AbsolutePunk.net
   Username
Password
Record Sales News - Page 8
Displaying posts 105 - 120 of 128.
02:52 PM on 10/03/12
Holly HoX!
*
Offline
User Info.
Holly HoX!'s Avatar
This just isn't true if you look at the hard numbers. For my premium account the artist I listen to gets around 1.5 cents per each time I stream one of their songs. that sounds like a small number but it adds up FAST and thats just for when I stream the song, when you take in to account that there are, even for the smallest bands, dozens of streams a day they make more money off of spotify streams than of actually selling music.

Ha. This is just incorrect. Are you in a band with music on Spotify?
02:56 PM on 10/03/12
bladerdude360
saved latin. What did you ever do?
Offline
User Info.
bladerdude360's Avatar
Yeah, look, it's not like I solely download music, and there are plenty of albums that I'm willing to buy, but I support artists from a variety of different avenues. I go to an average of at least one concert a week, I'll buy merch, I'll buy CDs on occasion, and I've even started getting into vinyl (mostly because my girlfriend has a sweet turntable set up so that eliminates a huge cost). At the same time, however, I'm not adverse to downloading music, either, which I would say I do about equally as much as I buy music.

But the thing is, and here is why I don't really have an issue with it from a moral standpoint, there are so many avenues out there for me to listen to free music. These days, I get the majority of my music not from downloading OR buying it, but through a series of shared Dropbox folders that I've set up with a bunch of my friends. We swap music digitally the same way people used to swap burned CDs or tapes. And in essence, "illegal" downloading is just a broader version of that same thing. I just think it's weird that it's acceptable to burn someone a CD or listen to a song for free on YouTube that someone uploads or stream music from BandCamp or buy used CDs and vinyl (actions that artists never see a profit from), but sharing a digital file is apparently morally reprehensible to some people.

There is a HUGE difference between these things. Most of the activities (other than illegal downloading) you listed are covered under copyright law and are within your legal rights (to a certain extent). When you buy physical media (CD, DVD, book, LP, etc.) you actually OWN that copy and have the right to resell it or give it to somebody else. (Interestingly, those rights don't seem to apply to legally acquired digital media (e.g., MP3s)). That is all within the confines of the law. Illegally downloading material is, by definition, illegal. The issue of wanting to compensate an artist is related, but not the same thing. Thus, you could argue you should only buy new items directly from the artist, and that buying used copies is wrong (as record labels and others have tried to argue in the past). However, when it comes down to it, those things are all more ethical and lawful than illegal downloads, which, again, I can't understand the justification for when there are so many other legal avenues for acquiring music (which you pointed out in your post).


EDIT: Here are some links from a different thread that touch on some of these topics:
First Sale Doctrine
Who Owns Your Downloaded Music After You Die?
02:58 PM on 10/03/12
lp670sv
Go Sabres
Offline
User Info.
lp670sv's Avatar
Ha. This is just incorrect. Are you in a band with music on Spotify?
http://www.complex.com/music/2012/07...remium-streams

Note, I told you I have a premium account.
03:25 PM on 10/03/12
Chris Collum
Offline
User Info.
Chris Collum's Avatar
Never apologize for the length - I'm always interested in music discussion!

While I agree that Spotify realistically wouldn't adapt that policy, the emergence of other streaming services will create competition - I could very much see a service promising labels/artists a larger chunk of the pie to win over an audience. That's why Rdio is doing it - they're losing the battle, and it's a feel good/smart promotion. Not sure there's any real basis for the Spotify users vs. Rdio in regards to spending additional money on music - I spend far more than anyone I know on music, which is usually from vinyl (which I always try to purchase directly from the band before a distro).

And I totally agree that the services are setting a scary precedent for the value of music, but again - it's not nothing. Haven't had a chance read that Grizzly Bear article, though I'm dying too (hectic work schedule).

