Stop Thinking of Yourself as a Good Person: The Ethics and Economics of Music Streaming

http://www.invisibleoranges.com/2015/08/damage-done-how-much-money-i-didnt-spend-in-2014-because-of-spotify/

― Cosmic Slop, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:49 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The thing that makes blog posts like that super fatuous is NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM PURCHASING A NON-STREAMING VERSION OF THE MUSIC YOU LIKE IF THAT'S ACTUALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU. Dude is trying to have his cake and eat it, too; you can't be all "streaming pay rates are criminal, I can't abide that type of thievery to artists OH HEY I SAVED $700 THIS YEAR YAY" without at least acknowledging that your statement of caring about what artists make is a lie you are telling yourself so that you can continue to believe that you uphold the values you think you should have.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:02 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I dunno Dan, I mean life is full of those kinds of economic/moral contradictions. When a product is legally available for less money, very few people will deliberately pay more money for it regardless of their moral convictions (e.g. sweatshop clothing).

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:06 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Nowhere did I say that one shouldn't make the choice to save money. What I said was "stop pretending like the moral question is more important to you than saving money" (with the I hope unnecessary-to-state caveat that we are talking about luxury items that it is assumed the consumer in question can afford; a person who can afford the cost of a device capable of streaming as well as the sustaining costs of a subscription to an online service and a streaming service can afford an offline device capable of playing CDs)

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:12 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

saving money isn't always a choice, often it is more like a necessity

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:20 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

of course anyone who can afford a computer/smartphone and streaming subscription can afford a CD player and CDs/mp3 player and mp3s; the difference is that one is a fixed cost and one is a potentially infinite cost. buying used can cut down that cost significantly depending on what you buy, but A) that itself is a compromise in terms of money making it to the artists and B) it is still a potentially infinite cost.

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:21 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We all (I assume) agree that minimum wage should be raised even if it means paying slightly higher prices but I doubt many of us would voluntarily pay a higher "support workers" price where a lower one was offered.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:40 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not to mention how futile it would be to do so as an individual

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:42 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

again, in many cases you are mistaking "would voluntarily pay" with "are able under our budget to pay"

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:42 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well that's a whole other thing, but "afford" is a slippery concept. When there was no spotify, many of us "afforded" paying more for physical recordings (or else taped/burned them from friends, I guess).

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:44 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you're either referring to a time when illegal downloading was rampant, or when the economy was not a shambles

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:45 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

not that all of this doesn't have moral ramifications -- of course it does, no one is disputing it. but treating it as a completely free moral choice with no other variables -- the equivalent of one of those "flip the switch and kill one person / leave the switch and kill ten" questions -- gets into dicey territory fast.

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:50 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Do all of the people who claim they "can't afford" music also never travel, never eat in restaurants, never go out to bars, never see movies, never purchase books, never partake in any form of entertainment that costs money? I'm sure there are some who fit that category, but there are plenty of people with some discretionary spending who make the rational choice that they "can't afford" to purchase music -- as long as there is a cheaper or free alternative. If the alternative wasn't there, they'd pay for it, and some other part of discretionary spending would take the hit.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:55 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that naivety is built into the article tho. in any retail system handwringing about distributors driving down the profits of manufacturers is addressing the wrong problem - you're decrying a feature of the economic system that's intrinsic to that economic system

― the lion tweets tonight (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:56 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or in brief, lol ethical consumerism

― the lion tweets tonight (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:56 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Do all of the people who claim they "can't afford" music also never travel, never eat in restaurants, never go out to bars, never see movies, never purchase books, never partake in any form of entertainment that costs money? I'm sure there are some who fit that category, but there are plenty of people with some discretionary spending who make the rational choice that they "can't afford" to purchase music -- as long as there is a cheaper or free alternative. If the alternative wasn't there, they'd pay for it, and some other part of discretionary spending would take the hit.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:55 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is perilously close to the "if they're really that poor then why do they have cell phones?" argument

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:57 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

of course anyone who can afford a computer/smartphone and streaming subscription can afford a CD player and CDs/mp3 player and mp3s; the difference is that one is a fixed cost and one is a potentially infinite cost.

Define "fixed cost" here; assuming you mean "a predictable amount every month", either method can be put into a bounded budget controlled by the consumer, making either a predictable amount every month. One does give you more music at your disposal than the other; I'm not disputing that. And xposts make me think that we're pretty much on the same page here, I'm just being kind of a dick about it.

