from the say-what-now? dept
"So, what does hearing your favorite song mean to you?" asked Neil Portnow, the president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which awards the Grammys.Behind him as he said this, was this fabulous clip art visual aid (seriously, can't the Grammy's come up with something a little better as a graphic?)
He then explained that when people use streaming-music services, the artists and others behind those songs earn "a small fraction of a penny" per song.
"Isn't a song worth more than a penny?" he asked, as the audience cheered. "You bet. Listen, we all love the convenience and we support technologies like streaming that connects us to that music. But we also have to make sure the creators and artists — like Joey over there — grow up in a world where music is a viable career."
...did the RIAA guy just slam Spotify and ISIS in the same sentence?? #GRAMMYs— ToddInTheShadows (@ShadowTodd) February 16, 2016
grammys have now turned into a spotify attack ad— josh lewis (@thejoshl) February 16, 2016
Oh my god. This anti Spotify ad at #GRAMMYs is so ridiculous.— Christina Warren (@film_girl) February 16, 2016
Oh the #GRAMMYs just took a turn down anti-streaming. Doesn't Joey deserve more than a penny? C'mon Larry & Mark!— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 16, 2016
What would the Grammys be without Neil Portnow berating a portion of its audience?— Chris Barton (@chrisbarton) February 16, 2016
Not sure what that guy at the Grammys is talking about—when I was a kid CDs were 8 for a penny and artists did great pic.twitter.com/FA91DwI5vV— Dan McQuade (@dhm) February 16, 2016
It also ignores how free streaming services have actually helped bring revenue back into the music industry by decreasing piracy rates drastically and getting people to move to legal options. Demanding ever higher rates only serves to cause these kinds of companies to fail. And all that will do is drive people back to totally unauthorized services where artists and copyright holders don't get any money directly.
Of course, this is the way things always work for the legacy recording industry. They see a new technology -- a technology they didn't support, don't understand, and fought against initially -- suddenly making them some money and they start demanding more and more and more until they kill the golden goose. They do this over and over again. Remember how ringtones were suddenly making the industry money? They kept demanding more money for them, and no one cares about ringtones any more. Or how about music video games? Once again, the record labels started insisting that they weren't getting paid enough, and look at what happened to those games?
It's one thing to negotiate different payment structures, but the constant whining and bullshit about "fairness" when "fair" appears to be something like 200% of any revenue any music tech company makes is beginning to wear a bit thin, don't you think? Once again, these are the same people who fought tooth and nail against any of these technologies, and now that they actually got built AND are helping the industry and musicians actually make some money, these same talking heads whine that it's not enough? Really? Go build your own damn technology service, and you'll quickly discover that it's not that easy. And then maybe they'll stop whining with bullshit claims. But that seems unlikely. The whining never ceases. And yet they call fans "entitled"?