Pulling Music Off Spotify Sends Exactly The Wrong Message
from the driving-people-back-to-piracy dept
There's been a lot of hubbub the last couple days over Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke and producer Nigel Godrich deciding to pull Yorke's solo work and his songs with his "new" group Atoms for Peace off of Spotify, and then have each of them go off on a bit of a Twitter rant about how Spotify doesn't pay enough."The numbers don't even add up for Spotify yet. But it's not about that. It's about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable," Godrich, whose production credits include albums for Radiohead and Paul McCartney, tweeted. "Meanwhile small labels and new artists can't even keep their lights on. It's just not right."Of course, this is nothing new. We see the same sort of misguided complaint pop up every so often. And, as always, the decision gets everything almost 100% backwards. Pulling music off of Spotify doesn't help artists get paid. It merely drives people back to piracy. Yes, small labels and new artists have lots of challenges today, but that's always been the case. In the past, the vast majority of new artists were never able to make a dime. Today, they have lots of options for how to make money, but their biggest issue is just getting heard in the first place -- and that's one thing that Spotify helps with. Not being on Spotify means that, for many Spotify users, you don't exist. I don't see how that helps at all.
He continued: "Streaming suits [back] catalogue. But [it] cannot work as a way of supporting new artists' work. Spotify and the like either have to address that fact and change the model for new releases or else all new music producers should be bold and vote with their feet. [Streaming services] have no power without new music."
Of course, what these complaints miss is that Spotify (and the other business that normally gets attacked, Pandora) are still relatively small businesses. If they're ever going to be able to grow to the point that they can actually pay the sort of money these artists expect to get, then they have to be allowed to do so. Yet, both Spotify and Pandora currently are nowhere near profitable, and a big part of that is because they're paying out much more than sustainable rates -- and the copyright holders are still complaining it's not enough.
But we live in a world now where no one can really just sit back and wait for the checks to come. You have to be looking at a multi-platform strategy to survive and to thrive and -- contrary to the claims of Godrich, above -- plenty of new artists are figuring that out. They use Kickstarter and Bandcamp and Reverbnation and Topspin and Patreon and Facebook and Twitter and a dozen other services to help them make a good living -- and part of that is that they rely on services like Spotify and Pandora to get recognition and to build a fanbase. Going "on strike" -- which is effectively what this is -- isn't particularly useful here. There are always other artists fans can listen to, or they're just going to go to unauthorized sources.
And, making Spotify pay even more upfront isn't very smart either. Given how much the company is already paying out, plenty of people are reasonably wondering if the company can even stay in business. How could it possibly make sense to demand more money from Spotify if it means that the company won't even be in business in the future. Then the artists get no money. Demanding more money than the company can recoup from its listeners is incredibly anti-fan and anti-musician, because you're only serving to stifle a useful platform.
Meanwhile, from everything we've seen, the claims that Spotify pays less than other sources is hogwash as well. We've now seen two studies that have both suggested that on a per listener basis, Spotify pays significantly more than almost every other incremental source of revenue that pays per play. Lots of people think that radio pays more, but what they forget is a single broadcast on radio may go out to hundreds of thousands, or sometimes over a million, people. Divide the per play amount down by that and we've heard estimates that Spotify pays nearly 10x in terms of both composer and performance royalties (outside the US, since in the US there are no performance royalties for revenue -- so there, Spotify pays infinitely more).
So, yes, this is a big PR stunt that tries to make Spotify look bad as something of a weak negotiating ploy for an artist who has made a tremendous amount of money under the old system. But to then claim that they're sticking up for new artists, while trying to effectively demand a change that will bankrupt one of the fans' favorite methods of finding new music? That makes no sense at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: atoms for peace, money, music, music services, nigel godrich, obscurity, royalties, thom yorke
Companies: spotify
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Straw men and reality
Lets move away from strawman arguments and look at a real-life case, me.I have over 1,000 CDs and almost as many vinyl LPs in boxes sitting in a storage unit because I don't have space in the apartment to store them. By any standard, having purchased several thousands I've been a good customer of the record industry.