We all (I assume) agree that minimum wage should be raised even if it means paying slightly higher prices but I doubt many of us would voluntarily pay a higher "support workers" price where a lower one was offered.

I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that making that choice when it's offered to you and you have the ability to pay the higher price shows what your actual priorities are, and if your self-image as a "good person" involves the other choice, walk the walk or stop lying to yourself.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:57 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Do all of the people who claim they "can't afford" music also never travel, never eat in restaurants, never go out to bars, never see movies, never purchase books, never partake in any form of entertainment that costs money? I'm sure there are some who fit that category, but there are plenty of people with some discretionary spending who make the rational choice that they "can't afford" to purchase music -- as long as there is a cheaper or free alternative. If the alternative wasn't there, they'd pay for it, and some other part of discretionary spending would take the hit.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:55 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is perilously close to the "if they're really that poor then why do they have cell phones?" argument

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:57 AM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, it's really not at all

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:58 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Define "fixed cost" here; assuming you mean "a predictable amount every month", either method can be put into a bounded budget controlled by the consumer, making either a predictable amount every month. One does give you more music at your disposal than the other; I'm not disputing that. And xposts make me think that we're pretty much on the same page here, I'm just being kind of a dick about it.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:57 AM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that would indeed be the definition of a "fixed cost"

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:58 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

besides, people who use spotify rather than purchase music are not limited to the poor

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:59 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

true, I imagine they also include a lot of middle- and/or working-class people whose budgets more easily allow for $15 a month than $15 a CD

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:01 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that making that choice when it's offered to you and you have the ability to pay the higher price shows what your actual priorities are, and if your self-image as a "good person" involves the other choice, walk the walk or stop lying to yourself.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:57 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Oh, you drive a car to work? You turned on your air conditioning today? STOP PRETENDING YOU CARE AT ALL WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PLANET!

Except if I don't drive my car to work or turn on my air conditioning, it will do exactly zero to slow the advance of global warming. Only collective action works. Just like my putting an extra few hundred dollars a year, in aggregate, in the pockets of all of the artists I listen to will make almost no difference to their lives.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:02 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, if someone is living on minimum wage but has made the choice to be on Apple Music, I'm not churlish enough to be all "you fiend, taking music from the mouths of starving musicians" because that person is doing some budgetary magic of their own to even be in the game (possibly/probably from a losing position). I'm talking about people like me who claim they can't afford to pay for albums, even MP3 albums, but love their favorite artists and lament that the industry is imploding around them; they are lying to everyone, including themselves. If they wanted to, they could afford it; they are choosing not to pay. And what I am saying is "be honest about the ramifications of that choice".

xp: actually I take public transportation to work because I want to limit the driving I do as part of being a responsible citizen in a city that affords me transportation options, but apparently that's meaningless and I should go out and buy 10 Hummers that I just let idle on the side street next to our house

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:05 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

true, I imagine they also include a lot of middle- and/or working-class people whose budgets more easily allow for $15 a month than $15 a CD

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:01 AM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not arguing with this at all! Anyone with a fixed amount of money to spend, which is most of us, is sensitive to what things cost, and is going to be better off financially when they spend less. Still, if there was no Spotify (and no downloading), some of those working/middle class people would decide it's worth spending $15/CD on music (and maybe this would mean slightly less on some other discretionary item), and in aggregate this might amount to more money going to artists. Not that I think going back to that model is on the table.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:05 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I would like to reiterate that my actual point here is "do what you want to do but don't lie to yourself and everyone else about what you are doing"

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:07 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xp: actually I take public transportation to work because I want to limit the driving I do as part of being a responsible citizen in a city that affords me transportation options, but apparently that's meaningless and I should go out and buy 10 Hummers that I just let idle on the side street next to our house

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:05 AM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I take public transit to work too. I also live in a 1300 sf apt though and I do use AC, not cranked, but I use it. I could live with my entire family in a 550 sf studio and avoid AC and dramatically cut my carbon footprint. I could never take an airplane again anywhere and live a perfectly fine life. I could switch to an all-vegan diet. Should I stop thinking of myself as a "good person" because I don't do these things? Do I have no right to argue that there should be collective/regulatory action on global warming because I live an American lifestyle and don't fully "walk the walk"?

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:08 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What does any of this have to do with apple music vs spotify.

― Jeff, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:09 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There should be a separate ethics and economics of streaming music thread.

