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

I don’t understand the section of the NPR article where they talk about how great the Bandcamp model is, but then dismisses it (and other alternatives) because they won’t “topple Spotify.”

I interpreted it as being about the fact that Bandcamp is still a download-based model, and most people don't care about downloads these days. They don't pay anything for a stream, the streaming function is just 'try before you pay'.

So people paying for music on Bandcamp are either doing it because they still like to own mp3s, are a DJ, or use it as a tip jar for musicians that they otherwise stream.

Actually, I'm not factoring in the Bandcamp app, that must be more about offline streaming? I've never used it.

You can stream on Bandcamp (website & app); it just makes you pay after you’ve streamed an album for free x number of times. At least, that’s the setup I most frequently encounter there.

(And yes, you also get to download the album once you’ve paid)

Bandcamp is the only place I routinely pay for digital copies of music, in part because they offer lossless as well. In this high bandwidth age the trivial savings of mp3 compression vs the audible defects make this a line-in-the-sand issue. I want to hear the audio the artist made, not an approximation the engineers at Fraunhofer tell me is good enough because "Tom's Diner" sounded fine through the codec.
I used to nearly always buy the physical releases as well, until the US postal service lost its mind and started charging $15 shipping (Australia) for a $10 CD. Now I buy the digital and add a few bucks for good measure. I don't know if the perception is wrong but I feel like it goes more directly to the artist on Bandcamp. I used Spotify for a month a few years back, but deleted my account and have never been interested again.
But then I have the overhead of maintaining a digital library of more than 40 000 tracks - it's my equivalent of gardening.

Bandcamp is the online indie label. Everything they do, from stressing downloads over streaming, to the relatively artist-friendly profit split, to the user interface, to the carefully rolled out editorials/curation, to not checking for samples with bots, reflects independent sensibilities. Users love it, and increasing numbers of professional musicians feel comfortable there. But it remains a place for self-driven music fans who enjoy the hard work of searching for things themselves.

Yes, Bandcamp is filled with the same kind of recommendations that Spotify is. But there are 10,000 underlying business & UX decisions that keep the content indie, keeps the music feeling unmediated, and keep out blatant monocultural intrusions / recommendations. And if Bandcamp ever started tilted towards those 'trusted' (subsidized) recommendations that allowed it to scale, and Drake links started showing up when I went there to buy a Blue Gene Tyranny CD - the game would be up. It's already astonishing to me that Bandcamp has scaled as big as it already has, while staying what it is.

I think the low-key most impressive thing about Bandcamp is that once you've paid for an album once, you can upgrade for free if you want. You can download it as 320kbps MP3s when you first purchase it, then come back later and download it again as WAV files, without having to pay twice.

It's already astonishing to me that Bandcamp has scaled as big as it already has, while staying what it is.

yeah. I mean it's just spectacularly good. I hadn't even considered the possibility of Bandcamp turning heel in my mind until your post, honestly, and I get depressed contemplating it

You can stream on Bandcamp (website & app); it just makes you pay after you’ve streamed an album for free x number of times. At least, that’s the setup I most frequently encounter there.

― the last Berry La Croix in the work fridge (morrisp), Sunday, July 28, 2019 5:59 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Yes, but artists don't get paid per stream (just for downloads), so I hope there aren't people feeling good about themselves for only streaming on Bandcamp instead of Spotify.

Also the limited number of plays thing is configurable by the artist, I believe.

(just to be clear, I really love Bandcamp, but I get that it's always going to be a niche music nerd thing in some sense)

I guess I’m still confused — if I pay for an album on Bandcamp, I’m certainly not going to feel “bad about myself” for continuing to stream it from there... that’s the payment model.

And if certain artists allow unlimited streaming without payment (which I haven’t encountered) — well, obviously you should buy the album if you enjoy it. Seems those artists have chosen the promotional / “honor system” model.