No idea how Spotify could be charted, but definitely think people don't realize the value in its ability to track plays. Though it doesn't pay artists correctly, it's more measurable than illegal downloads.
I gather that your main point is that streaming services like Rdio and Spotify are a step in the right direction and definitely part of the solution, not the problem--which I wholeheartedly agree with. However, I would add the caveat that while they may be part of the solution, I don't think they are THE solution, although I don't know what that looks like haha. Also just speaking personally, unless there's a major crackdown in downloading or someone somewhere invents a streaming service that just knocks me on my ass with how awesome it is, I doubt I'll ever stop doing things the way I do them now: torrenting lots of shit, and buying on vinyl and sometimes CD records I love and can afford.

This just isn't true if you look at the hard numbers. For my premium account the artist I listen to gets around 1.5 cents per each time I stream one of their songs. that sounds like a small number but it adds up FAST and thats just for when I stream the song, when you take in to account that there are, even for the smallest bands, dozens of streams a day they make more money off of spotify streams than of actually selling music.
Interesting. Could you link me to the hard numbers please? I'm a bit skeptical. Also do you know if all artists get the same flat rate through Spotify or is it like Youtube where the more plays/views you get the better compensation you receive?
03:28 PM on 10/03/12
Chris Collum
Offline
User Info.
Chris Collum's Avatar

yeah what suny albany is quite large

Albany, Georgia y'all. Home to Albany State University (an HBCU) and Albany Tech.
03:39 PM on 10/03/12
lp670sv
Go Sabres
Offline
User Info.
lp670sv's Avatar
I gather that your main point is that streaming services like Rdio and Spotify are a step in the right direction and definitely part of the solution, not the problem--which I wholeheartedly agree with. However, I would add the caveat that while they may be part of the solution, I don't think they are THE solution, although I don't know what that looks like haha. Also just speaking personally, unless there's a major crackdown in downloading or someone somewhere invents a streaming service that just knocks me on my ass with how awesome it is, I doubt I'll ever stop doing things the way I do them now: torrenting lots of shit, and buying on vinyl and sometimes CD records I love and can afford.


Interesting. Could you link me to the hard numbers please? I'm a bit skeptical. Also do you know if all artists get the same flat rate through Spotify or is it like Youtube where the more plays/views you get the better compensation you receive?
See the post directly above the one I am currently responding to.
03:43 PM on 10/03/12
texan4lif281
Registered User
Offline
User Info.
texan4lif281's Avatar
One word: Rdio.
03:58 PM on 10/03/12
Chris Collum
Offline
User Info.
Chris Collum's Avatar
See the post directly above the one I am currently responding to.
Only 20% of users have some kind of paid Spotify account, either unlimited or premium, so that's a rate of between 0.7 and 1.5 cents per stream. Even for that 20%, that's significantly less than the approximately 9 cents per track that an artist would make from downloads on iTunes or AmazonMP3. Not glorifying iTunes or Amazon in the slightest, but Spotify really isn't an incredibly legitimate source of compensation for an artist. If I have a premium account, I'd have to go listen to a song six times to equal the pittance Amazon throws an artist's way. If I don't have any kind of paid account, like 80% of Spotify users, I have to go listen to it SEVENTY-FIVE times to equal that pittance. You're telling me most Americans have the dedication and attention span to return to a track seventy-five times in a relatively short time span? Nope, don't think so.

You seemed, however, in your original post to be alluding to a more interesting proposition, which is that people go and stream things on Spotify for free that they wouldn't pay to download. I definitely think this is true, but there's no way to track that, and I am highly skeptical that that factor alone makes up for the egregious inconsistency between what Spotify pays artists in comparison to other outlets.

Edit: Did some independent research and number-crunching, and the most recent figure for what percentage of Spotify users have premium (not sure about unlimited) is about 11.5%, just FYI.
04:08 PM on 10/03/12
lp670sv
Go Sabres
Offline
User Info.
lp670sv's Avatar
Only 20% of users have some kind of paid Spotify account, either unlimited or premium, so that's a rate of between 0.7 and 1.5 cents per stream. Even for that 20%, that's significantly less than the approximately 9 cents per track that an artist would make from downloads on iTunes or AmazonMP3. Not glorifying iTunes or Amazon in the slightest, but Spotify really isn't an incredibly legitimate source of compensation for an artist. If I have a premium account, I'd have to go listen to a song six times to equal the pittance Amazon throws an artist's way. If I don't have any kind of paid account, like 80% of Spotify users, I have to go listen to it SEVENTY-FIVE times to equal that pittance. You're telling me most Americans have the dedication and attention span to return to a track seventy-five times in a relatively short time span? Nope, don't think so.