― Jeff, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:10 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Should I stop thinking of myself as a "good person" because I don't do these things?

Either that or you should change your definition of what a "good person" is.

Also, Jeff is right.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:11 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

since when did ilm threads stick to the opening point? lol

xp

― Cosmic Slop, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:12 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I know, crazy idea!

― Jeff, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:13 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there's no such thing as a "good person," people make thousands if not millions of moral decisions per day, if anything thinking of oneself as a "good person" makes one more likely to be complacent about them

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:13 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol Ethics and Economics of Streaming sounds like it's be a ___ for non-majors course, only I'm not sure what dept

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:18 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Jeff killed the thread

― Cosmic Slop, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:57 AM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the line graphs showing total dollars spent on music over the past 30 years are a horror show for the music industry. what i'm not sure is whether it's the casual fans who are to blame (they didn't buy music anyway, right?), or the hardcore fans like the writer of the article above who have abandoned their expensive habits (are there enough of these people to make a difference?)

i mean, what's easy to forget as someone who Loves Music is that the vast majority of people never bought CDs except as special occasions anyway. like waaay less than 1 a month. so it seems reasonable to suggest that past a certain threshold, streaming subscribers + (diminished) purchasers would on aggregate be spending more on music than just purchasers did before.

― transparent play for gifs (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 12:08 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

saving money isn't always a choice, often it is more like a necessity

that is of course true. but if that's the case for this particular invisible oranges writer, then his using spotify isn't doing any financial harm to anyone, because he wouldn't have/couldn't have bought all those records anyway.

― fact checking cuz, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 12:25 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so is this a thread galley or

you have to pay to open the other thread

If you love pensioners, schools and hospitals so much why dont you give to charity, why should it come out of my pay packet

what is a thread galley?

i mean you posted almost an entire thread...are we suppposed to comment or just admire it

do as you wish, I birthed it, but it is out in the world on its own now.

every time you don't open this thread a cat dies

(for real tho that was nothing close to the entire thread)

lol katherine

If you love pensioners, schools and hospitals so much why dont you give to charity, why should it come out of my pay packet

All of these things* are considered to be public services and should be funded publicly, ie through taxes. No one has of yet put forward the idea that music in the US should be funded primarily through the government (although that would be interesting; I know that Sweden had a program like this which is directly responsible for The Knife's ability to have a career).

* well okay, not "pensioners" specifically, but the idea of a society taking care at a basic level of its citizens after they leave the work force

I should also admit that I was so irritated by that blog post that I never actually made it to the last paragraph where dude says he plans on changing his spending habits, so a good amount of my ire is at a strawman. Sorry everyone!

loool, I was gonna mention that

that's ok, it's nothing compared to my ill-informed rageposts yesterday on that NYer article I didn't read

no thoughts on this except that as katherine hints the answer to "should i stop thinking of myself as a good person" is absolutely, invariably "yes"

Some might say "sociaopathic." ;)

Dammit I meant "sociopathic."

not buying music is infinitely more ethical than buying music theres enough garbage in the world already

^ sounds like a burgeoning effective altruist

i stopped thinking of myself as a good person when i shoplifted something at the age of 16 and got away with it. should i start thinking of myself as a good person, and then stop again?

good people know that music is a necessary evil at best and do not place untoward emphasis upon it

Ppl who earn decent incomes should not tell anyone poorer than them what to spend their money on

Ppl who earn decent incomes should not tell anyone poorer than them what to spend their money on

This is how I feel about it. I used to make a middle class income, now I make a lower middle class income (due to relocating for health reasons and having to take what I could get in my new city, in the relatively poor state of New Mexico). I also have some expenses (due to the same unresolved health issues) I didn't have when I was making a higher income. I stream Spotify on a twelve year old computer which I can't afford to replace at the moment, unless I want to go further into credit card debt than I'm comfortable with at the moment. I do not have a cellphone, but I don't want one anyway.

I'd add something to this thread along the lines of "I don't use Spotify or any other streaming service and this is just one reason amongst many why", but the thread seems to have worked it's way around to that already. I still buy everything I want on CD; I'm slightly more selective about what I want than I was a few years ago, but we've still bought somewhere in the region of 40 CDs this year so far, I'd wager.

Taxes are our shared contribution to a decent society; if you moan about paying them then you're an asshole, btw.