As for Bandcamp being “niche” — that’s the point I made above... if Taylor Swift had kept her music off Spotify & Apple and went to Bandcamp, it wouldn’t be “niche” anymore, right?

(And not to put this all on Taylor Swift; but clearly it’s not all ok the “users,” either — the industry has chosen to embrace the streaming services, and fans are going to use them. The article discusses these better models that exist, but then dismisses them because... the industry won’t embrace them? So what are listeners to do? I still buy my favorite albums on CD, but that’s obviously not happening for most listeners anymore.)

*...not all on the users

I was talking about streaming without paying for a dl, not after.

And it would be great if a huge artist went bandcamp-only, but most people still aren't interested in downloads (which I think of as bc's focus). But like I said, I personally don't use Bandcamp for streaming all that much, mostly dance music downloads, I just wasn't thinking of it like that.

Saying it's not all on the users because "fans are going to use them" never held water with me - the argument basically being "can you blame ppl for not being able to resist this great temptation?" I don't expect people to resist temptation, but just bc they cant be expected to resist the unethical thing being offered to them doesn't make them blameless.

I mean, as a regular non-mega star, why not tailor your songs to your live shows which can make you loads of actual money

People have been repeating the argument "replace your lost revenue via live shows" since the dawn of file sharing, and yet so many of these clueless artists still haven't chosen to just unilaterally decide to make more money via "live shows"... sad!

Blameless for what? For accessing music via the Spotify/YouTube links that their favorite artists are tweeting out?

We spent the 2000s gently clicking at friends that they really shouldn’t be downloading music, b/c it’s screwing the artists. Now that that the industry has a new model, our message is supposed to be, “The artists promoting this are still getting screwed, so you should... go back to iTunes or buying CDs?”

*gently clucking

And like I said, I do still personally buy some CDs and downloads (in addition to subscribing to YT Music); but I’m not gonna tell a 15-yr-old to do it, that ship has sailed.

Kind of imho, yeah! The artists are only being forced to go all-in on participating in this new model that vastly undercompensates them bc consumers are unwilling to buy CDs anymore? And the reason no one is willing to buy CDs anymore is because they have access to this new cheaper way of hearing music, which has the side effect of vastly undercompensating artists.

Saying "what are people supposed to do, actually buy CDs?!", as if thats some kind of bizarre behavior akin to eschewing electric lights for oil lamps or something, is part of the problem and exactly what the big labels & tech companies wanted to trick us all into thinking.

xp

btw there's another reason to stop thinking of yourself as a good person while streaming music which i don't think has been addressed itt

Although the shift from physical media to streaming has reduced cost and plastic pollution, using services like Spotify and Apple Music is driving up carbon emissions and contributing to climate change, a recent study says.

The Cost of Music is a joint venture between the University of Glasgow and the University of Oslo, and warns that the energy used to store and stream digital media is just as harmful for the environment as plastic waste.

Although the amount of plastics consumed by the industry dropped to 8 million kilograms in 2016 from a high of 61 million kilograms at the CD’s peak in 2000, when the study translated the production of plastics and the generation of electricity into greenhouse gas equivalents (GHGs), streaming generates far more. While GHGs peaked at 157 million in 2000 under the physical era, the generation of GHGs by storing and streaming digital files is estimated to be between 200 million kilograms and over 350 million kilograms in the USA alone.

Dr Kyle Devine, Associate Professor in Music at the University of Oslo, said: “These figures seem to confirm the widespread notion that music digitalised is music dematerialised. The figures may even suggest that the rises of downloading and streaming are making music more environmentally friendly.

“But a very different picture emerges when we think about the energy used to power online music listening. Storing and processing music online uses a tremendous amount of resources and energy – which a high impact on the environment.”

link ?

https://www.factmag.com/2019/04/09/streaming-music-emissions-study/

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/183249/

ty

Hakuna repeatedly otm upthread

People have been repeating the argument "replace your lost revenue via live shows" since the dawn of file sharing, and yet so many of these clueless artists still haven't chosen to just unilaterally decide to make more money via "live shows"... sad!

