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

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/