Taxes are our shared contribution to a decent society;

agree

if you moan about paying them then you're an asshole, btw.

disagree

Ppl who earn decent incomes should not tell anyone poorer than them what to spend their money on

― lex pretend, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 6:09 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I totally agree with this btw, this isn't about browbeating anyone into buying CDs. Just saying that what people feel they can afford is often dictated in part by what's available. I mean, I earn a decent income and I still use Spotify for most of my music listening -- there's always something you feel like you need the money for more when the choice is presented, like I can buy a few CDs a month or sign my daughter up for a swimming class instead.

i've always tried to get as much music as possible for the least amount of money, which used to involve primarily buying used cds. streaming actually gives artists more money than that did, so i won't really take any guilt-trips about streaming unless the guilter is going to go the full garth brooks and deride purchasing used products as well.

however, i'm interested in the economics of creative work and i think streaming as it stands is a horrible deal for musicians and independent labels. if they don't, i have no major compunction about taking advantage of it.

and while i dream about buying more pristine vinyl reissues of great music if i ever go up a tax bracket, i'd probably use streaming to find out whether albums are good, cuz i don't want pristine vinyl reissues of albums i don't like on the shelf. now if you're smart like bob seger, you don't give me that option.

i should say "if you're smart like bob seger's manager." seger has said he'd love to give us all a chance to find out whether we like against the wind, but that his manager has some issues with the label re: online platforms, and as seger likes the size of his many houses he's going to let his manager do what he must.

i bought a bunch of new cds this morning for the first time in a really long while, it kind of felt great. i have two kids and less disposable income than i used to when i would buy like 60-70 cds a year so i mainly use spotify or buy used cds but it was kind of amazing to just say "i'm going to buy new music"

also one of those albums i bought today was a three disc set for $25 that i have never listened to before but read positive reviews and heard a strong recommendation from a friend, i haven't made a purchase like that in forever and i felt like i was 20 again or something

joanna newsom thanks u for your business

lol it was kamasi washington

I bought that Kamasi Washington thing too, even though the publicist sent me a download. Going to see him play later this month, too.

I am actively holding bob Seger and Taylor Swift up at gunpoint and making them perform duets, also I'm streaming stuff on Spotify with the sound real low 😎😎😎

We all (I assume) agree that minimum wage should be raised even if it means paying slightly higher prices but I doubt many of us would voluntarily pay a higher "support workers" price where a lower one was offered.

Back when the economy wasn't shit the standard tip at restaurants was 15% and that's what I tipped. Now I tip >20% because the economy is shit and I have a salaried job so the economy is much more shit for a waiter than it is for me. Lots of people do the same. Doesn't that amount to paying a slightly higher "support workers" price? Admittedly, only slightly higher.

When you download a record from bandcamp, and it suggests a price you can pay the band if you like the album and want to keep it, do you pay it? I do. I think lots of people do.

Ppl who earn decent incomes should not tell anyone poorer than them what to spend their money on

― lex pretend, Tuesday, August 4, 2015 6:09 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

look, i get that capitalism is rigged and specifically rigged against the poor, as well as that more money does not make one a better or wiser human being, but there are still such things as good decisions and bad decisions.

there's such things as shuttin the hell up about other ppls's shit too

^^^^^^^^^^^^otmmmmmmmmmmm

Sometimes advice is good.

maybe some people feel they need it but I have never known good advice (unless any answer to a question counts as 'advice', but then credit for asking the question imo)

i think j gets to the root of the real problem, which has nothing to do with money and everything to do with people who feel compelled to give unsolicited advice to strangers, particularly when that advice is based on vague and inappropriate categorizations. talking about what "the poor" should do is just as stupid as talking about what "the muslims" or "the gays" or "the latinos" should do.

also tbh when you're condemned to lose no matter what budgetary decisions you take then being told how you could've done things better is less help than getting yr teeth kicked in

like, nobody is more acutely aware of when they shdn't've treated themselves to those cigarettes/that drink/that pair of shoes/the nice bread than people who have to weigh those decisions daily

Personally, I'd be grateful for a smart friend who regularly challenged my choices of how I spent my time and money. I made a lot of poor choices and I didn't always have the self awareness that I was screwing up that badly. I don't think that's unusual at all.

But I have heard some friends complain about particularly annoying friends/acquaintances who acted like a life coach with no good advice.