I also have close to a terabyte of MP3s, a mix of legally purchased ones, ones that I ripped from CDs I own and some that are arguably "pirated". So I have a huge music library at my disposal.
But I listen almost exclusively to music on Spotify (and for some tracks, Sony's Music Unlimited) because it is available wherever I am with having to remember to either take the CD or MP3 with me. Spotify provides the ultimate convenience and covers all the music I listen to. Note the last statement. The only music I listen to is on Spotify. That means if your music isn't there, I won't ever hear it. Instead I'll listen to up and coming artists on tiny labels. Groups like Nightmare Air or Lucius, groups which get no airplay or promotion. Groups that I support by going to their shows when they are in town.
Spotify and services like it are the future of music. If Thom Yorke or Radiohead don't want to join in, they will just die off like the dinosaurs they are.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not being on Spotify means that, for many Spotify users, you don't exist.
Actually this is true anywhere. You simply won't go to a show if you don't know the artist. For a musician it's their best interests that their music is out and being wildly shared to form a dedicated fan base. Spotify is but a single platform, you need to be EVERYWHERE. Not true? Then why do the MAFIAA pay radios (the infamous payola) to get their sponsored artists into the top charts? Mind you that the guy is complaining Spotify doesn't pay while the industry actually takes losses at first to put artists in the top... Maybe he should go connect with the fans, go on tours and the likes before complaining no money is being made?
It's pretty comfortable to earn money without lifting a finger eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here we have the arrogance of an established musician thinking his music is worth listening to more than others. They don't understand if their music isn't on Spotify, then their fans and potential fans are listening to someone else. They're not the only ones making great music.
Then again, Radiohead long ago chose art over popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Precisely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd agree for the most part with classic bands, though I've been to quite a few concerts where the band played a number of "new" songs and a number of their classic hits, and I didn't feel cheated. (Incidentally, for those bands, I started listening to their new music after hearing them play it in the concert.) A musician who has CwF:RtB usually has nothing to fear...their fans love them and will be a little more forgiving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When the sales drop or the royalties drop or they need more money, the older artists who don't want to create new material (not all are like that, Dylan still creates new stuff) and just get together and tour (usually with other bands in a similar state). Nothing wrong with that, living off your past work and working (touring) because they are working with what is known.
It would be a great challenge for someone who had a hit or two or five 30 years ago to make a comeback unless their new material is really really good.
Again though, current artists, new artists, indie artists, DIY-ers just doing it as a hobby, and the older artists trying to sustain a living, they are ALL trying to get a slice of the pie.
The pie has NOT grown like many think, because more than just music is available now, movies are strong competitors, as are books (some people still read - shocking i know), TV shows, and of course, video games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that there are tons more ways for a musician to make money off their music, rather than just 'sign with a label and hope you make the top 2%', the pie has increased enormously. Now this has increased competition, as people only have so much money and time they can devote to music, but the possibilities and potential outlets for musicians have never been higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is the more musicians out there, the more the pie is sliced. Yes there are new ways for musicians to generate income, and the more creative they are, the larger their slice.
However, there is still a limit to what the populous can spend on music or music related items. Groceries, rent, etc.. take priority over entertainment. And my point was even within the entertainment industry, there is competition between movies and music and books and video games, so the more players that enter, the smaller the slice of the overall entertainment pie.
I don't think there's more money to be spent on entertainment that before, not significant anyhow. Especially since the world economy isn't exactly booming.
I am not so certain that the available pie is much larger, though I could be wrong. I am just trying to logic through this, based on what we've read here and in the media and seen in the economic fields (rise of video games, loss of jobs, more musicians coming out of retirement to tour).
I don't have more disposable income to spend on every damn band that wants to tour, even though the RIAA somehow thinks I do. I am quite selective. There are other things I'd rather spend my money on or NEED to spend my money on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To explain: While I'd agree that the money each person has to spend on entertainment, be it music or otherwise is probably around the same, at the same time with more and easier ways to listen to music other than just radio or buying CD's I'd imagine that the number of people listening to and buying music has increased, and will continue to do so as long as more services like Pandora/Spotify are able to survive and grow.
