Taylor Swift's Streaming Rant Nearly Identical To Garth Brooks' Used CD Rant

from the will-swift's-statement-look-so-silly-years-later? dept

The music business tends to repeat itself. Conversations that seem completely intertwined with new technologies mirror those over earlier developments. Read Adrian John's Piracy, for example, and see how closely the file-sharing debate followed the one about sheet music a century earlier.

Even with that background, the parallels between Taylor Swift's widely discussed comments about Apple Music earlier this year and Garth Brooks' outspoken stance on used CD sales are striking. It's hard to argue with Swift—she is, after all, a shrewd businesswoman, and who knows what the future holds -- but the fact that Brooks' fears proved so unfounded takes some of the winds out of her sails. We may be at the end of history, and today's problems might be totally unlike the ones we faced before, but probably not.

Here's an excerpt of what Swift said about Apple's free trial:

I'm sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I'm not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year's worth of plays on his or her songs.

And here's a journalist from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer paraphrasing Brooks' comments at his sold-out arena concert, a few months after announcing he would only be selling his new record at stores that did not carry used CDs.

Brooks said that because no royalties are paid on the sale of used CDs, writers, labels, publishers and artists were being cheated. He said he would only supply chains that sell used CDs with his cassettes, and hinted that he might be working on another "format" to thwart such sales.

Brooks said he does not need any money, but lesser-known artists could suffer if secondhand CD sales take off. If used CD sales were to go into massive retail, he said, it would severely affect people in the recording industry, creating a sales loop that would profit only stores but not the creators, publishers and artists.

CD retailers, meanwhile, have argued that the cost of new CDs is too high for young buyers, and that selling used CDs exposes an artist's music to different audiences.

For both Swift and Brooks -- each among the best-selling acts of their generation -- an emerging marketplace that makes music more accessible -- but less well-compensated -- was worth speaking out about. They both note that it's not about them, but about the principle, and that the unpaid exposure would hurt new musicians. Both point to the middleman's profits as an obvious evil.

To my mind, both artists are mistaken about the value of exposure and discoverability. Tim O'Reilly's observation that obscurity is a greater threat to the emerging artist than piracy remains true; it's also true that obscurity is a greater threat than used record sales, free trials, and most everything else.

But on the other counts, too, Garth Brooks was wrong. Used CD sales didn't undermine the music industry and they didn't keep new artists from finding audiences.

We know this because his plan to sell only through certain CD stores failed, amidst anti-trust investigations into his record label.

Taylor Swift was, at least narrowly, right. Apple Music should've been paying royalties for its free trials all along. But elsewhere, her skepticism about streaming and business models that include "free" might not be well placed. Unfortunately, because music licensing in this space is fundamentally more of a permissions culture than selling plastic discs was, we may never find out.

Reposted from parker higgins dot net

Filed Under: garth books, history, music, predictions, rants, streaming, taylor swift, used cds


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 31 Jul 2015 @ 12:35pm

    Maybe there needs to be a leak at Swift's label to see if the RIAA is sending her talking points like a puppet on strings.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 12:53pm

    If we would all just quit talking about the anorexic looking waif that she is and quit buying her crappy music this world would be a better place.

    But really your going to listen to what she has to say and call her a business woman? She has no idea whats she is doing but what she is told to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:19pm

      Re:

      Garth, on the other hand, was already college graduate, with a degree in marketing, before he began his career as a recording artist. This is actually a big part of the reason he was so successful: he had formal training in a field whose concept translate quite well to showmanship, an area that pretty much everyone agrees he is phenomenal at, whether or not they enjoy his music. It helped him reshape the entire face of country music, and to a lesser degree American music in general.