Or maybe we're just talking about giving advice to people you know nothing about?

the key thing being not to assume people are unaware of or interested in your views

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/811#Shaftesbury_5987_284

sorry for libertyfund link

I HAVE often thought how ill-natur’d a Maxim it was, which, on many occasions, I have heard from People of good understanding; “That, as to what related to private Conduct, No-one was ever the better for Advice.’’ But upon farther Examination, I have resolv’d with my-self, that the Maxim might be admitted without any violent prejudice to Mankind. For in the manner Advice was generally given, there was no reason, I thought, to wonder it shou’d be so ill receiv’d. Something there was which strangely inverted the Case, and made the Giver to be the only Gainer. For by what I cou’d observe in many Occurrences of our Lives, That which we call’d giving Advice, was properly, taking an occasion to shew our own Wisdom, at another’s expence. On the other side, to be instructed, or to receive Advice on the terms usually prescrib’d to us, was little better than tamely to afford another the Occasion of raising himself a Character from our Defects.

In reality, however able or willing a Man may be to advise, ’tis no easy matter to make Advice a free Gift. For to make a Gift free indeed, there must be nothing in it which takes from Another, to add to Our-self. In all other respects, to give, and to dispense, is Generosity, and Good-will: but to bestow Wisdom, is to gain a Mastery which can’t so easily be allow’d us. Men willingly learn whatever else is taught ’em. They can bear a Master in Mathematicks, in Musick, or in any other Science; but not in Understanding and Good Sense.

otm

i feel like this whole debate is pretty much typical of modern capitalism, huge corporations construct a system that's a massive scam then all the blame is placed on individuals for their small, insignificant little choices within that system.

I mean, if "you" means "me," then the odds are strong -- I used to happily truck around the city going to different record stores, I've bought $$$ imports for a few bonus songs, etc. (I'm sure everyone on ILM is similar). I understand the point that the average joe may be just as happy listening to Generic Indie Band B, if Generic Indie Band A isn't on Spotify.

we have a family apple music subscription, but I noticed that my teen kids mostly use YouTube. They say they can just start with a song they want to hear, and then let the autoplay go; plus, all things being equal, they like having something to look at while listening. they say they don't care about sound quality, and don't care about saving playlists or whatever.

stop thinking of your kids as good people

LOL. I guess the dominant mode of consuming music may be changing as a result of streaming — it's less artist-focused now — and so the idea of "following artists to where you find them" may not apply the way it used to. Of course there are still huge artists who could probably disrupt things if they chose, but I don't want to "put it all on them."

even those artists (massive stars like beyonce, legacy acts like ac/dc, tool, king crimson) are caving in and putting their stuff on spotify.

I wonder if some of these holdouts have secured better deals for themselves with Spotify

I would assume so. For huge acts it's a bargaining tactic, a la Taylor Swift

Artists would still put their music on Spotify (and Youtube) if it didn’t pay out a single cent in royalties, it’s where their audience is now. It just isn’t where your income is going to come from.

I'm probably just setting up a straw man here but what would be a reasonable price to pay for the streaming model - so that artists were fairly paid for their work? It seems like even 10 times the current price (i.e. £1000 a year) wouldn't really suffice and who's going to pay that anyway, even if we're agreed that at some level it's the correct amount? Which makes me think morrisp's argument has some validity, ie there needs to be a tipping point of artists removing their art to a different platform (say Bandcamp) and circumventing the role of labels- a move which, over time, would return the control to the artist, if (and it's a big if?) listeners were prepared to follow them.

Naive, much?

can I just say that seeing someone else's display name w my last name in it continues to be jarring/confusing

If the cop fits.

artists removing their art

anyway, major labels - NOT THE ARTISTS - own huge swathes of the back catalogs that act as a black hole for a streaming service like Spotify, pulling everything else in by virtue of being the place where the most stuff is. If a bunch of current artists that happen to own their own catalogs move, this is still nothing compared to the 99% of recorded music from prior eras that is owned by someone else.

sorry will change if you like, was a joke based on this guy: https://www.instagram.com/jacobcollier

lol not referring to you

or did you think Mo Collier was my real name

http://www.multiverse.org/index.php?title=Shakey_Mo_Collier

xxxp SiriusXM is $150 for base package (you can negotiate it down a bit) — the price was raised this year due to increase in the "Music Royalty Fee" — so assuming artists are adequately compensated by satellite radio, maybe that's a good point of comparison... keeping in mind it's radio, not play-on-demand (which would likely have to cost more).

xp

the ilx name you used for years is your real name now, it's science. thought collier might be part of your actual name lol

(that's $150/yr, btw)

i think it's important to point out that artists don't get compensated by radio plays in the united states, just songwriters

Thx, I don't know how all those royalties work. Also, I guess SiriusXM has overhead that Spotify doesn't... y'know, satellites...