So I guess on a individual basis you could say the pie remains the same, while looking at the music scene overall the pie has increased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But people who used to spend their $$$ on records/tapes/CD's have switched to video games. We've come a long way since Atari and it used to be cool to hang at the local music store, buying what you could afford, now people have gaming parties.
Unless there are still tones of people who get together to spin records/CD's/stream music like they used to.
I am just finding it difficult to see the increase in the overall pie, other than factoring in the globalization (ignoring BS "this is not available in your region" restrictions).
Do you see evidence of an increase in music spending in the US? per user total spending?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the same time though due to how low the barrier to listening/purchasing music has become(1 download and a few bucks for an album/couple of singles), I'm still thinking that the pie as a whole has grown for musicians, though it's a gut feeling right now, as I'm not quite sure how I'd find stats on music profits/purchases as a whole(just looking at MPAA stats wouldn't do much, as they have been getting a lot of competition from the internet, and so wouldn't be that useful to show the music industry as a whole).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have an idea, fans should vote with their wallets and not buy music by losers like him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pulling music off of Spotify" limits their GRIFTING.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Techdirt Axiom #1: Mike once quipped "Streisand Effect" = he's the authority on every topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Pulling music off of Spotify" limits their GRIFTING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Pulling music off of Spotify" limits their GRIFTING.
Difficulty: trying to compare to sales will out you as a moron, since these are not sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Pulling music off of Spotify" limits their GRIFTING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Pulling music off of Spotify" limits their GRIFTING.
You do realise that the MONEY that Spotify is getting is less than the MONEY that Spotify is paying right? Are you saying that a company running at a loss is being greedy? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, look. Mike is blaming the artists for the fact that people willingly choose to violate artists' rights. The pirates were merely driven to it, of course. It's not their fault that they are selfish people. It's not their fault that they choose to pirate. The pirates are the victims! Yay, Techdirt! Gotta love that Mike. He thinks piracy is not OK, can't you tell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Must be tough living in such a myopic world....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could you be more dense please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Could you be more dense please?
He's making it sound like someone's decision to not put their music on Spotify drives pirates to piracy. It's putting the blame on the rightholder. It's Mike's standard pirate apologism bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ummm, availibility IS one of the factors that pirates claim as a reason for pirating, so that isn't any kind of stretch there. Just basic reasoning.
It's putting the blame on the rightholder.
Don't be daft. That's not placing blame anywhere. It's the reality of the situation, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to ignore realities that go against your views, that's fine, but don't expect everyone else jump on your bandwagon of denial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's what you're cherry picking to fit your pre-conceived notions about what TechDirt does and doe snot support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not a cow, don't try to treat it like one.
Their entire ownership interest is based on the idea that their stuff is available. If it's not available then they are breaking the social contract that their "rights" come from.
A creative work suppressed from public availability is a form of theft and should be a worse crime than "piracy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The reality is that greedy pirates--Mike's bread and butter--make the conscious choice to pirate, and it's absolutely no one's fault but their own. They aren't driven to it. They willingly choose it like the greedy little bastards they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Surely the logical conclusion is that removing music from Spotify would increase music piracy?
Oh sorry, forgot who I was talking to. Logic isn't your thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AC, however, is too much of an idiot to work out that saying that X will happen is not the same as supporting X. We can tell him all we want that he's driving off a cliff, but all he'll do is ask why we support death by falling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike already supports an alternative to piracy - in fact, one of many he supports - Spotify. Why you have to lie about this is beyond the comprehension of any normal human being. As is the understanding of why you think that pointing out that the removal of something shown to remove piracy may result in its increase is somehow a support of piracy. Makes sense in your fantasy world, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What Mike is saying, and it is obvious, is that here you have a legal system, it's authorized, it pays something (which is better than nothing) to the artists, it tries to help them, and this particular artist thinks that leaving such a system (to what? No competitor mentioned - just simply leave it) will magically cause an increase in his income.
That's like leaving a job that pays you slightly above minimum wage because you think they should pay more. Only thing is, you didn't leave for another job, you just quit, so you now have ZERO income!
That doesn't make any sense.
This isn't being anti-artist, it's the artist shooting themselves in the foot and trying to blame someone else.
