Granted it's a way to get a band's name out there--like what radio used to do when there was actual diversity in music being played, etc. Still, if I like a band, I want to support them properly (in my opinion) by actually buying their stuff. Pandora seems more fair to me. I hear bands there all of the time and I buy the CD if it looks like a good CD and not just one good song.
"That person should get their music onto every music service possible in hopes of attracting fans, regardless of the payout rate." See, to me that's ridiculous--especially if the fans they attract only hear them through Spotify. Again, this is precisely because of the threat of piracy or, now, one step up, crappy deals through Spotify.
the crux of my pint is that I think Spotify plays pennies for plays and many people never buy the CD/mp3 that would have paid the artist much more. I don't have those numbers but my understanding is that it is extremely low. Like I quoted someone above, the response is, apparently, "It will get downloaded illegally if you don't make it available with Spotify--so accept our crap compensation."
" No, I didn't. Did I pay for tracks in a jukebox (which probably pay the same or less than a Spotify play individually?). Yes."
I am not following everything you're saying but everyone says they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway and that may be true in your case, but somehow the bottom fell out of music sales. My belief is that for every person that is just sampling the music and wouldn't have bought it anyway, there are several people that would have and don't.
"companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify"
"Again a fallacy spread by those who gain from spreading misinformation. The way I "sell" Spotify to people is to explain how it's actually better than piracy.....and the artist still gets paid....Spotify don't drive piracy or benefit from it - they reduce it and funnel more money back to the music industry."
All of this is why it is convenient for the customer and better than pirating. I am not disputing that. that is still in line with what I am saying, which is that because it is better than pirating doesn't mean it's a good deal. A few pennies for "x" number of plays (and I admit I don't have the numbers, just my understanding) is a fraction of purchasing the music/Cd/mp3 otherwise.
"Customers who can't find an album or artist they want on Spotify is more likely to pirate than those who can."
Again, this is MY point. This is, for lack of a better word, extortion. "It's just gonna get stolen otherwise so take what i am giving you." This is precisely what I think drives Spotify's model.
"I WILL agree that the music industry had a CD-cash model that did not survive and that is a good thing."
"Then why your objection to things that make that model less relevant?"
I meant to say "cash cow". I would agree that $18 a CD is a joke, but $10-14 isn't. I wish people would just pay artists what is realistic. To pull singles off albums? fine, but I think the old model indeed took advantage of people but $.99 for a great song is way off, it is, in my mind, probably worth $2.
My understanding is that Spotify pays a low, low amount in royalties to artists. My understanding is that the justification is that, "this is the new way of doing things, you have to change with the times." Which is a another way of saying, "This is better than people listing for free and thew artist never receiving anything."
I just have to comment to say that because lots of people bought a single legally doesn't mean lots of people didn't download it illegally, *also*. Eesh--logic. Also, AC/DC is obviously an older band--precisely the types of artists whose fanbase was not raised on computers and Napster.
Further, because of the widespread illegal downloading, companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify, get footholds but their model is i a large degree a beneficiary of the illegal downloading problem. It i didn't *fix* anything--it is just the lesser of two evils, leveraged by the illegal trade.
I WILL agree that the music industry had a CD-cash model that did not survive and that is a good thing.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jim.
Re: Re:
Granted it's a way to get a band's name out there--like what radio used to do when there was actual diversity in music being played, etc. Still, if I like a band, I want to support them properly (in my opinion) by actually buying their stuff. Pandora seems more fair to me. I hear bands there all of the time and I buy the CD if it looks like a good CD and not just one good song.
"That person should get their music onto every music service possible in hopes of attracting fans, regardless of the payout rate." See, to me that's ridiculous--especially if the fans they attract only hear them through Spotify. Again, this is precisely because of the threat of piracy or, now, one step up, crappy deals through Spotify.
the crux of my pint is that I think Spotify plays pennies for plays and many people never buy the CD/mp3 that would have paid the artist much more. I don't have those numbers but my understanding is that it is extremely low. Like I quoted someone above, the response is, apparently, "It will get downloaded illegally if you don't make it available with Spotify--so accept our crap compensation."
Re: Re: ACDC
" No, I didn't. Did I pay for tracks in a jukebox (which probably pay the same or less than a Spotify play individually?). Yes."
I am not following everything you're saying but everyone says they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway and that may be true in your case, but somehow the bottom fell out of music sales. My belief is that for every person that is just sampling the music and wouldn't have bought it anyway, there are several people that would have and don't.
Re: Re: ACDC
"companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify"
"Again a fallacy spread by those who gain from spreading misinformation. The way I "sell" Spotify to people is to explain how it's actually better than piracy.....and the artist still gets paid....Spotify don't drive piracy or benefit from it - they reduce it and funnel more money back to the music industry."
All of this is why it is convenient for the customer and better than pirating. I am not disputing that. that is still in line with what I am saying, which is that because it is better than pirating doesn't mean it's a good deal. A few pennies for "x" number of plays (and I admit I don't have the numbers, just my understanding) is a fraction of purchasing the music/Cd/mp3 otherwise.
"Customers who can't find an album or artist they want on Spotify is more likely to pirate than those who can."
Again, this is MY point. This is, for lack of a better word, extortion. "It's just gonna get stolen otherwise so take what i am giving you." This is precisely what I think drives Spotify's model.
"I WILL agree that the music industry had a CD-cash model that did not survive and that is a good thing."
"Then why your objection to things that make that model less relevant?"
I meant to say "cash cow". I would agree that $18 a CD is a joke, but $10-14 isn't. I wish people would just pay artists what is realistic. To pull singles off albums? fine, but I think the old model indeed took advantage of people but $.99 for a great song is way off, it is, in my mind, probably worth $2.
Re: Re: ACDC
My understanding is that Spotify pays a low, low amount in royalties to artists. My understanding is that the justification is that, "this is the new way of doing things, you have to change with the times." Which is a another way of saying, "This is better than people listing for free and thew artist never receiving anything."
ACDC
I just have to comment to say that because lots of people bought a single legally doesn't mean lots of people didn't download it illegally, *also*. Eesh--logic. Also, AC/DC is obviously an older band--precisely the types of artists whose fanbase was not raised on computers and Napster.
Further, because of the widespread illegal downloading, companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify, get footholds but their model is i a large degree a beneficiary of the illegal downloading problem. It i didn't *fix* anything--it is just the lesser of two evils, leveraged by the illegal trade.
I WILL agree that the music industry had a CD-cash model that did not survive and that is a good thing.