      Taylor Swift, as popular as she is, has never been anywhere close to as influential as Garth Brooks. She mainly tends to come across as Yet Another Pretty Young Teenybopper--a perception that the subject matter she sings about does little to counter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        mcinsand, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:45pm

        not much of a marketing degree

        Brooks has a marketing degree!?!? I would have never believed it. He builds up a successful brand over the course of the early and mid '90s and then destroys it with the Chris Gaines stunt. I'm not into marketing (and even less into country 'music'), but I remember lessons in industry where competent marketing will leverage and continue a strong brand rather than to dump what works for something randomly different. The way I remember those years, his fans felt like he'd dumped them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:49pm

          Re: not much of a marketing degree

          "The Chris Gaines stunt" sounds a lot less crazy/stupid when you know the rest of the story: it was a marketing stunt that was meant to promote an upcoming movie starring Garth Brooks as rocker Chris Gaines.

          The film ended up not falling through, unfortunately, and without it to provide context, the album ended up just looking really weird.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:56pm

          Re: not much of a marketing degree

          BTW if you have any doubt about Garth Brooks's marketing prowess, listen to the original version of his most iconic song, and then compare what he did to it. Without altering the tune or the lyrics, Garth turned a completely typical, boring country song about making an embarrassing social blunder and going off to hide in a bottle afterwards into an anthem that resonated so strongly with listeners that it turned him from a singer into a superstar virtually overnight. That's the power of understanding your target audience.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 12:58pm

    They both note that it's not about them, but about the principle, and that the unpaid exposure would hurt new musicians.

    What a disingenuous argument; most people want to try before they buy, especially when matter of taste guide buying decisions. Unpaid exposure benefits the new and lesser known musician by allowing people to experience their music, whereon some will go on to be fans and buy their music and attend their concerts. What such unpaid exposure can do is divert money away from the most famous musicians, and some of their lessor fans find musicians that they prefer to listen to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TKnarr (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:03pm

    New vs. used

    I do see a difference here. Brooks was talking about used CDs, where the royalty had already been paid when it was first sold. Swift is talking about new sales/streams, where a royalty hasn't already been paid. Suppose I sign a contract with a publisher giving me an X% royalty per book on a fixed cover price, no exceptions and no terms allowing for any sort of distribution at a discounted price. Then one day I walk into a bookstore and find copies of my book being given away for free in a publisher-sponsored giveaway program, I haven't been asked to agree to this and I'm not being paid any royalty on the theory that X% of zero is zero. These aren't used copies, they're brand-new books. Am I not entitled to take the position that my publisher owes me royalties on those copies based on the agreed-on cover price and they'll just have to chalk those royalties up as a cost of running the promotion?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 12:29am

      Re: New vs. used

      "I do see a difference here. Brooks was talking about used CDs, where the royalty had already been paid when it was first sold. Swift is talking about new sales/streams, where a royalty hasn't already been paid. "

      Incorrect. *Some* of the plays will be requested by people who haven't bought the album/track. But, many others will be from people who have bought it already and use streaming for convenience, or those who go on to buy after playing the songs. Others will be from people who would never buy the track they stream, but are happy to make a one-off play for which royalties are paid, which is surely better than the alternatives (piracy, or playing a track from a competing artist instead). For those tracks royalties are being paid repeatedly.

      "Then one day I walk into a bookstore and find copies of my book being given away for free in a publisher-sponsored giveaway program,"

      Or, a "library" as people who aren't being disingenuous would call them. Many people who became lifelong customers of the publishing industry used them to read books for free, the purchase price for one library book often being shared between hundreds of customers. Yet, that industry didn't collapse as a result and it has been a standard model for many decades. Funny, that.

      "Am I not entitled to take the position that my publisher owes me royalties on those copies based on the agreed-on cover price"

      No, since it's a rental, not a purchase. People do not and will not pay the same for a single play as they do for an unlimited number of plays, especially in a digital format with no resale value. Why is that difficult to understand?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:04pm

    This article is so far off base that it's not even funny. First, Garth Brooks' rant was about used CD's and the secondary market is the same argument that the entertainment industry has been using to get a chunk of the profits from retailers like GameSpot, EB Games and the rest of them.

