Will Spotify Kill The Music Industry As We Know It?

[macmanmatty]

I recently found out about spotify a couple of months ago.  The internet has had the music industry with it's head the rope for a while, but it's seems like spotify is pulling the trap door to the gallows. With the ability to listen to what ever you want wherever you want from what ever artist you want ( although some are not on  there?) as many times as want for free, must be having some determentel effect on the music industry.  Will spotify kill the songwriting / music industry? 

[Just1L]

It won't kill the music industry, but it will hurt the songwriters. 

[TapperMike]

Apple is in many ways just as bad.  Let's say you buy an itunes song of a specific artist.  The first time they "may' pay the artist anythin you buy hte same song even in a different format you pay apple and apple doesn't pay the artist.

[IKONE]

it already has been "killed" but for sure not the industry but the quality of music. Most musicians i know say that its easier to sell songs in quantity than quality. Why puttin so much afford in songs when no one really hear the diffence? ... and i mean the common listener.

Having a heavy Single in rotation seems to be better.

[Just1L]

It kind of reminds me of health insurance. We're getting screwed but all we hear is "Well, what would you do without it? Would you want to put your family at risk IF you need major health care?" In this case saying "Wouldn't you want your song to be heard? Isn't that the most important?" 

 

Well, I reckon it is.

 

Then I also reckon it is fine to give everyone the shaft under that guise. Sorry for bringing it up. My bad. Enjoy the cash.

[macmanmatty]

I agree with you hobo , if you can hear whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever  you want, by whoever you want, for free then WHY BUY ANYTHING???

 

 

The music industry is as good dead All my friends who pirated music now don't even do it anymore because  they can can hear whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever  they want, by whoever they want, for free and it's Completely Legal thanks to spotify!!!!

Edited February 11, 2014 by macmanmatty

[TapperMike]

If it is streamed then yes it is like online radio.

 

If you pay for an mp3 from like amazon or itunes as an example you own the rights to play that song anytime, anywhere so long as it's stored on your storage device. 

 

If on the other hand a service is streamed you are not paying the license for a permanently stored song.  At that point it's a broadcast service even if that broadcast is specifically tailored to your listening habits. It's internet radio.  Internet radio has to pay all the same music rights usage as conventional radio.  The big difference is they have to pay a higher rate of per listener.

 

Youtube is at war with Gema and a few others and unfortunately everyone is comming out a loser.  Youtube uses peoples videos to make money in advertising.  Just like Television uses movies and tvs as a vehicle for advertisers.  Therefore youtube should be paying back a return to uploaders just like Television companies pay producers for the rights to use shows.  And that money is based on the success of the show.  I've actually had several youtube accounts and a few of them got some serious hits.  Haven't seen dime one.

 

Spotify like Youtube is using people's content to make money for themselves however not giving an equitiable return for the products provided. Spotify like many major labels are pushing away from new material all together even from established artists. 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/15/thom-yorke-spotify-twitter

[Just1L]

Youtube uses peoples videos to make money in advertising.  Just like Television uses movies and tvs as a vehicle for advertisers.  Therefore youtube should be paying back a return to uploaders just like Television companies pay producers for the rights to use shows.  And that money is based on the success of the show.  I've actually had several youtube accounts and a few of them got some serious hits.  Haven't seen dime one.

 

Spotify like Youtube is using people's content to make money for themselves however not giving an equitiable return for the products provided. Spotify like many major labels are pushing away from new material all together even from established artists. 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/15/thom-yorke-spotify-twitter

 

And technically, Google wouldn't be who they are if they hadn't used, without permission, everyone's content to use in their search engine. And while they were making money off of other peoples content, the content providers were staring starry eyed into the Web in sheer amazement and joy. YouTube does pay it's users for their content, albeit a grain of sand compared to what they actually earn. Once Google bought them they've changed. Now I make half of what I used to. But, at least they're paying.

[TapperMike]

The fact that it's not stored on your computer eg you don't own it means it is like streamed music/ internet radio.  One could call up a local radio station and ask them to play your favorite song and... they just might.  A lot of the radio stations I listed to as a kid did exactly that and some independent rock stations do take requests.   The fact that it's more[i/] personalized for the listener does not negate the fact that it is indeed streamed content and as such is bound to the same regulations all streamed content is.

 

I work for a company called swishzone http://swishzone.com

 

One of our projects that never got to the state of full deployment was a Broadcast Server.  It was like skype + youtube + gotomeeint + messenger + shoutcast and much much more.  One of the smaller aspects was "Swish Radio"  Which allowed one person to upload video or audio files to the web then create a schedule for broadcast.  Just drop the audio into the timeslot and that's when they'd play.  As well there were other schema's where people could access there own schedules and take the same files creating a personal playlist  we had several other things going on with it much like spotify but those never came to fruition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYyz_aUbjRM&feature=c4-overview&list=UURmTSxGz2NEOjS3mAoQl-0w

 

We developed apps for both mac and pc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rchBn7hn91Y&list=UURmTSxGz2NEOjS3mAoQl-0w

 

The problem was it wasn't getting any legs because we couldn't sell it as a service to anyone.  Development was bogging down our other more profitable ventures and we were in constant fear of some civil or government agency shutting us down before it got anywhere.

 

Spotify tries to hide numbers in order to avoid paying fees.  That's all the personalized bs is really doing.  Our beta testers loved our service.  They were willing to pay to keep it on at much higher rates then icecast hosting costs.  Even though hosts are not liable for content stored on there servers by consumers as part of the DCMA we had one very big problem.  The company is in Australia which doesn't honor the DCMA.  The second big problem was we didn't want to be the internet police in regards to our users. Do they have the rights?  Are they paying appropriate feess?  As a consequence the demo stations we used ran public domain music.   As a user of the service and someone who did some coding for the project.  I would put my own original music on the server.

 

Spotify is walking a very thin line legally on the matter and very very open to lawsuits by the artists themselves.  However for an artist who's material provided is being used but that person is not being compensated the only option is to pull out of spotify and not be able to sue.  Civil suits by individuals are very very expensive and class action suits are even harder to work out because there is usually one in the crowd who will take an early buyout and screw the other pantiffs in the process.

[macmanmatty]

I agree partly with you hobo but if spotify is paying the publishers, songwriters, artists and other people involved  with the recording what they would make off an album sale how are they really getting hurt? I have no idea whether they are or not, but I must admit to using spotify although most of what I listen to I already have on my hd in Itunes from used cd sales, godowill cd, pawnshops, and other cheap cds.

[IKONE]

Does this kind of thinking really apply to Spotify though?  Spotify is not like radio - terrestrial, satellite or internet - with songs "in rotation."  Spotify is like your own personal online streaming music collection.  With Spotify, at any time and for free, you can stream all the songs you want - the songs you choose.  So, you DON"T EVER have to buy/download those songs to have them.  If anything, Spotify discourages sales of music recordings.  That's my understanding anyway.

 

Sorry, my fault. I was wrong. And i agree with you. Cheers

[MikeRobinson]

I don't think that we should, as artists and producers, try to control how someone who wants to hear our music, decides to listen to it.  Personally, I buy everything on round plastic or vinyl (yes, vinyl!) media.  But if someone wants to download it or to stream it to a device, they're free to do so ... as long as I get compensated, as every copyright-law on the planet entitles me to be.

 

I've got some songs that "I must have played 'em a million times."  I didn't pay the artists a million times, but I did pay them once.  (When someone offers to "rip me a copy," I decline.)  I listen to internet radio services, and subscribe to some, knowing that in either case the producers of the music that I enjoy so much got paid.  I won't even touch a service that, in my view, attempts to evade the notion that "a workman is worthy of his hire."  The people who make it possible to enjoy what I enjoy, do what they do "for a living."  I'll never deny them that.

 

I'm also reminded of the comments by the songwriter whose interview can be found elsewhere on this site, where he draws a distinction between "music that is heard at 10:00 at night" vs. "music that is heard at 7:00 in the morning during 'drive time,'" which is, as he says, "where the money is."  He comments that every use of music is a commercial use of some kind ... that "you have to keep the listener's attention right up to the Ford commercial."  And, I basically think that this is true.  You can spend the rest of your life playing 250 shows a year until you get too old and busted to do that anymore, or you can try to build a retirement for yourself and your great-grandkids out of royalty checks, which BMI will dutifully collect and pay when you're 70 years in your own grave.  Residual income.  Dollars that come in whether you're turning a crank or not.  That is what pays for the horse farms.

 

They say that internet radio "cheapens" music.  I don't think it does.  Music has always been a quantity-driven business, with the occasional gem of quality.  Today, you can have a hundred fishing-lures dangling in the water and the fish can pick and choose at random, which is a much better situation than an out-of-print piece of vinyl, but if you want to make serious money, it still takes a lot of promotion.  It needs people who license your music because they need it, not merely because they want it.  (Can you imagine a Sunday-morning NPR interview program without the bumper music playing continually in the background?  A silent movie?  Wanna go to a bar that's quiet?  A football game without We Will Rock You?  A baseball game without you-know-what to accompany the "7th inning stretch?"  Millions are still being made from Happy Birthday to You!)

 

Today, when literally anyone in the world can make and, at least after a fashion, "publish" music ... and everyone in the world is doing so ... and you can buy any kind of music you've ever dreamed of instantly ... we live in a different world.  But we don't live in a different set of commercial economics.

Edited February 12, 2014 by MikeRobinson

[Just1L]

It's surprising to me that if Spotify and the likes are so bad, why do current recording artists not pull their music, or form together to try to stop it? I've heard it said that the Music Industry made a big mistake by not doing more during the Napster case. I also blame all the musicians that didn't step up and cry foul at that time like Metallica did. Of course anyone that did step up, like Metallica, were lambasted for it... by the listeners. They don't care how much or how little musicians make. It seems like the biggest group of people that have problems with it all are the musicians that haven't made it yet.

 

The listeners like it. Until I see or hear about law suits going on by the professional recording artists, they must like it too. So that just leaves us as the ones not liking it. The general premises of using other peoples content without rightfully paying them isn't just something that happens in the music industry, it happens everywhere on the internet and has just about forever. And it won't change one iota until groups form and try to stop it. And sadly, those groups will be in the minority.

[TapperMike]

I think we as artists have a responibility to music itself and ourselves that there be financial value in what we do and that we are compensated for our efforts.

 

Many take the position that because of the free on-demand nature of Spotify's streaming of its catalog of 20 million-plus songs, its impact or potential impact on sales of recorded music

 

Spotify has bent the rules on paying for that content.  Every convetional traditional broadcaster pays for the material they provide that you hear on the radio or television. XM and sirius pay for the content they supply.  Youtube pays GEMA and ASCAP and BMI and a few other rights management companies (Vevo) for content it uses. If you've ever looked for a video on youtube and saw the .. this content is not available in your country it is because the content is not allowed to be distributed in your country by the publishing rights holder.  Shoutcast providers are required to pay as well.  However for some odd reason they have to pay more per listen then other mediums.  Spotify created a loophole in the law which gives them the option of not paying.  Spotify cannot operate a business with negative cash flow.  However it has positive cash flow due to the fact it's not paying for permission.  That's a bad business model for musicians to operate in.  Even if your music is played on spotify you won't get a financial return and you won't get a sale from it.  The only hope you ever have of ever making money from your hard efforts is in live performance.  Even then as soon as you start riding the touring chain you're screwed glued and tatoo'd.  It's a slap in the face to every musician who ever produces professional content.

 

Read more

http://derekwebb.tumblr.com/post/13503899950/giving-it-away-how-free-music-makes-more-than-sense

 

When someone places value on music as a reciever (ie a listener willing to pay for it) the emotional bond to the music increases. It also allows the music maker the opporitunity to pay bills and make more.  What is the value to the artist even if they get 20,000 hits on a song and no financial gain as opposed to selling 500 copues?  Many a musician who has music on spotify have had thousand and thousands of listens and still spotify holds back.

 

It's not good for the musician performer on any level.

Spotify degrades the value of all music by releasing everything at dirt values to consumers.  Spotify degrades independent artists by giving them an estremely small and unequal amount of money when they do pay out to independed musicians.

 

MTV back in the 80's was the exact opposite of Spotify today.  MTV carred a lot of videos of new artists that radio refused to play. In the early years of MTV usually new artists started on mtv then got airplay on local radio and record sales afterwards.  Gues what...MTV paid those artists for the videos.

Spotify isn't concerned with bringing new material to a new medium and showcasing it.  Sure they'll host your stuff but you  had better bring your audience to spotify en mass because they aren't going to do that for you.  And even then, if you've brought your audience to spotify what is your reward from spotify help them line thier own pockets?  Nothing.

 

When I'm listening to music that I like it's usually my paid for mp3 collection.  Or it's the radio, or its a streaming service that I know is returning the money back to the copyright / publishing holder.  that's great. I'm willing to listen to advertising of paid sponsors.  The artist gets paid the sevice gets paid and the sponser has a place to present it's content. 

[TapperMike]

It's surprising to me that if Spotify and the likes are so bad, why do current recording artists not pull their music

 

They are when they can https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131014/18370824881/why-pulling-music-spotify-only-holds-back-artist-doing-pulling.shtml

 

Several reasons are stopping them

When artists remove their music from Spotify they are simply ensuring that they will receive zero royalties from that service.

 

As well many artists are copyright holders but not publishing rights holders.  The owner of the publishing rights is the person who gets to decide when or where the content is published.

 

Even if you do have publishing rights its an uphill battle.

 

Do you want zero royalties and diminished listership from not being on spotify?

[Just1L]

Do you want zero royalties and diminished listership from not being on spotify?

 

It's kind of like the scare tactic that is American health insurance. Can you afford to live without health insurance? Don't you want you or your loved ones to be covered in times of need? Sure we do. So we take it up the ass and call it a day. They could double their premiums tomorrow and there isn't a thing we can do about it. 

 

So musicians are afraid they won't be heard and won't earn a dime so they take a small fraction of what they should be earning and call themselves lucky. They should be earning a dollar, but at least a dime is better than nothing. We're really being taught that it's just best to settle for less and thank our lucky stars about it. 

 

Thanks for the link. Sad but interesting read to say the least .

Edited February 12, 2014 by Just1L

[MikeRobinson]

I think that we all can do better than this race to the bottom.  A service like this can spring-up – at least for a time – out of questionable lawyers.  Yes, they can manage to sell advertising for a time, mining old catalogs and the music of ignorant hopefuls until their lawyers run out of excuses.  But they're definitely a product from a time when the Internet business-models hadn't really established themselves, and their "value prop," such as it ever was, was that you were "getting away" with something.

 

Now, let's talk about the new business, which they must find a means to attract.  If you were a new act, would you place your music here, or would you prefer a much more profitable service like iTunes or Google Play Music?  Do you want to work with someone who promotes you, or do you just want to dump your track to the mercy of the luck of the draw?  It's not like you don't have a choice in the matter.

 

I mean, for these new guys, they're also a (first-generation) product of "this new Internet age."  They're not doing "record deals."  They're not even looking for them.  These songs are their songs:  they own the song, and they own the publishing.  They're in the game to make money, and they know how the money is made.  It's easy to find interviews from young artists today who are quoted as saying that a record-deal with a $6 million advance is "the worst decision someone could make," because they know that the rights are worth much more, and they've got both business savvy and patience.

 

I think that Spotify's star set a long time ago already, because they really don't have any sort of value-proposition for the recording artist who owns his rights and who understands the value thereof.  They don't bring anything to the table; they don't even try.  They can't be pulling in the kind of revenue from their (non-)business model that their competitors – Apple, anyone?? – do.  And, that's not good enough, because it does take revenue, and lots of it, to do what customers and suppliers(!) expect. 

 

They really don't offer much to the consumer, either, in exchange for his subscription or his willingness to endure banner-ads.  (Banner ads?  You must be kidding, right?)  After all, "buying music on the Internet" is something that we do quite naturally now, and we know that we can be choosy.  We can expect more, and get it.  Whether you're selling music or buying it, you can do much better than this, and that's exactly what you're going to do.

[Kel]

I deleted Spotify within days of installing it. I thought it was crap. Still, my own little protest won't have them quaking in their boots, and I'm well aware of that.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Kel

[Just1L]

I like your Moxie.

 

I think that Spotify's star set a long time ago already, because they really don't have any sort of value-proposition for the recording artist who owns his rights and who understands the value thereof.  They don't bring anything to the table; they don't even try.  

"They don't even try".

 

Well, they do try. They try to come in, get as many users as possible, and then sellout to the highest bidder as fast as they can. That's how most online companies seem to work. They know the best chance for them to make a return on their work is not to actually keep it and try to make money actually using it, but to sell it for a ton of cash, and then start a new project. Meanwhile, most of the time those bought out companies eventually get swallowed up by the big players. And the big players main goal is simply to get rid of the competition. I'm looking forward to about 4-5 years out with the new evolution of the Internet. I don't really see it progressing this way forever.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Just1L