So, sorry, your attempt to form a logical argument has failed, but your attempt to regurgitate the musings of David Lowery was perfect. Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What Mike is saying with such things as "driving-people-back-to-piracy dept." is that the pirates are having piracy thrust upon them. That's Mike taking the blame away from the ONLY culpable party. It's pirate apologism. It's using the passive voice to argue that something is driving the pirates to piracy. It's utter bullshit. Pirates drive themselves to piracy. Period. Whether an artist or rightholder chooses to place their music on Spotify or not in no way drives someone to violate that artist's or rightholder's rights. Whether you understand their motivation for making the decision and whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. The only party to blame for piracy is the pirates. It's really that simple. Only apologists argue otherwise. And Mike is one of the biggest apologists there is. But, oh yeah, he thinks piracy is not OK. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pirates are created by the problems with the current system. Some are true pirates who take because they can. Others want the content and try to acquire it legally, but it is unavailable (ex: Thom Yorke pulling himself from SPotify) or overprices (See Reznor's rant about charging $30 for NIN's CD in Australia).
You want to pull people back to acquiring music? Stop gouging (Sorry but you don't get closed captioning or bonus features on YouTube yet I am paying the same rental price $3.99 or $4.99 as going to Blockbuster/Rogers Video store). Stop restricting selections. START making it available and easy to acquire. Get more cards that can be bought with cash to you don't have the highly restrictive credit-card-required stipulation - especially when the age requirements are Age-Of-Majority --- never had that problem when we had brick and mortar stores --- before they were weened out by big-box stores (Wal-Mart, department stores, massive franchised/corporate owned media owned stores that could easily undercut your local store) and later replaced with online services that charge the SAME price but you get nothing but access to the content - quite different from the flexibility of a CD or DVD.
Even with DRM being shelved in many cases, the damage was done - NOT by the goddamn "pirates" but by the industry themselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And still being done...I mean, it's not piracy that drove artists to sue the record labels for unfair royalty practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. Your being purposely obtuse. Can you show me in the article where Mike "blames" anyone?
He was just pointing out that removing a legal avenue will lead to increased illegal filesharing. If you can show past evidence of this not happening, please share it with the rest of the class. Your moral arguments don't change this real world situtation one iota. It is what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No way! Can't be. Mike is NEVER right about ANYTHING!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The video star killed himself.
The problem here isn't "pirates". The problem here is that Spotify is the replacement for radio and MTV. Without some form of promotional media there will be NO ONE that knows about you.
NO ONE can buy your albums if NO ONE knows about them.
Being an idiot and locking your stuff away from view is simply not in your own best interests as an artist.
Piracy has squat to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is an outright lie, and an obvious one.
It's not their fault that they are selfish people.
Exactly as selfish as people who read books at the public library instead of buying them.
And, of course, the artists who are expected to get paid more than they already are aren't being selfish people. No, not at all. That kid on the playground who says "I'm going to take my ball and go home!" is motivated by altruism, don't cha know.
It's not their fault that they choose to pirate.
...said nobody, ever.
The pirates are the victims!
...said nobody, ever.
You just can't help being an outright liar, can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can't see the forest for the trees, can ya, AJ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you choose to leave money on the table and rage-quit a service trying to help artists because of an obvious disinformation campaign based on bad math, you are guilty and responsible for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And with this statement, you show just how far off the deep end you are.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. People are criticizing (not "blaming") artists for not putting their content on a service that is compeletely, 100% legal. The only consumers who are negatively affected are people who use Spotify.
Those who pirate are not affected one iota. They have absolutely nothing to gain by criticizing this decision.
If this is your idea of "piracy apologism," then you're completely out to lunch.
But I guess we all knew that already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People that download music are not selfish, they are aware of how things work in reality. They are not to blame for acting in accordance with the way technology works. If you can't make a living with the way things are, that's your fault, not theirs. Quit blaming other people for your own miserable failings. Copyright welfare is over. No more business model hand-holding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And speaking of rights violations - who was fined $400 million for price fixing - which is illegal? Oh right the same industry who tries to blame everything on the "pirates" when they themselves share SOME of the damn blame.