    Taylor Swoift's rant is different altogether because Apple is giving away access for free to music and not compensating the artists who created that music. It's one thing for a retailer like the secondary market to sell used merchandise, pawn shops have been doing this for a long time. But when a retailer like Apple gives that content away for free and doesn't compensate those people who created that content ... it's just wrong.

    Taylor Swift was right in what she did.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:14pm

      Re:

      > But when a retailer like Apple gives that content away for
      > free and doesn't compensate those people who created that
      > content ...

      are you saying Apple did not successfully obtain the rights/licenses to do this lawfully?


      if they have, the only people Swift should be mad at are the record labels who made those licensing deals.

      if they haven't, where's BIG BROTHER to seize Apple?? That is Mega-NextLevel(tm)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:05pm

    Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

    Sheesh. This anti-logic is just too typical. It's the old "patent examiner in 1886 was wrong that everything had been invented, therefore _____ is absolutely true" ploy.

    Anyway, a key point to note is that both Swift and Brooks directly say that it's not about them, they've already succeeded, but about those starting and at the margins. Good for them! Not only correct, it's commendable attitude.

    Brooks is right in fact about used CD sales, that's how should be, but is not law any more than is with books. I'd go for a tax on both those, because re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations, but that's a whole 'nother topic, eh?

    And if pointing out that "getting noticed is the tough part" -- as someone here has pointed out for years while Techdirt has resolutely ignored -- is such a revelation, then clearly this boy-clown doesn't know beans about the music biz. What the hell do you think their scouts, selection process, and advertising budgets are for? Sheesh.


    Bet this is first of endless attacks at Techdirt on Taylor Swift for being right and effective. Techdirt just can't stand any other views than that "free" works. -- If it did, then Itunes and Spotify would be FREE as in beer, not have ANY paying listeners!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:06pm

    Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

    Sheesh. This anti-logic is just too typical. It's the old "patent examiner in 1886 was wrong that everything had been invented, therefore _____ is absolutely true" ploy.

    Anyway, a key point to note is that both Swift and Brooks directly say that it's not about them, they've already succeeded, but about those starting and at the margins. Good for them! Not only correct, it's commendable attitude.

    Brooks is right in fact about used CD sales, that's how should be, but is not law any more than is with books. I'd go for a tax on both those, because re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations, but that's a whole 'nother topic, eh?

    And if pointing out that "getting noticed is the tough part" -- as someone here has pointed out for years while Techdirt has resolutely ignored -- is such a revelation, then clearly this boy-clown doesn't know beans about the music biz. What the hell do you think their scouts, selection process, and advertising budgets are for? Sheesh.


    Bet this is first of endless attacks at Techdirt on Taylor Swift for being right and effective. Techdirt just can't stand any other views than that "free" works. -- If it did, then Itunes and Spotify would be FREE as in beer, not have ANY paying listeners!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      That One Other Not So Random Guy, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:20pm

      Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

      ^^^ boB ^^^
      Damn those upcoming artists that give away their CD's for free after shows. Someone needs to stop them.

      They all cry like bitches that this one and that one aren't paying them. Thank god their labels pay them righteously or they all would starve to death.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:43pm

        Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

        > Damn those upcoming artists that give away their CD's for free after shows. Someone needs to stop them.

        The obtuseness is strong with this one.

        Apple was the one giving away the artists' music, the artists didn't have a choice. Apple was using their status as 800lb gorilla to get away with exploition of people who couldn't fight back. Swift shamed Apple into doing the right thing, regardless of whether or not Apple was legally required to do the right thing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 2:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

          Apple was the one giving away the artists' music, the artists didn't have a choice.

          Yeah, no. Unless they were locked in via contract, they absolutely had a choice, they could have simply pulled their music from iTunes. If those free listens were so very harmful, then pull the music, problem solved. Also, as I'm constantly hearing, 'If you don't like the terms being offered you, do without.'