― “Hakuna Matata,” a nihilist philosophy (One Eye Open), Monday, July 29, 2019 11:13 AM (thirty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yes, I love this. "Just get in the van and play, man, you'll build an audience that way!" As if venues are just scrambling to fill their calendars with bands who don't draw.

And the reason no one is willing to buy CDs anymore is because they have access to this new cheaper way of hearing music, which has the side effect of vastly undercompensating artists.

Never accept the "just make money from live shows" argument from anyone who hasn't carried a drumset and Ampeg bass cab up a narrow flight of stairs

Saying "what are people supposed to do, actually buy CDs?!", as if thats some kind of bizarre behavior akin to eschewing electric lights for oil lamps or something, is part of the problem and exactly what the big labels & tech companies wanted to trick us all into thinking.

― “Hakuna Matata,” a nihilist philosophy (One Eye Open), Monday, July 29, 2019 10:28 AM (twenty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

first, i think this is kind of an unimaginative and not very constructive response to the Streaming Question. the reason that young people don’t, and other people have stopped, buying CD’s is tied in with a gigantic cultural, economic, sociological shift in the ways in which humans interact, share information, and experience art in the 21st century. a future with equitable pay for musicians needs to address this systemically, e.g. via expansion of public funding for the arts

secondly, it ignores that (a) more profits via CD or other physical media sales doesn’t necessarily translate into more money for the artist and (b) there’s absolutely nothing about a physical CD that makes it more valuable than a dl in any meaningful way: at the height of the CD era, labels could charge that much because people perceived the experience of hearing the music to be worth many dollars. now that that illusion is gone, you can’t just go back !

morrisp 100% otm, these artists are SHARING THE LINKS to streaming sites on social media, but we’re supposed to wag our fingers at the fans who click and stream ? because they didn’t buy a CD instead ?

also the “i still buy CDs even tho the big labels don’t want me to” is the lamest genre of noncomformity

lol UMS otm

also morrisp otm, again

xps

morrisp 100% otm, these artists are SHARING THE LINKS to streaming sites on social media, but we’re supposed to wag our fingers at the fans who click and stream ? because they didn’t buy a CD instead ?

Whether or not the artists engage with the new model is irrevelant - they have no choice due to the changed habits of consumers. Saying such-and-such capitalist structure must be ethical because producer/workers are participating in it is backwards logic.

Sometimes being an ethical consumer means paying more than the barest minimum that you are legally obligated to by the existing consumer system, this is not a radical idea, no?

Remember the ‘80s and early ‘90s, when the story was how artists were getting screwed on CD sales b/c their contracts still treated them as an “experimental” medium? There was no movement to shame listeners into getting back into LPs; it was treated as an industry issue for artists’ management to solve with the labels (which they did).

This is a different beast imho bc under the current status quo the biggest & most powerful artists are also profiting inordinately from the new model - the artists who are being screwed the most are the ones with the least negotiating power. Saying "I'm sure it will all work itself out behind the scenes without anyone having to change their consuming habits" is some magical thinking.

i didn’t say it was ethical

i just said it’s misguided and ultimately ineffective to situate a critique at that particular node in the system

xp

More misguided and unrealistic than expecting all that lost sales revenue to get magically replaced with an wholesale systemic change in the way arts are funded? Ok.

the artists who are being screwed the most are the ones with the least negotiating power.

And how many of those artists have sufficient control over their music to bring it (exclusively) to Bandcamp or SoundCloud, with their superior “pay to stream after x plays” model? No one has answered this, other than to tautologically reply that those services are “niche.”

