Grammy's Can't Get Streaming Or Audio Right, But Assure You That Free Spotify Is Kinda Like ISIS
from the say-what-now? dept
We already wrote about how CBS fucked up internet streaming of the Grammy's on Monday night, but a few folks have sent in the various stories about how Grammy's boss Neil Portnow did his now annual whine about how evil tech companies don't pay musicians enough, and how if we don't start giving musicians more money ISIS will win and the 12 year old who just performed on piano might starve or something. The crux of his talk was to whine that when people stream a song it might earn those associated with the music "a fraction of a penny" and somehow that's unfair:"So, what does hearing your favorite song mean to you?" asked Neil Portnow, the president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which awards the Grammys.Behind him as he said this, was this fabulous clip art visual aid (seriously, can't the Grammy's come up with something a little better as a graphic?)
He then explained that when people use streaming-music services, the artists and others behind those songs earn "a small fraction of a penny" per song.
"Isn't a song worth more than a penny?" he asked, as the audience cheered. "You bet. Listen, we all love the convenience and we support technologies like streaming that connects us to that music. But we also have to make sure the creators and artists — like Joey over there — grow up in a world where music is a viable career."
...did the RIAA guy just slam Spotify and ISIS in the same sentence?? #GRAMMYs
— ToddInTheShadows (@ShadowTodd) February 16, 2016
grammys have now turned into a spotify attack ad
— josh lewis (@thejoshl) February 16, 2016
Oh my god. This anti Spotify ad at #GRAMMYs is so ridiculous.
— Christina Warren (@film_girl) February 16, 2016
Oh the #GRAMMYs just took a turn down anti-streaming. Doesn't Joey deserve more than a penny? C'mon Larry & Mark!
— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 16, 2016
What would the Grammys be without Neil Portnow berating a portion of its audience?
— Chris Barton (@chrisbarton) February 16, 2016
Not sure what that guy at the Grammys is talking about—when I was a kid CDs were 8 for a penny and artists did great pic.twitter.com/FA91DwI5vV
— Dan McQuade (@dhm) February 16, 2016
It also ignores how free streaming services have actually helped bring revenue back into the music industry by decreasing piracy rates drastically and getting people to move to legal options. Demanding ever higher rates only serves to cause these kinds of companies to fail. And all that will do is drive people back to totally unauthorized services where artists and copyright holders don't get any money directly.
Of course, this is the way things always work for the legacy recording industry. They see a new technology -- a technology they didn't support, don't understand, and fought against initially -- suddenly making them some money and they start demanding more and more and more until they kill the golden goose. They do this over and over again. Remember how ringtones were suddenly making the industry money? They kept demanding more money for them, and no one cares about ringtones any more. Or how about music video games? Once again, the record labels started insisting that they weren't getting paid enough, and look at what happened to those games?
It's one thing to negotiate different payment structures, but the constant whining and bullshit about "fairness" when "fair" appears to be something like 200% of any revenue any music tech company makes is beginning to wear a bit thin, don't you think? Once again, these are the same people who fought tooth and nail against any of these technologies, and now that they actually got built AND are helping the industry and musicians actually make some money, these same talking heads whine that it's not enough? Really? Go build your own damn technology service, and you'll quickly discover that it's not that easy. And then maybe they'll stop whining with bullshit claims. But that seems unlikely. The whining never ceases. And yet they call fans "entitled"?
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: fairness, grammy's, neil portnow, rates, royalties, streaming
Companies: spotify
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Let me interrupt your Free Music Stream
"Let me interrupt our prime-time streaming of 19 performances of free music stream to everyone for free around so I can tell you that people paying for music aren't paying enough"Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You first
If the labels are really going to whine about how streaming services just don't pay artists enough, then they're more than welcome to hand over some of their share, but given their complaints have absolutely nothing to do with how much the artists are getting, and everything to do with how much the labels are getting, I don't imagine they'd be very eager to start doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You first
That's the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You first
That is why the labels do not provide their own streaming service, it would require WORK to keep it functioning.
Work is an expense which takes away from profits.
Much better, for them, to demand more money till the goose dies. Then they can go back to suing pirates
which they think of as noble and worthy of admiration.