          Apple was willing to take a short-term hit, much like the artists would experience, because they expected the new subscribers to the service to allow them to come out ahead in the end. Swift apparently couldn't see long-term, and only thought of the short term, 'I must get paid now, even if it means less pay over time', and unfortunately others bought into it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 9:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

            > Yeah, no. Unless they were locked in via contract, they absolutely had a choice

            You seem to be willfully misunderstanding what the term 800lb gorilla means.

            Stop pretending like this was a negotiation between equals.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              techflaws (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 10:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

              Stop pretending they couldn't have sold their stuff any other way, especially in this day and age.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 11:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

                Nonsense, it's iTunes or nothing! If they weren't able to offer their music on iTunes, then there is absolutely no other possible way for them to sell their music, since iTunes is the sole way to listen to and/or buy music. /s

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 11:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

              I'm not, however unless you're claiming that Apple was able to force them to keep their music on the service, it doesn't matter how much cloud Apple had in the fight, the artists could still pull their music if they didn't like the terms and go elsewhere.

              If Apple did have that ability, perhaps thanks to a one-sided contract they signed to be able to offer their music on the service, well maybe don't sign such one-sided contracts, given there are other options nowadays. They may not be as 'good', but as long as artists are willing to sign away everything, then they're going to continue to get the short end of the stick, because the ones writing the contracts know that they'll always have suckers lining up to sign.

              'If you don't like the terms, do without' as the saying goes, it's just this time it was being used against the artists, rather than the customers.

              "You don't actually own what you just 'bought', you've only 'purchased' a small set of limited rights that we reserve the right to change at our whim. Don't like it, do without."

              "You don't have the right to format shift or break the cumbersome malware/DRM in order to back up your 'purchase'. You don't like it, do without."

              "You're only allowed to listen to your 'purchase' on select devices, and unlike physical CD's, you're prohibited from selling your music should you wish to. You don't like it, do without."

              "We're going to be running a promotional event in order to draw in new listeners and hopefully increase the number of paid listeners. During this event neither you nor us will be getting any money from music played during the duration, but we believe the short term loss will be offset by long term gains. You don't like it, do without."

              How ever so terrible that they got to see what it's like on the other end of the 'You don't like it...' deal for once. /s

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 12:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

              "You seem to be willfully misunderstanding what the term 800lb gorilla means."

              Yeah, the multi billion dollar multinational corporations that own the major labels had no choice because they're so tiny, especially given that they have all the leverage given that Apple's music service wouldn't be worth much if all the major labels refused to put their content on there. Give me a break.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          What? Silly rabbit!, 31 Jul 2015 @ 2:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

          "The obtuseness is strong with this one."
          Self reflection or sarcasm?

          "Apple was the one giving away the artists' music, the artists didn't have a choice."

          apple contracted with the MUSIC LABELS to do the give away. As usual with recorded music, the artists had nothing to do with it because it is not within their contractual rights to do anything.

          Taylor Swift herself was not participating in the streaming program as I recall. Since she publishes under her own label, Swift had and used the option to not be a part of Apple streaming.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 9:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

            > the artists had nothing to do with it because it is not within their contractual rights to do anything.

            It's funny, in a bad way, how the post right before yours was arguing the exact opposite set of facts to come to the same conclusion that the people with the most power in the relationship had no obligation to use that power wisely.

            This is the problem with authoritarian retards - just because it is legal does not make it moral. As I said previously Apple was shamed into doing the right thing, not lawyered in to it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 11:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

              This is the problem with authoritarian retards - just because it is legal does not make it moral.

              Name calling, classy...

              Anyway, with that attitude, I trust that you also hold deep contempt for the major labels, who, using their position force artists to sign incredibly one sided deals which allow the label to scoop up all the money, leaving the artist nothing until they 'recoup'(paying back what was 'loaned' to them several times over in the process, if they ever manage it at all)?

              The labels who screw the artists in streaming deals by grabbing the majority of the proceeds, leaving the artists a cut in the single digits(before they grab that too), and then try and blame the streaming service, as though they were the greedy ones for daring to want to make enough money to stay afloat?