If you stopped piracy you'd actually NOT return to the "golden" pre-video game days and pre-home-theatre days when the labels and studios held all the cards (what's that about people's rights again?) and constantly took advantage of artists and gouged the public, while bribing the government to pass laws to their benefit (musicians for hire ring a bell?).
Sorry but you that AC chooses willful ignorance. He/She would probably love David Lowery's rants - they could have a "blame the pirates, pity me" party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feels nice to want, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's like saying it is not the US's fault for the problems in Iraq at this time, it's their own fault, they did it to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It really is that simple. There is absolutely no excuse and there is absolutely no one else to blame. I know the truth hurts, and I know that this is Techdirt so such simple truths fall on deaf ears, but there it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Today's reality is the music/movie is avail for free if one wants to go looking. But what if more than just access to the content was offered? What if it was easier than torrenting? What if you also connected with the artist?
Suddenly you WANT to purchase the copyrighted work even more don't you?
What if I chose to be a total douche, took away my work from a legal service because they didn't pay me enough. Let's say you chose NOT to pirate it. So a) I don't get cash because I closed the service so you can't pay me b) even if you downloaded it for free, I still get no cash because you have no legal options c) if you didn't download it for free I still get no cash because you have no legal options.
So what have I done? I've made it more difficult for you to pay me, assuming you wanted to, by a) removing my work from a service that legally let you pay me something (which is better than nothing), b) chose a service so complicated or limited or expensive you'd rather just torrent and access it anyway you want it than pay me, c) I ranted and raved at you and your friends and other people who might have previously or might potentially in the future buy my works and alienated you as a result so you d1) chose not to buy or listen or download via an authorized OR unauthorized means d2) chose to never mention my name with people you know so I lose publicity and become even more obscure -- which results in $0.
So who's fault is that? Yours because you felt I was a douche and pirated? Yours because you didn't pirate it but you didn't buy it either? Yours because you wouldn't discuss my works with your friends, free promotion for me, because I alienated you?
NO! MINE! My fault! My fault for not making it convenient for you to buy it. My fault for not making it interesting enough or providing enough fan-interaction or even just offering interesting enough side "added value items" for you to justify opening your wallet to me.
That's my fault.
How is it your fault if you pirate? You could just as easily not listen or purchase -- is that your fault too? Do you honestly think that I would expect that because I created works you must pay me for them - whether you like them or not, whether they are worth the price I am asking/demanding, whether they are legally available or not?
Sorry, that's not your fault. That's my fault. I should have done the opposite and made it worth while and made my works available all over, every possible avenue. I should have come up with creative means to interact with fans, within my comfortable limits. I should have figured out what I enjoy doing and figured out how to monetize without gouging my fans. I should have been more interactive on social media, even thanking people for their support with a free web concert or something silly like a lottery and making people dinner at their house. I should have came up with more reasons to buy. I should NOT have alienated you or anyone else.
Again, not my fault!
And for the real pirates, who have the money, the authorized services, etc.. but simply choose not to purchase my music for whatever principle they choose to use, I don't care because they would not purchase it anyway, even if free was unavailable. Second, if they actually liked what I created, they are more likely (if I am not a douche) to promote me for free, simply with casual conversation. Maybe others WOULD actually want to purchase my music or one of the reasons to buy.
In closing: it is not so simple as you think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should have read "Again, not YOUR fault"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get some sense.
1. Is unnecessary, since there are other viable and sustainable ways to form a business model.
2. Is antithetical to the intended goal of "promote the progress".
3. Is not an natural right.
4. Infringes on free speech.
5. Forms monopolies, which are harmful in their own right.
Laws should not be blindly obeyed and respected just because they are laws. Laws are created by fallible, imperfect beings and they often get it wrong. So we, as citizens, must keep vigilant against the propagation of unethical, illogical, and illegal laws. People who violate the law are not automatically wrong or bad. If that were true, the founders of the United States should be remembered as criminal scumbags that violated the infallible laws of King George III.
The problem is that far too many people are stupid enough to believe that cultural symbols (i.e. content, art, knowledge, etc.) are items of discreet property that belong to the person that authors them, which is completely batty if you realize that all creative works are made from the collective culture and experience of the society the author was a member of. It's like building a house on a state park with state park derived lumber and renting it out for private profit.