(literal "overhead," lol)

ie there needs to be a tipping point of artists removing their art to a different platform (say Bandcamp) and circumventing the role of labels- a move which, over time, would return the control to the artist

Just to make an obvious point — this is what the "promise of the Internet" was supposed to lead to, back when everyone was working thru the Napster problems — and it seems like the technological reality of the "democratic online marketplace" has been trumped by the "Spotify is where everything is" center-of-gravity factor, which is sure a bummer.

It's almost like people will follow the path of least action and couldn't give a shit about art at all - even when that was paying £15 for a new CD. Who knew?

That burden shouldn't have to be on the backs of the consumers, though. The industry was supposed to have "solved the problem." It's not music fans' fault that a heavily promoted, artist-endorsed music distribution channel is so exploitative.

It seems to be taken as a given in this convo that the labels are inherently and irredeemably exploitative, and just aren't going to change, so there's no point in leaning on that particular pressure point in the chain. Like a force of nature or something.

It seems to be taken as a given in this convo that the labels are inherently and irredeemably exploitative, and just aren't going to change, so there's no point in leaning on that particular pressure point in the chain. Like a force of nature or something.

The last innovation major labels came up with was the "360 deal", where they get a cut of all revenue streams (merch, touring, etc.) rather than just record sales. Does that sound more or less exploitative than what was going on before?

I only seem to speak in a bland register but why are we painting consumers as ethical, sentient beings? We're not, broadly. Even on here, which is, I assume, a relatively invested subset, there's at best a grumbling passivity.

xp More! But again, I work in a creative industry where the artists have well-established avenues for ensuring favorable compensation. You can watch mainstream movies & TV shows via any legitimate avenue, and generally feel comfortable the participants aren't being financially exploited (..."creative" Hollywood accounting notwithstanding, LOL). I know the music biz is a very different ballgame, for a host of reasons, but it's hard to get my head around.

well we don't have functional unions anymore, for one thing (thx rock n roll!)

It's clearly true that Spotify only exists because we (long before I worked here) agreed to work with the majors instead of against them. But Apple had already done that. Unless you really believe that Bandcamp could have beaten the iTunes Store if streaming hadn't happened (and that streaming wouldn't have happened without Spotify), which seems implausible to me, then it's hard to see how this part could realistically have been different.

It seems to be taken as a given in this convo that the labels are inherently and irredeemably exploitative, and just aren't going to change, so there's no point in leaning on that particular pressure point in the chain. Like a force of nature or something.

If we can't convince companies to change to save us all from terrifying global catastrophe, how will me make them change to make themselves less money from music?

It’s the artists (and their management) who negotiate contract terms with the labels, not listeners — though apparently (and sadly) most don’t have the leverage to get favorable terms w/r/t streaming royalties.

i know almost nothing about the film industry, way back or right now, but are there similar discussions happening over on the film threads on ILE ? anywhere on the internet / academia / wherever ? like about netflix / amazon prime / filmstruck / criterion / streaming films in general

are there any useful analogues ?

don’t mean to detail but if anybody has pertinent links i’d be v grateful

See my post 5 slots up, for starters...

ha, sorry.

i need to stop posting on my phone.

thanks !

any other insights also welcome :)

(Basically, everything’s negotiated with the guilds, at least in terms of residuals. This doesn’t mean everyone gets the same upfront deal for the same project, of course — but that’s negotiated between talent and studios/prodcos, and is highly dependent on multiple factors, same as it’s ever been.)

Yeah, the film discussions I've seen centre much more around the dangers to film preservation, stuff getting pulled from services due to rights issues and such.

I think the difference is that the barrier to entry is so much higher on the film side, so there are fewer filmmakers complaining. The hypothetical career path is also still in existence (get your parents to fund your shitty horror script -> take it to Sundance -> direct the next Fantastic Four film) so the discussion is different. But I totally see filmmakers complaining about streaming sites and being asked to work for free, etc.

Also the means of distribution have traditionally been so limited in the indie film world — if you managed to get a film financed & produced, it’s a labor of love, you’re thrilled it gets into a single festival and some ppl see it, etc. Streaming sites that pad out their catalog with low-budget docs & features may not be offering great terms, but the filmmakers probably see it as an avenue that wasn’t open to them before.