              The labels who love to play words games regarding whether or not a digital purchase is a 'sale' or a 'license', depending on what allows them to pay the least to the artist?

              I take it then you hold the labels in contempt for all of the above, and the myriad other tricks they use to hose over the poor saps signed with them? After all, 'just because it's legal does not make it moral'.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          That One Other Not So Random Guy, 31 Jul 2015 @ 2:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

          Oh all those "poor" "poor" artists... Apple trying to add more members to buy their music... how dare they do such a dastardly thing.

          Like I said... boB... THANK GOD we have the labels giving artists their fair share or they would starve and die.

          I like the way boB ignored that one.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:26pm

      Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

      re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations


      Why?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 2:02pm

        Re: Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

        It's bob. He believes that the only people who should be able to make money by engaging in activities that involve other people's work are major corporations that he likes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 4:33pm

      Re: Taylor Swift was right in total, not just "narrowly". -- Garth Brooks rong or wright is irrelevant to her.

      "Brooks is right in fact about used CD sales, that's how should be, but is not law any more than is with books. I'd go for a tax on both those, because re-sellers have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations, but that's a whole 'nother topic, eh?"

      So do you think people selling houses or cars or every used item on eBay have no intrinsic right to profit from those creations either? Would you like to tax every single person selling something they bought? You're right that's another topic, but one you'll never discuss because you know such sheer idiocy would have you mocked clean off the internet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:12pm

    Why do Apple, Spotify, and Pandora even exist? -- Because get high profits being a gatekeeper.

    There's a practical need for central places (just like for supermarkets), but they're all second-handers and letting those middle-men control the markets is a bad idea. They're just NEW gatekeepers.

    Where are the "business models" that actually allow direct marketing? -- They don't exist (except for those old and established) because getting noticed is the tough part!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 2:04pm

      Re: Why do Apple, Spotify, and Pandora even exist? -- Because get high profits being a gatekeeper.

      "Where are the "business models" that actually allow direct marketing? -- They don't exist"

      This is not true at all. There are a lot of artists who are making a living this way. In fact, those are the only musicians I give money to.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:00pm

      Re: Why do Apple, Spotify, and Pandora even exist? -- Because get high profits being a gatekeeper.

      Why do Apple, Spotify, and Pandora even exist? -- Because get high profits being a gatekeeper.

      Don't confuse gatekeepers with enablers. As companies age, they tend to slide from the enabler side to the gatekeeper side of the scale. I would classify Spotify, and Pandora on the enabler side still, but Apple has slide quite bit over into the gatekeeper side.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 12:38am

      Re: Why do Apple, Spotify, and Pandora even exist? -- Because get high profits being a gatekeeper.

      "Where are the "business models" that actually allow direct marketing? -- They don't exist "

      Well, yeah if you ignore the many examples of them it's like they never existed! Saves you having to address the real world, as ever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 12:38am

      Re: Why do Apple, Spotify, and Pandora even exist? -- Because get high profits being a gatekeeper.

      "Where are the "business models" that actually allow direct marketing? -- They don't exist "

      Well, yeah if you ignore the many examples of them it's like they never existed! Saves you having to address the real world, as ever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Maxwell (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 1:51pm

    Just like credit cards...

    Just as credit cards abstracted the concept of money to the people, labels and big distributors(Walmart) abstracted the concept of customers, offer and demand to the artists. That is how Brooks can somehow hold the unbeliveable idea that:

    Step 1: Limit the availability of my music
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Profit for writers, labels, publishers and artists!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:09pm

    Used CDs...

    For all the talk about the death of record stores (to stay with a familiar name) my state still has almost a dozen such stores whose primary income is used CDs. They do sell new CDs, new & used DVDs, new & used computer games, and affiliated merchandise. Every time I go into one there's been some merchandise adjustments, but the fact that they are still in business means that there's still a market.