You seemed, however, in your original post to be alluding to a more interesting proposition, which is that people go and stream things on Spotify for free that they wouldn't pay to download. I definitely think this is true, but there's no way to track that, and I am highly skeptical that that factor alone makes up for the egregious inconsistency between what Spotify pays artists in comparison to other outlets.

Edit: Did some independent research and number-crunching, and the most recent figure for what percentage of Spotify users have premium (not sure about unlimited) is about 11.5%, just FYI.
So because it doesn't pay as well as itunes, a one time purchase, we shouldn't use it? It's a hell of a lot better than pirating and how likely are you to but something that you will only listen to less than 6-75 times throughout the life of owning it? The upfront payment is less, the long term payout is more and the fact that you are making something off of a song that would otherwise just be pirated and you'd see nothing is clearly better.
04:18 PM on 10/03/12
ACA
Next Show: Braid/GreatBigPileLeaves
Offline
User Info.
ACA's Avatar
I don't use Spotify (or any other similar service) because:

a) The interfaces are all inferior to Winamp, and I'll only use the best application to sort, rate, tag, enqueue, and play my music

b) When the service eventally goes out of business, there goes all of my content

I realize I'm in a very small percentage of people who want what I want. I don't care about top singles, or music videos, or anything like that. I want all of my albums in front of me, sorted, manipulated, and displayed in whatever manner I personally deem necessary.

If they want my business (and they probably don't), they'd market to me. When they want my business, they will market to me. I can wait, it's not like Spotify (or any other service) offers anything superior except for being "legal".

I work full-time; I have money. Money isn't the issue. Sell me a better product than I can steal, and I will pay. Charge me for an inferior product, and you won't see my business. Apply this model to movies, television, and a ton of other digital content.
04:18 PM on 10/03/12
alexxxisonfire
OneRecordPerDay.com
Offline
User Info.
alexxxisonfire's Avatar
We here in Tampa are not pleased with our city brothers and sisters.
PREACH
04:19 PM on 10/03/12
sjb2k1
#4
Offline
User Info.
sjb2k1's Avatar
Albany, Georgia y'all. Home to Albany State University (an HBCU) and Albany Tech.
shows that i read the article!
04:24 PM on 10/03/12
Chris Collum
Offline
User Info.
Chris Collum's Avatar
So because it doesn't pay as well as itunes, a one time purchase, we shouldn't use it? It's a hell of a lot better than pirating and how likely are you to but something that you will only listen to less than 6-75 times throughout the life of owning it? The upfront payment is less, the long term payout is more and the fact that you are making something off of a song that would otherwise just be pirated and you'd see nothing is clearly better.
I never said not to use Spotify, it's a very cool service and definitely part of the solution to this issue, just not a complete solution. And yes it is obviously SOMETHING, making it better than pirating. I remain absolutely unconvinced, however, that the long-term payout is more, much less even equal to other outlets, and I will remain so until you show me clear-cut evidence to the contrary.
04:32 PM on 10/03/12
Journey408
Offline
User Info.
No Avatar Selected
i still don't understand how they work

04:50 PM on 10/03/12
moneymaker.
Regular Member
Offline
User Info.
No Avatar Selected
most bands don't make money off of album sales anyways. its all about selling out shows. unless you have a hit single that sells on itunes or amazon mp3
Options
Related News Stories

NEWS, MUSIC & MORE
Search News
Release Dates
Exclusives
Best New Music
Articles
CONNECT
Submit News
Forums
Contests
Mobile Version
AP.net Logos
HIDDEN TREASURES
AbsolutePunk Podcast
Free Music
Sports Forum
Technology Forum
Recommendations
INFORMATION
Advertising
Contact Us
Copyright Policy
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
FOLLOW
Twitter | Facebook | RSS
PropertyOfZack
PunkNews.org
UnderTheGun
Chorus.fm