I would like to elaborate on two arguments being made in the comments of the article (link at the end of this article):<\/p>\n
This argument stems usually from a basic misunderstanding of how music is created and who does which job. A songwriter writes a song. He then licenses this song to whoever wants to use it and is generally only\u00a0paid a fee for the song if it is commissioned, which, as far as I know from colleagues, is a rare case because most of the times, the songwriter writes his songs and then shops them around. The songwriter\u00a0profits when the song is being\u00a0used. Usages are<\/p>\n
In all of the above use cases except film\u00a0the songwriter has very little to no personal influence on the level of compensation. The license fees are set \/ negotiated between the performance rights organisations (PROs) and the businesses behind the use cases above. Once a song is published the songwriter _must_ license his works under theses conditions and the PRO _must_ license to anyone asking. It’s called a compulsory license.<\/p>\n
While it is true that streaming does in fact compensate better per “person” consuming the work, we have to look at this from a different perspective to make it obvious why that is the correct way to handle it. It is important to understand the differences for the end consumer between streaming and radio:<\/p>\n
Streaming means: free choice of<\/p>\n
to listen to<\/p>\n
Radio means: listening to whatever someone else<\/strong> decides at any given moment in other words, no real control and freedom of what to listen to.<\/p>\n From this I think it should be abundantly clear, that the end consumer is getting a way better experience\u00a0with streaming than with any other form of consumption. Which is obviously the reason why many people choose to consume music in this fashion. And rightfully so!<\/p>\n But there is absolutely _nothing_ wrong with songwriters asking for a better compensation for this sort of service to the end consumer. It’s a great service and great experience and it is worth something. To suggest that we cannot or should not make our voices heard in this power network is a specious argument that denies us free speech and access on a level playing field\u00a0to\u00a0a marketplace. That’s just wrong.<\/p>\n And like Aloe Blacc says: songwriters get nothing<\/strong>\u00a0from the fees that streaming services pay to labels, because that’s not how the licensing is set up. Songwriters license their works (the composition\/lyrics<\/strong>)\u00a0directly (to the labels, to the stations, to the streaming services etc) while the labels license their product (the\u00a0particular recording<\/strong>) to the streaming service.<\/p>\n