    And it must still be a profitable business because every time I go into one there's at least 4 employees on duty.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    connermac725 (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 3:51pm

    Lets examine this

    If no one could here music for free saying streaming for free or listening to a friends copy (for free)or even the radio which is free to us
    then how would anyone know if they want to buy it.
    I never buy any cd's without hearing them somewhere free first
    so let her take away the free model it only hurts her in the end.
    besides she is not losing any money except to the vultures who give her these dumb talking points

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 4:28pm

      Re: Lets examine this

      It's easy really, since listening to music without paying for it is piracy, you're supposed to buy, unheard, anything you might listen to. Sure this will lead you to wasting a ton of money on crap music or music you don't want, but you don't want to be a filthy pirate do you?

      /s

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        zboot (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 4:39pm

        Re: Re: Lets examine this

        Umm, no. You get to listen to them. You're paying x amount to listen to whatever songs you want (subject to being available from your streaming provider). That does not convey ownership of said songs. Furthermore, the amortized cost per "listen" is much less (as you'd expect) than the cost of ever purchasing any one song.

        So, you're not wasting a ton of money on crap music you don't want. As you get to choose the music and the cost to listen to unlimited amounts of music is much less than the costs to buy even a tiny fraction of said music.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: Lets examine this

          Yeah, I do not, and never plan on, signing up for a streaming service. Why would I want to pay money for the opportunity to maybe listen to music that I might like, but will never own?

          I'll stick with listening, for free, to music and then buying it if I think it's worth my money, all legally. The 'You're free to pay money to listen, but you'll never actually own anything' people/services can get bent.

          However, that's going off on an unrelated tangent, as neither the original poster, nor my reply, had anything to do with that. What they, and I, were talking about was the people who rail against actual free listening, whether that's a free trial in this case, or any other form of listening without paying.

          They noted, and I agreed, that such stances are decidedly counter-productive, as very few people are going to be willing to buy any music that they haven't heard before, which means cutting down on the people listening just because they're not paying right that second also means you're cutting into the people who might have bought the music later on.

          Someone listening for free now may not be paying now, but someone who never listens at all is never going to pay at all.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 12:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets examine this

            "Why would I want to pay money for the opportunity to maybe listen to music that I might like, but will never own? "

            Well, most services have a free ad supported option if you don't want to pay a subscription fee. But, the answer to that is to discover new music, and/or the convenience of being able to access music from anywhere without having to have synced said music to your device at a previous time, as well as the ability to access a larger collection of music than your device would ever be able to hold.

            "I'll stick with listening, for free, to music and then buying it if I think it's worth my money, all legally"

            So... a streaming service, followed by a purchase option elsewhere? What's your problem with the first part of that?

            "What they, and I, were talking about was the people who rail against actual free listening, whether that's a free trial in this case, or any other form of listening without paying. "

            So, you hate radio as well? Are you also opposed to people borrowing friends' CDs, since they're listening without paying? Where's the line?

            "Someone listening for free now may not be paying now, but someone who never listens at all is never going to pay at all."

            That's true. So, what's your problem with services that allow people to access music legally before they decide to buy?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 3:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets examine this

              I'll start out by suggesting that you might want to read my comments again, as you seem to be mistaking my position for the one I'm criticizing with your later replies.

              So... a streaming service, followed by a purchase option elsewhere? What's your problem with the first part of that?

              Hassle and more work than I care to deal with. I don't really care for signing up to a service just to listen to music, when I can skip the first step by going elsewhere. As for the 'free' tiers, if I was a fan of ads, I'd listen to radio. If I want to listen to music, I want to listen to just music. Sure this does limit what I listen to and am exposed to, but I'm willing to accept that as a trade-off for being able to listen as I want. If other people are willing to accept dealing with ads scattered about their music, good for them, but it's not something I personally care to deal with.

              So, you hate radio as well? Are you also opposed to people borrowing friends' CDs, since they're listening without paying? Where's the line?