I don't respect copyright one iota because it doesn't deserve any respect. It's an extremely flawed and unethical law that should be vehemently opposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike was not yelling at everyone to start pirating music because an artist decided to "go on strike" against Spotify. Instead, he made the point that people have many other artists to choose from and if people really want the music that got pulled they may naturally turn to unauthorized sources.
As far as making pirates into victims. I'm not sure what you mean. Mike was just pointing out that this artist is shooting themselves in the foot by pulling their music from Spotify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike is taking the blame for piracy away from the pirates by saying that the rightholder/artist DROVE THEM TO IT. It's not hard to understand. Mike never just says, "A pirate decided to pirate and it's that pirate's fault." It's always this bullshit about how they were pushed into doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So if you keep insisting on bleeding us with these outrageous taxes, we're going to keep dumping the tea into the harbor.
Copyright is stealing our culture from us and selling it back in an excrement soaked package.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh well, their loss. I'm not going to go out of my way to find it elsewhere, I'll just continue to listen to music distributed by people who understand the difference between a rental and a purchase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think what Mike is saying
This really wasn't that difficult to understand, was it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think what Mike is saying
Whenever you remove yourself from any social interaction with fans or any form of exposure, no matter how little, you harm yourself.
Thom should know this, maybe he's suffering from some sense of entitlement problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think what Mike is saying
I think the social connection is one of the most important things because it humanizes the artist and I think it makes people less willing to pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think what Mike is saying
All of this makes it very easy to demonize either Pandora or Spotify if your audience isn't particularly savvy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think what Mike is saying
Music will continue to be made, but different artists will become popular enough to make a living. Also as the new technology allows many more artists to reach an audience, there will be less money going to each artist, which makes self publishing more likely to produce an income than using a label. The extra overheads and salaries required by labels significantly reduce the share of the income that goes to the artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"from everything we've seen," -- Your limited view.
2nd, you're wrongly comparing the OLD system of radio play, record/CD sales, and concerts with the practically inevitable NEW system in which -- without sales of physical media -- Spotify is gatekeeper to MOST of the revenue stream, and if allowed to continue and consolidate, will skim even more percentage than the old grifters! "Radiohead" is simply pointing out that at current rates, future artists are NOT going to make "a tremendous amount of money", while Spotify IS.
Mike only favors the NEW grifters and gatekeepers over the OLD ones, while oblivious to the new ones cheating artists even worse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "from everything we've seen," -- Your limited view.
I guess you missed the part where Spotify (like Pandora) is not making a profit, and under current rates, probably never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "from everything we've seen," -- Your limited view.
Does Thom Yorke have anything beyond speculation to back that up?
You MUST back up the claim that SPotify is making tonnes of money off of new artists and old artists while paying them diddly squat. Because investors think otherwise and they see the damn financial reports.
So do explain how you come to the conclusion that Spotify is raking in the cash and paying the artists the square root of SFA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "from everything we've seen," -- Your limited view.
Just so you know, the Strawman Mike that you've created in your head isn't real.
I've only seen Mike attack flawed methodology and flimsy conclusions of studies. If a study has strong methodology and adequate transparency, then Mike accepts those just fine.
Spotify is gatekeeper to MOST of the revenue stream, and if allowed to continue and consolidate, will skim even more percentage than the old grifters!
Do you have some sort of basis or citation for that wild acquisition there? Or are you talking out of your ass again? Since Spotify is currently running in the red, I'm really not sure how you came to that conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "from everything we've seen," -- Your limited view.
I meant "accusation" instead of "acquisition"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy isn't the deciding factor
Actually, it primarily drives people to not listen to their music.
Pulling music off of Spotify would be a terrible idea even if piracy didn't exist.
