and transparent transactions: I use your content, I pay you directly for it. Either up front and can keep the content or transparently per use.
But the new middle men are much much worse than the old labels used to be.
Apps that block all ads are threatening some web publishers’ livelihoods, which in turn could threaten some content on the web.
Thank you Taylor Swift! Very much and without any sarcastic connotation.
Bringing this issue to the general public’s’ attention was (is!) important. Managing to do it the way you did, saving both yours and Apples face is no small feat and a testament to your diplomatic ability.
I can only hope that more high profile artists choose to make the improvement of the reality of the contemporary middle class music industry workers the central message when talking about compensation. It is so vital for the tech industry to start to understand that while they think they are fighting a fight against the behemoth that the labels and their huge catalogs are, they are really hurting the small, middle class industry and their individual service people that are in control of their business themselves.
And as a side note: in the case of tech vs music industry the economic principle of substitution is not the issue. Because listeners aren’t substituting one song for another one, they are merely substituting the technical way of receiving the same song.
Again. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Für dpa hat Günter Öttinger (EU Digital Kommissar) heute ein paar Fragen beantwortet. Unter anderem auch eine meiner Fragen. Leider die uninteressanteste, das war aber natürlich seine Entscheidung.
— Hans Hafner (@hanshafner) November 20, 2014
Wo sehen Sie die Trennlinie zwischen privat und öffentlich im Falle Verbreitung kultureller Werke? #dpaLiveChat
— Hans Hafner (@hanshafner) November 20, 2014
Aus der Antwort kann man aber heraushören, dass wohl “fast-lanes” geplant werden. So sehr ich diese ablehne, weil das Internet so, wie es ist schon ganz cool ist, so sehr weiß ich aber auch, dass das der Weg sein wird, wie wieder mehr Geld in das ganze Internet kommt.
Wir können nur hoffen, dass die Plattformen ordentlich weiterreichen / abrechnen und unsere Verwertungsgesellschaften/Labels/Verlage/ uns daran auch gut genug beteiligen.
Es gibt also noch viel zu tun in der Zukunft.
OK, So who got the benefit of the $10 I paid in subscription fees?
$3 goes to Spotify. Sure, that seems fair enough.
Roughly .007 cents will go to Butchers Of The Final Frontier. Hrmm, if only I had played the track ten more times Butchers would have earned a penny.
But… hey, wait a second… I paid $10. Where’d that other $7 go?
Spotify: “What $7?”
That other $7. Where’d it go?
Spotify: “We paid it out in royalties. For plays. Your boys got paid for their plays”
Don’t be cute with me. Who got the $7?
Spotify: “Look! A puppy!”
Please read the whole article here: