Music Industry vs The Internet: This time Spotify is the victim
 

As a result of record companies failing to get with the times, from May onwards, Spotify will cap it's listening limit for Free account users from 20 hours a month, down to 10 hours a month. Also, Free users will only be able to listen to tracks for 5 times ever only, then no more. People who pay the £10 a month subscription won't be affected by this.

Well, it was a good idea, but who didn't see this coming? Pity it's way ahead of it's time/for a time that might never exist, and that the advertising model wasn't making enough money to sate what they had to pay in royalties to the record labels (and how much of that were the artists getting, I wonder?). At least it was making SOME money rather than most of its users going off and pirating stuff - Which doesn't make the record companies any money at all.

IMO the £10 a month free is reasonable only if you're a heavy user of Spotify, otherwise you don't get your money's worth. And most people aren't heavy users - If you're gonna pay that and go down the legal route you may as well buy albums off Amazon or something. It might still be a good tool for discovering music and artists as they say, though.

I think it's hilarious that they believe this will continue to stop pirates.

It won't.

Piracy is going to quickly escalate to pre-Spotify levels.

Youtube and a video converter..............

You said it, WoF.

I speculate that the artists themselves don't suffer from illegal downloading much - it's a way of spreading their music about. The people who refuse to pay for music won't ever pay and there's no way of making them do so - But most people are honest and if they become larger fans of an artists music, they buy their albums and go to concerts (which I've been told is how they make most of their income) to support them. If it really was that dire, surely artists would stop making music?

I find it funny that it's the long-established record labels and publishers who are making a fuss over this 'cause they're an outdated concept in these days of fast data transfer. They're the ones who are losing out - Not the artists. They also seem to mainly be the ones fighting the legal battles against the pirates - Not the artists. They're upset because they can't leech off of other people's success anymore. Greed is a funny thing.

I do that quite frequently though. I generally won't buy an album/discography until I know that the discography/album is good so I pirate the shit out of them. I wouldn't waste my money on blindly buying an album, even if it is by a band I like, although the only albums I pay for blindly is any CoF albums or Insomnium because I know them to be of good material.

There's also an argument floating around that it's good advertising, this whole pirating melarky. Which is why whenever I download music I let other people listen to it because there is a chance that they buy the music and show other people it, who might buy the music. My mate, who's in band, says that people who pirate music should be lynched and has yet to take in the fact that pirating music has upsides as well as pitfalls for the artist.

That's not how the argument works. The point is that you're meant to download it, see if you like it and then goddamn go out there and buy it yourself.

Yeah, except so many of the songs on Youtube are crap quality. I did this almost exclusively before I found spotify.

Which, BTW, I use in America via proxy.

No way there's a 20 hour per month limit now. I listen to way more than that each month. Then again, I signed up for a Free account when they weren't offering them by haxxing URIs. Maybe I'll be immune. Which would be neat, because Spotify just makes things easier than pirating.

With their changes, it's going to be a lot less ball ache to just pirate, and that's what people are going to do. I doubt they haven't realized that. They could only think this was a good idea if they were forced to by extortionate record labels. Unfortunately, 10 hours per month = 20 minutes a day, i.e. no time for adverts. They're shrivelling their own source of revenue.

Like you said, it'll still be handy for exploring new music, but there's no way I'll be able to continue using it as my default music player.

If I don't like the album then why would I buy it? There's a chance that some other person will like the album and they will buy it. I introduced them to the album. They bought it. Someone is happy with an album they like and shops are plussed £10-15 too buy two more albums from the RC.

Where did I say that you should buy an album you don't like? Download it and if you like it, buy it. Don't just hand the pirated files to someone else and hope that they pay for it to assuage your guilt.

who does that in the first place

Cash or card. Order online if you're having trouble finding it from your local retailer.

lol i edited after you commented

but yeah i get it now

What? The downloading and then buying? Me, for one.

Or did you mean the downloading and handing to other people then calling themselves a good person? That would be Ridg3. And that would be why I was replying to him.

yeah i ment handing to other people

As a note, I have bought a vn and then shared it with a friend who then went on to buy it.

It can work.

God no, I don't feel guilty downloading music and I definitely don't hand out music that no-ones ever heard of, they either hear it on my computer or on my MP3 player. The only time I gave pirated files to someone is whenever they ask me for a certain discography. Fuck, I have a pile of absolute ear drivel on my comp that ain't been listened to by no-one.

What I should have said was that I would buy an album I like or lost (by the way, I would really have to like an album to buy it) or some people I know will like the music and buy it. I never mentioned that I make them listen to the music in the hopes that they do buy it. And yes, I have bought music that I've pirated.

I said it in the past and I'll say it again. If you, as an artist, want to make money with your songs then you'll have to go out on a tour and do a shitload of concerts. Sitting in a booth for a few hours a day, singing a bit and on top of that have someone else edit it together for you does not qualify you to make insane amounts of money for years and years.

A while back there was a newsstory about Lady Gaga who was complaining that illegal downloading was hurting her income, while at the time of the interview she was worth at least 64 million dollars. Where artists like that get the nerve to say shit like that is beyond me, but I'm not paying for your songs. I'll pay for your concerts if they interest me and nothing more!

She was just born that way, Havoc.

This is the part that irritates me most. The most common argument against piracy is "but we're losing money from it!"

No, you aren't. A pirated album does not translate into a lost sale - if they couldn't get it for free, they probably wouldn't pay for it.

This isn't always the case. You've got to take into consideration the fact that not all musicians conduct their business in that way. There are musicians who spend a great deal of time composing music. A good deal of these musicians also spend a great deal of time learning to play the music. It is also not unheard of for the composer or the performer to produce the piece himself. This takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. Tours are necessary, because they are (among more sincere things, at least in some cases) good promotional devices and often generate a good amount of profit themselves. However, they are very tiring for the performers, and I think that it would require a lot of stamina to make a living off touring alone.

I think that another thing to take into consideration is the fact that the kind of music that you're talking about is music designed to make profit. The most economically viable route is the one they're going to take. Touring will involve all kinds of extra costs, so doing too many tours would be a bad business move.

Apparently keeping Metallica on the road for a day costs a million dollars.

But you know what? Fuck Metallica.

Watch out, abe619's coming!

Why? Did Strike Witch eat him or something?

Hah!

Big or small artist makes no difference. In fact, for a small starting artist it's probably easier to start touring as people won't be expecting a huge light show.

My point was that just because you make music doesn't mean you are entitled to money. You have to work for it, just like anyone else. Being a construction worker is hard work too, probably harder than writing and composing. I don't hear any construction workers claiming they should get a penny each time someone enters the building they built. They get paid for their hours or the project and that's it. On to the next project.

Music shouldn't be any different. You write a song, you finalize it and you put it out there. If you're lucky some people will buy it from you but if you want to use your music to create income you should work for it, not sit on your lazy ass expecting money from royalties.

How do you propose that the smaller artists fund the tour if they are obscure? There are PA systems involved, there's transportation, you've got to hire people like engineers and managers, all kinds of stuff. Just because you don't need to bring a couple of lights, it doesn't mean it's going to be cheap.
Alright, there's a problem here. All musicians, even the bad ones who create business music instead of artistic music, continue to compose and play their stuff, unless they enter a different business or unless they die or something. As for the aforementioned record company puppets, they need to continue to produce music in order to generate as much profit as is possible.
As for the more sincere composers and performers, they continue to compose/play new stuff because it's what they do. It's both their job and their hobby. They're inclined to create and they need to do so to make money. In fact, a lot of these people have such a hard time, they'll never even be able to attain half of the wealth which the more commercially acceptable musicians do attain.
In fact, even the more commercially acceptable musicians don't get paid what their products generate. The first people to get money are the record executives and other such people who are in charge at the record companies. In fact, the record company and the distributor gets most of the money. The last people to get paid are the artists (or exploitees, whatever you want to call them).
First of all, I don't think that any given contruction worker could drop his work and write a great piece of music. I also doubt that any given musician could sell his instruments and start working on a house. These are two completely different skills, and it is ridiculous that you're trying to tell me that one is harder than the other.
Second of all, both industries work differently. The reason they work differently is that they need to accommodate different requirements. This also involves the financial aspects. To compare the two in such a way seems ludicrous.

No it isn't. Please tell me why an artist should still get paid for a song he made 10 years ago, just because someone on the radio decides to play it? That makes no sense, it's like charging people each time they read a book I wrote.

Right now the entire music industry is based on the idea that you make a song and you cash in for the rest of your life on that song, even if you stop your entire career after that single song. That makes no sense at all.

Bullshit. When you buy a CD, you don't have to pay every time you listen to a track, just like you don't need to pay every time you read a book.
What else is interesting is that books are covered by copyright laws just the same as music, so you're probably going to have to pay for its legal use unless Fair Use applies.

The entire music industry is based on the idea that they profit and maintain good wealth. Like a explained to you, the people at the record company who had absolutely nothing to do with the composition of the work get more money that the work's real creator, so it's quite evident that they're more interested in business than art.
Furthermore, the sincere musicians I keep talking about really don't get paid well. They need as much money as they can get any way they can get, especially considering that, should they be lucky enough to have landed a record contract (or unlucky enough, considering the plethora of inconveniences the musician has to endure), they're not getting what they deserve.

If I want to read a book that was written 10 years ago, I have to buy the book.

If I want to listen to a song that was released 10 years ago, I have to buy the MP3.

how is this difficult to understand

You can listen to the song on the radio if you wanted. Point being that the artist still get revenue from that.

Being an artist is creative profession. If you choose to go down that road you know it can take years to make a few pennies. And in this day and age you also know the big bad record companies only want to make money off you. That's why most artists have a regular job to support their hobby until their hobby becomes their job.

Look, I think we're kind of talking past each other. The problem I have with the way things currently go is that music, right now, is an infinite money resource that's way out of proportion. If you want to sell your song on iTunes for a dollar that's fine. The problem I have is the money that is made of radio airtime and airtime at events and such. You're charging people money because they are (involuntarily) listening to something they don't even own. Why can't music be treated as any other medium? You buy it for the price you think it's worth and if you as a radio station then want to put it on the air there should be no extra charge for that.

And on the note of illegal downloading, I pay 14 cents authors compensation PER empty CD (60 cents for a DVD) because I MIGHT copy music on them. That is some major bullshit.

Because it is being used on a public broadcast. The reason there's no need to charge people for listening to songs on CDs is because they're (generally) just for personal use.
I thought that you thought artists were paid too much and even the little artists should be able to fund tours and stuff.

In fact, most artists have a regular job because their music doesn't have commercial potential. Some of these are genuine artists, which is why their stuff doesn't have commercial potential. Some of these are just philistines who are just caught up in youth culture and actually can't compose or play a note, which is why their stuff has no commercial potential (although looking at popular music, that is the sort of stuff with commerical potential). It is only the former that may feel that a record deal wouldn't benefit them much and would thus find another way to make money or would make money by playing in bars and by teaching.
Because of copyright laws, broadcasters are charged for the use of any intellectual property protected by copyright (unless Fair Use can be applied), not just music.
I am not an advocate of the blank tape levy. This is one thing which I agree is ridiculous, but I don't think that any or much of the money goes to musicians. In fact, it is worth noting that the record industry is opposed to the levy.

That's my point, intellectual property is retarded. Music, movie, book, game, doesn't matter. A broadcaster, in my opinion, is free advertising. They put your track on the radio, people hear it and might buy your stuff. Instead the radio stations have to pay to advertise, so to speak. It's the wrong way around, it just doesn't make any sense.

Just like if I wanted to promote someone's book at a seminar or something. I'd have to pay the writer to read part of the book to the audiance or even show the graphic, while it's basically free advertising and if people like it they will buy it at the exit anyway.

Broadcasters broadcast intellectual property for entertainment purposes, not for advertisement purposes. Broadcasters make their money by making sure people are having a good time. In other words, they're exploiting other people's intellectual property for their own gain.
You argue that artist will receive some publicity, but you've got to remember that lot of people who listen to the radio or watch the television or whatever are not really interested in the music or the film - they just use it to socialise or to distract themselves from reality. The only time they might buy it is if they see it in the bargain bin on the eve of a social event at their place.

Stopped caring right here.

I've never used Spotify, I use Itunes and I buy my music from stores.

Fuck off, redwings.

ITT: Havoc is wrong.

On topic: If you don't like the spotify changes and are too cheap to pay £5/m. Suck it up. £5/m is ridiculously cheap for what it gives you.

The phrase beggars can't be choosers springs to mind.

Oh okay - £5 is reasonable. I thought they had only "Premium" on offer (which is £10 a month).

I still stand by my earlier statements about the record labels being greedy though.

Blah blah blah... poor radio station. The radio Stations agrees to pay for the song. The music industry hasn't got a gun to their head. And although it may be a good way for artists to advertise thats not how a radio station get's money, they earn from advertisements so obviously they want to put on good music to get the most listeners not some random idiot who wants them to play his song.