On the other hand, maybe more people will use something like eMusic instead. (My friend's wife works there, so I don't have a problem with that.) Of course, they're facing the same complaints too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy isn't the deciding factor
Sadly unlikely. I stopped using them when the major labels forced increases that made the average album more expensive - many of them *more* expensive than other outlets. That nullified the point of a subscription for me. Maybe it's changed - I left not long after Sony appeared (causing a worldwide price increase, even though the Sony catalogue was restricted to the US), but I can't imagine people paying a monthly fee rather than, say, pirating the albums and buying the odd track off iTunes. For your friend's sake I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the goal for them. Eliminate the level playing fields while trying to look like they're doing it for the artists. If they can't use the 'law' to shut them down they'll just kill them financially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is almost certainly the goal for the RIAA, the major labels, and traditional music distributors.
But I somehow doubt it's the goal of Yorke and company. It's much more likely that they got some bad advice from their managers, and/or haven't thought the whole thing through.
I think they believe this stunt is a negotiating tactic to get Spotify to pay them more money. It's understandable; under the old music model, these kinds of stunts were pretty much the only power you had as an artist.
It may work in the very short term. In the long term, of course, it will backfire very badly. Either Spotify will cave, and go out of business (sooner). Or they won't, and major label artists will be the only ones left on Spotify - essentially locking indie artists out. (They've already done this with Pandora, for the most part.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes.
"But I somehow doubt it's the goal of Yorke and company. It's much more likely that they got some bad advice from their managers, and/or haven't thought the whole thing through. "
And yes.
Thanks for clarifying that. It's what I meant, but didn't express it fully or well. Convincing 'featured' players that this kind of thing somehow benefits is a big priority for the media industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more venues they pull out of, the less recognition they will get. Effectively removing themselves from the public mind.
Once they are gone from the public, they can look for other work. The world needs more burger flippers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it is true, then why is the anger of musicians directed at Spotify? It seems to me like the ones screwing over the artists are the rights holders and not Spotify so we need to direct the criticism to where it belongs.
Why do we not get artists like this speaking out about collection agencies ripping musicians off? They have been doing it for a hell of a lot longer.
Also, it is hard to take anyone who uses the word "simples" seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for Radiohead, I have always found them boring and pretentious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
collection agencies vs streaming
Spotify is a great deal for music fans and for artists and labels who want more exposure. Artist who are already popular don't get much out of it even though they are what brings in the listeners.
When the piracy sites are eliminated, the streaming services can get a better price for their product and advertising and they can offer better royalties to musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"My music is worth $1 per listener. I determined that's the minimum price I'll take for somebody to listen to my music. If they don't want to pay that much, then I won't let them listen. I'd rather get nothing than 65 cents per listener; that's just plain insulting to my artistic sensibilities and demeans my talents. I said I want a DOLLAR, damnit!"
This is kinda like some subway guitar player putting a sign on his open guitar case telling passers-by "minimum donation: $2. Keep your freaking coins to yourself".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lowery and company tend to compare everything to the Beatles or one of the other 0.01% of artists who reached superstar status in the old system. Of course, they conveniently leave out the 98% who didn't recoup their advances and had to move on to other interests to earn a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When would an artist/group not have to repay the advance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not exactly. Here's how it works. (I'll use the term "artist" to include things like groups and bands. For simplicity, I'll leave out things like music videos.)
A label advances money to an artist who has signed with them.
All the costs of recording and producing the album come out of that advance. Usually, the band also pays some portion of the promotional budget from their advance. They live off of what is left over. (That includes things like buying a better guitar, paying their manager, etc.)
The advance must be paid back from the artist's royalties. Thus, if an album is "unrecouped," they will get absolutely no money whatsoever from the sale of that album. (At least 9 out of 10 albums are unrecouped, according to the RIAA.)
Whatever is unrecouped is usually "rolled over" to the next album. That is, artists won't earn any artist royalties until the current album's advance is recouped, and all the previous albums' advances are also recouped.
Note also that artist royalties are usually about 15% of the profit made from the albums; the rest goes to the label. So by the time the artist starts getting any royalties at all, the label has already made back five times the cost of the recording.
It's also worth mentioning that when an artist signs to a major label, they must sign over the copyrights to those recordings, permanently. No matter how much money they make, or whether they're recouped or not, they will never own the rights to their own recordings. (At least, not until 17 USC's reversion rights kick in, thirty-five years later... unless the labels can block it. But that's a subject for another day.)