Or you could just... buy the album?

some very tortured arguments itt for solving the problem of musicians not being paid fairly by somehow spending less money on music

duh why didn’t i think of that

xp

xxp That IS buying the album. It costs the same. You’re just not burdened with a physical CD, which (as b.j. adeptly pointed out above) is an outdated medium for numerous reasons.

solving the problem of musicians not being paid fairly by somehow spending less money on music

who is saying this ?

xp Yeah morrisp I agree but this is what you wrote

And how many of those artists have sufficient control over their music to bring it (exclusively) to Bandcamp or SoundCloud, with their superior “pay to stream after x plays” model? No one has answered this

What other platforms the artists work is available on is irrelevant, if you can buy the album, buy the album, problem solved.

So much effort is expended to make this issue seem like some responsibility of the artists to make their music more available, or more available in exactly the right ways, or less available in some ways but more available in other ways, etc etc. But the option to pay a price for music that fairly compensates the artist hasn't changed, whether its buying cds or lps, paying on bandcamp or whatever. Saying "if only the artists did this" or "if only the indie labels did that" doesn't change the fact that you almost always have the option to buy the music at a rate that fairly compensates the artist.

Saying "since they've been forced by industry changes to offer their music on the most popular platform for consuming music, it is therefore fair for me to consume it that way" is a nonstarter.

More misguided and unrealistic than expecting all that lost sales revenue to get magically replaced with an wholesale systemic change in the way arts are funded? Ok.

― “Hakuna Matata,” a nihilist philosophy (One Eye Open), Monday, July 29, 2019 11:33 AM (twenty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i never uttered the words “an expansion of public funding for the arts would be easy and uncontroversial”

i do think it’s something worth fighting for, though, and implying that it could only happen via “magic” is both shitty and kind of weird coming from the person who insists that this very simple problem could easily be solved if we just get the generation raised on smart phones to start buying CD’s en masse and also this money will go straight to the artist of course

buy the album, problem solved.

you’ve got to be joking

What other platforms the artists work is available on is irrelevant, if you can buy the album, buy the album, problem solved.

I do "buy the album" (if I like it and want to keep listening). Who is the "you/me" you keep addressing? The vast majority of listeners (especially young ones) are going to listen via the path of least resistance -- streaming -- and my p.o.v. is that: (a) artists should indeed be justly compensated, and (b) if there are business models which accomplish that (which the article posted above says is the case), then those are the models which artists, labels, and their management should be pushing/adopting/using whatever. It's not a chin-stroking philosophical argument, and nor is it about bullying teenagers into buying DiscMans (cuz that's not gonna work).

budo I half agree with you in the sense that, while each thing would be good (massively structural economic shift to public funding of arts, kids buying music instead of streaming), neither is likely to ever happen imho, I guess we disagree on which thing is less likely to never happen, but w/e, splitting hairs at that point

Budo the catalyst for me posting itt was just morrisp’s statement that “but clearly it’s not all on the users either — the industry has chosen to embrace the streaming services, and fans are going to use them”

Which like, whatever the solution is, considering how previous methods for buying music still exist, then clearly the blame is on the consumers who shifted their spending habits? Doesn’t seem like a controversial conclusion to me. Not arguing for government-issued DiscMans for every teen or w/e, but it seems obvious on its face that the drop in compensation for music is the result of ppl finding ways to justify not paying as much for music as they used to.

buy the album, problem solved.

you’ve got to be joking

― budo jeru, Monday, July 29, 2019 1:02 PM (fourteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

2019

my whole point was that public arts funding would only be one aspect to address a structural problem

changing consumer habits could potentially change things for the better, my problem is that you haven’t considered the disparities between artists re: retail price vs. paycheck. the music industry is really complicated !

morrisp already made the point that, at a time when p much one’s only option was “just buy the album,” this did not necessarily mean better material conditions for the artist. in a utopian world where everybody shuns streaming and buys CD’s, what guarantees the welfare of the artists ?

xp

Which like, whatever the solution is, considering how previous methods for buying music still exist, then clearly the blame is on the consumers who shifted their spending habits? Doesn’t seem like a controversial conclusion to me.

anyway if this is your starting point we’re never going to get anywhere constructive so, i disagree