It’s not like they could have gotten their film into theaters on an “indie label” and gotten the equivalent of “album sales,” there’s no analogy w/music.

Few years ago, I edited a film website, one affiliated with Indiewire. I am not a cineaste, so I found much of the carrying on therein by self-identified cineastes (who were largely very poor —bordering on incompetent— writers who had only ever written for internet outlets for nothing or for peanuts and never had an incentive to, yknow, get better) utterly tiresome. In my experience, film enthusiasts were handwringing about the integrity of the cinematic experience, i.e. you-must-see-if-at-the-theater-or-it-ain't-film. Also, the sense that post-millenials have no interest in film qua film, to the point that these kids may not even —gasp— have a favorite movie, they just watch shit for 5 minutest on youtube, portended tremendous ill.

Actually, to complicate what I wrote above a bit — it may the case that the rise of streaming has led to a rise of “blockbuster culture” at theaters, where fewer exhibitors are taking chances on smaller films and would rather just book Avengers Pt. 126.

my kid loves movies, her friends love movies, my nieces and nephews love movies, who are these theoretical young people?

Yeah even indie films require the input of so many more skilled/paid people than music, which even on the 'blockbuster' side of music, is a producer team that cranks out a few hundred songs a year plus a few hours from the singer in the vocal booth, I don't think that's a useful model/comparison at all. Even if there's no way to monetize it, still people all over the world will record hundreds of thousands of songs a year, and they'll want to distribute them somewhere: Youtube, Spotify.

The percentage of songs that recoup their cost of recording (including getting paid for the hours writing and recording) from physical sales, digital sales or streaming has to be very close to zero, even back in the heydays of CDs.

Actually, to complicate what I wrote above a bit — it may the case that the rise of streaming has led to a rise of “blockbuster culture” at theaters

This book is six years old and predates much of the handwringing over streaming, but the beginning of blockbuster culture is already in place: 360 deals, winners take all, the Long Tail as entertainment balkanization, etc. etc.

Here's a recent (and long) article which also crunches some numbers:

...there’s a widespread claim that ticket sales have declined because Hollywood’s obsessive focus on sequels, franchises, blockbusters and IP (“SFBIP”) has led many people to stop going to theaters altogether. In fact, the segment of the population that doesn’t attend “the movies” has been unchanged since 2002 at one in four, and a greater share of the population goes to the theater today than at any time between 2009 and 2017.

Nearly all the decline in theatrical consumption has instead come from a reduction in the frequency of attendance by the most intense moviegoers. This reiterates the idea of secular decline; those who loved the product most, love it less each year. (...)

The explanations for this are simple. Over the past 40 years, viewers have added more high-quality screens and sound systems in their homes, the quality of television content has improved, the ability to access this content (e.g. ad free and on demand) has improved, and bigger (and more social) alternative entertainment experiences have emerged, such as Call of Duty and Fortnite. This is similar to the first secular decline of theatrical attendance. Before household TVs emerged, audiences attended the theater 40-70 times per year – after all, it was the only way to watch video news (attendance peaked during World War II). As families added more TVs to their homes (thus allowing family members to individually watch), consumption dropped.

Today, movies earn their keep by displaying content that is best able to defeat at-home consumption and alternatives – to persuade audiences to turn off Netflix, get in their cars, drive to a movie theater with convenient showtimes and available seats, park, buy $10 tickets, sit through 10 minutes of commercials and 20 minutes of trailers as the adjacent seats fill up with strangers, watch the film for 150 minutes while holding off the restroom, then drive home. The only way studios can reliably do this is by offering a spectacle that simply needs to be seen on a big screen (Avengers: Endgame) or has such cultural relevance you can’t wait until the home video release to catch up (Us, or again, Avengers: Endgame). It doesn’t seem to matter if a film like Booksmart is terrific (it is), widely available and evangelized. The role of the movie theater has changed.

HoC going to take this up:

Streaming has changed the music industry - but do the economics of music streaming work for everyone?

We're launching an inquiry into the economics of music streaming today and want to hear from you.

Find out more and submit evidence here: https://t.co/tj3lUEVnZ2 pic.twitter.com/7fov9s99of

— Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (@CommonsDCMS) October 15, 2020

forgot about this thread.

so did we get this sordid

This sounds like a cool idea: https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/inside-the-fight-to-fix-economic-inequality-in-dj-culture/