However - they're not "in debt" to the label, in the same way as one is in debt to a credit card company. Whatever money they earn other than artist royalties, is theirs to keep.
At least, that was the way it worked before "360 deals," where the labels handles every aspect of the artist's music in the same way as above. In that case, the artist can't keep anything from their income streams until everything in the deal is recouped (album sales, live ticket sales, merch sales, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given my friend likely had info about such labels, probably local ones and not someone more reputable like Sony or Warner, I would guess that such people were screwed worse than the "reputable" labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never heard of smaller labels demanding "repayment" in their contracts, other than the way I described. Generally speaking, indie labels treat musicians much, much better than "reputable" labels. Obviously, there are some exceptions (Some Bizarre and Victory spring to mind).
They still have the same general setup, but usually the advances are lower (so less "debt") and the percentages are higher. That's because indies are set up so that you can sell 30,000 records and turn a profit; major labels are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How To Sell 1 Million Albums and Owe $500,000
Apparently, actors are in the same boat:
I'm Rich Bitch! ....Actor Residual Check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the income comes from songwriting
Musician's pay the rent and eat from their songwriting income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would think it's like any other debt that one enters into contractually. Like when you get a loan from a bank. But, honestly, I don't really know.
When would an artist/group not have to repay the advance?
I've heard that the labels will write off the debt sometimes (the same way a credit card company will if it's not worth the cost to collect the debt). I have no idea if that's true or not. All I'm going on is what people have claimed in the comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently I don't know. LOL.
Thanks Karl for the spot-on (as usual) insight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, I'm a dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complain about payment but use Free services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Thom should read this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Straw men and reality
I have over 1,000 CDs and almost as many vinyl LPs in boxes sitting in a storage unit because I don't have space in the apartment to store them. By any standard, having purchased several thousands I've been a good customer of the record industry.
I also have close to a terabyte of MP3s, a mix of legally purchased ones, ones that I ripped from CDs I own and some that are arguably "pirated". So I have a huge music library at my disposal.
But I listen almost exclusively to music on Spotify (and for some tracks, Sony's Music Unlimited) because it is available wherever I am with having to remember to either take the CD or MP3 with me. Spotify provides the ultimate convenience and covers all the music I listen to. Note the last statement. The only music I listen to is on Spotify. That means if your music isn't there, I won't ever hear it. Instead I'll listen to up and coming artists on tiny labels. Groups like Nightmare Air or Lucius, groups which get no airplay or promotion. Groups that I support by going to their shows when they are in town.
Spotify and services like it are the future of music. If Thom Yorke or Radiohead don't want to join in, they will just die off like the dinosaurs they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who What Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But seriously, I don't think I've ever heard a song from Radiohead in my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will never understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah
Record companies are not just screwing artists but also businesses like Spotify. Apple can afford to run iTunes Store at break even because it sells hardware. This is Spotify's only business and getting hammered with all the money they pay out. Artists see very little and then point the finger at Spotify. Maybe the artists are afraid of criticising the record labels in case they get dropped. Artists spend a lot of time seeking that illustrious record deal where they think they will achieve money and fame. It is also widely known artists have never made much money from records. Most is made from touring, in which case the exposure Spotify gives them is key.
Why do we need record companies? Recording an album is getting cheaper, distribution is cheap and marketing is cheap and highly effective if you know how to use social media. Go straight to Apple or Spotify who take 30% and the artist takes 70% like the App Store model. Get rid of the pointless greedy middleman the record company.
Artists may not be great at marketing, I am sure there will be startups out there which will market you for a much smaller cut than the record companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"It is giving the consumers what they want"
Why are the musicians and existing middlemen somehow unable to do this?
I'll ignore the idiocy of defending the current set of middlemen, who have been proven to rip off consumers and musicians alike, in favour of some paranoid prediction of what Spotify might do in the future. But, the simple question is - if giving the consumer what they want is all that Spotify need to do to make huge sums of money, then why aren't the legacy companies doing so? How can a company come in and scare the industry and its defenders so much if all they're doing is meeting the demand of the industry's existing customers, unless that's just a sign of how badly run the industry has been thus far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]