              And this is where I feel that you mistook my position with the one I was criticizing. I see nothing wrong with radio myself, even if I don't listen to it myself. Nor with borrowing CD's or what have you.

              Rather, my comment, and the one I was replying to, was criticizing those that do have a problem with that sort of 'free' listening, by pointing out that it's short-sighted at best, and likely to cut down on future dollars in exchange for pennies now.

              That's true. So, what's your problem with services that allow people to access music legally before they decide to buy?

              See above answer. I don't have a problem with such services, rather I have a problem with those criticizing them, as I consider them either greedy and/or short-sighted for doing so.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 7:39am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets examine this

            "Yeah, I do not, and never plan on, signing up for a streaming service."

            This is me, too.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 6:48pm

    "This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt."

    Right, because there only is the Apple trial and no other choice to generate profit. How unfair this world can be *faint*

    And imho a songwriter who wrote I guess one song should not be able to get out of students debt. If you look at people with a university degree they are 100 to 400 k + $ in debt. One Song should never ever....EVER get you that. But in the day we live in I guess a person like Swift wants at least $ 1,000,000 per song. I mean there is a reason she wants to and was able to copyright her name. How could I live without making $300,000 per month? Or like a news person said, 250k per year is poor in New York. Just imagine what that means in Holywood where people of a 30ish minutes show earn $1m per episode (the big bang theory, main actors each)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 31 Jul 2015 @ 10:24pm

    "Brooks said he does not need any money, but..." Bullshit! They more they have the more they want. And after reading the rest of his comment all I can conclude is that he is, or was, a shill for the dinosaur recording industry. Oh yes, I detest country and western and commercial pop music so I wouldn't buy any of their stuff anyway.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 31 Jul 2015 @ 10:53pm

    Brooks said that because no royalties are paid on the sale of used CDs, writers, labels, publishers and artists were being cheated.

    Cheated, my ass! THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN PAID, you stupid, greedy f*ck!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 12:51am

      Re:

      Plus, I hope Brooks never bought a used car, a previously owned house, etc. It would be a shame if he was exposed as a hypocrite because the factories, mechanics, engineers, builders, architects, electricians, etc. didn't get paid a second time when he did that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, 1 Aug 2015 @ 8:18am

    Taylor Swift Is In The Process of Being Bypassed.

    Out of twenty-five or thirty storefront used-bookstores which I have dealt with at one time or another in the last forty years or so, I think only three dealt in new books at all, and at least two of these of these involved special circumstances. One was a feminist bookstore across the street from the University of Pennsylvania, with general used books in the attic, and a limited range of textbooks on the main floor, the class orders being obtained by the proprietress's personal connections with U. Penn professors. Students who went to the university bookstore for most of their textbooks had to go to the feminist bookstore for the books for the one course taught by a feminist professor.

    The other store was a "new age" bookstore-- new spiritualism, and used general paperbacks, and a proprietor who was personally involved in "new age." In the latter case, the bookstore was the only bookstore of any kind within miles, except for a college textbook store, and it picked up some general traffic: people who did not themselves read books, but want to give books as gifts to children, etc. There was also a group of moms bringing their kids in to get a book on something to write a middle-school term paper from, but the bookseller was usually unable to help them, as he couldn't afford to compete with a school library. This was just when the internet was getting going. One time, I led the proprietor back into his shelves, picked out a particular book, handed it to him, and said: "here is a book which you can sell for ten dollars, tomorrow morning, on the internet." The store eventually went out of business, largely because its space was wanted for the expansion of a sports bar.

    You would probably have gone broke trying to manage a collection of used books to the detail required to deal advantageously with a publisher, ie. claiming return privileges, trade credit, etc. The procedures for new books and used books were simply so different, and so were the customers, come to that. Then, too, the real-estate requirements were so very different. Used bookstores were never located in malls, because the rent was too high. I have known a used bookstore to be located in an obsolete supermarket, and another one to be a third/fourth floor walk-up. The latter, the Smith Family Bookstore of Eugene, Oregon, was accounted to be an unusually good used bookstore.

    Of course, there are other possibilities. When I lived in West Philadelphia, in the early 1990's, the area had substantially fewer used bookstores than it could have supported, and the excess market expressed itself in garage/porch/sidewalk sales. Of a Saturday morning, I would go out for a walk, chance upon a porch sale in progress, browse the books, and get something at a (very low) realistic price. People chose to sell their surplus books on their doorsteps, rather than haul them a mile or two to donate them at the public library.

    I don't see why the same principle should not apply to outlets for music or movies. Attempts by famous rock stars, etc. to boycott used outlets are futile. I have just bought a consignment of 350 moves on DVD's for about a hundred dollars, in sets of twenty-five and fifty movies per package, from Edward R. Hamilton. That would be perhaps ten percent of list price for the sets, and a still lower figure for the individual movies, say, about one percent. The trend in the size of the sets is upwards, and that of the per-movie price, downwards. By an inadvertence inherent in aggressive collecting, I bought two copies of one set, and I propose to leave the surplus copy in the apartment complex laundry room, which functions as a local "put-and-take" box. As I see it, the used/remainder movie market is functioning with admirable efficiency, and brutal competition. The DVD backlist market seems to rely more on remaindering, and less on used, compared to the book backlist market, but the end result is much the same.

    It is only a matter of time before the music publishers "see the light," and put, say, a couple of hundred hours of music on a DVD, substantially sans pictures. There were so many artists whose complete published "ouvre" never amounted to more than ten hours. Compared to a streaming service, one of the implications of a DVD is that it is irrevocable, and "first sale." Sooner or later, it winds up in the used market, and prices have to be adjusted downward to compete with it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 11:30am

    Taylor swift could have mentioned record companys get most of the money from streaming ,way more than any artist,or songwriter .
    apart from taylor swift or indie artists who have their own deals on streaming income .
    or artists who own their own record companys .
    many new bands need the exposure from streaming ,
    the money they get from streaming is not so important ,
    as being discovered by potential fans all over the world
    .
    But the record industry has always being good at
    screwing over musicians .
    With bad contracts, keeping control on royaltys etc

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 2 Aug 2015 @ 10:43am

    The only thing worse than being listened to is not being listened to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 3 Aug 2015 @ 3:16am

    I don't know what's worse:

    The artists making these claims who completely forget they've already been paid for the music or the public who listens to this crap while forgetting the musicians have already been paid.

    Swift's argument was completely stupid. Apple paid big bucks to the labels to stream the music, which has direct ties to purchase.

    Brooks thinks the advance studios paid somehow isn't payment, and negates this fact in his diatribe of ignorance.

    Such idiocy. What's stunning to me is that it's always the "big fish" making these ridiculous claims, as if owning three houses isn't enough. They need to shut the hell up already.

    PS: Taylor Swift doesn't own her own label.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2015 @ 3:52pm

      Re:

      Dude RIAA yearns for a time of yore. Per person / per play at controlled times in controlled locations. All gigs must go through them. You know, the works.

      And if they could get those things, they'll still need a reason to keep their jobs so cue legislation forcing people to listen to and buy music.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2015 @ 3:47pm

    Brooks said that because no royalties are paid on the sale of used CDs, writers, labels, publishers and artists were being cheated.

    Now where did i hear this before... ah yes just replace CDs with games:

    [...] because no royalties are paid on the sale of used games, writers, publishers and studios were being cheated.[...]

    How about indie games through PSN+ or Games with Gold?

    This is about the indie developer who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Sony/Microsoft are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for an eight of a year's worth of purchases of his or her games.

    Also I can't reiterate this enough:
    who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt.

    You have to be seriously naive to fall for this kind of thinking nowadays.
    Just like kids who go to college hoping a degree will earn them enough to pay off the debt AND live in luxury...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 12:56am

    out_of_the_blue and average_joe just hate it when due process is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.