That more and more people see them as greedy, litigious monopolists actually shocks them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You first
Small but important correction there: They don't see steaming and similar services as potential sources of profit so much as they see them as potential competition.
If a prospective musician can completely skip the whole 'sign over all your music to us and you might be able to re-pay the money we're loaning you someday' step and go straight to offering their stuff to the customers, the labels are in trouble. As such it's in their best interest to drain dry any company that offers musicians an alternative way to have their music heard and/or sold, that this gets them some money in the meantime is just a bonus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's right!
Is a ~3 minute experience that can be replicated and repeated a near infinite number of time worth a fraction of a penny? That's a different conversation entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot. However, there's a huge amount of music out there that's not my favourite song. in fact I had to listen to it a lot to work out what my favourite song was. I may never have found it had I had to pay through the nose to discover it, or the services I used forced to shut down because the royalties demanded were too much (in fact, I remember the days where labels paid radio stations to pay their music)
Not to mention - I bought my favourite song already. Years ago. At price per listen, you may have got less than you would from the same number of Spotify plays. But, you'll only get more money out of me by letting me play it on Spotify when I'm out and about without it synced to my device, not by trying to force me to pay for it again or shutting down the services that helps me discover other music.
"Isn't a song worth more than a penny?"
Some yes, some no. I don't want to spend more than a penny each to find out which is which. In fact, most people have never done this, discovering music through means they didn't pay for (or being unwillingly exposed to music they don't like through the same methods).
In other words: stop with the idiotic comparisons of individual radio play to purchased music. They are not the same thing with the same revenue, never have been, never will be. Sorry you can't work out how to make your product valuable enough for people to own instead of rent, but that's your issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Spotify is ISIS does that make radio the Nazis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Spotify is ISIS does that make radio the Nazis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i got a payment for £50 last week
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time you misuse an apostrophe, God kills a kitten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every time you misuse an apostrophe, God kills a kitten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For Shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For Shame
I'll support an artist and their music, I refuse to support parasites who are constantly trying to screw me over, and given how often doing the first requires doing the second, a lot less music is bought that otherwise might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worth more than a penny?
In a pay-per-listen RIAA lock down utopia? Emphatically NO it is not. In that case, music is worth absolutely zero. I, the listening consumer, *do not care* about your licensing schemes, your profit margins, or your royalty structures. If I can buy it and own it, that is one this with a fixed price paid once. If I am just listening, which is transitory and ephemeral, my cost consideration is exactly ZERO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, the shenanigans of the music industry have driven me to not hearing any canned music at all. The well of digital distribution has been poisoned so thoroughly with criminalization, copyright protection schemes right up into root kits and device brickings and other stuff that I'm either hearing or making live music or none at all.
It was good enough for Bach, Händel, Beethoven, Mozart.
I mean, sure it would be great for any artist if he received a fraction of a penny from billions of people just hearing his or her music a single time. But if they feel that's not enough for feeding the mouths of their levy collectors, they can have nothing instead. Fine with me. They probably still get enough for the crap I am forced to listen to at the supermarket and which ultimately gets accrued to my bill. I'd be happy not to have to pay for that but I'm not consulted there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To get the revenue on a per-listen basis that full-time artists were getting from physical product 25 years ago, streaming services would have to operate with no overhead and no profits, and would have to be raking in hundreds of billions of dollars from advertisers and subscribers, far exceeding what people spend on all forms of entertainment combined.
Crybabies like Portnow also really don't want to reveal how the general funds which services/stations pay into are redistributed based on proportion of plays across all services. So all but the tiniest fraction of those micropayments made on behalf of indie and lesser-known artists end up going to the most-played mainstream artists instead. This makes it very easy to say "look, even this artist getting millions of plays is only getting pennies". That said, equitable distribution would probably not result in substantially more artists getting a living wage, which calls into question whether they are entitled to it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can get your damn penny from somewhere else. My penny is going to other forms of entertainment that treat don't me like a potential criminal if I so much as look in its general direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me interrupt your Free Music Stream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would be very curious to see what percentage musicians currently get compared to how much recording company's keep for themselves as "administrative costs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From a previous article, according to 'a new report put together by Ernst & Young with the French record label trade group SNEP, concerning where the money from streaming services Deezer and Spotify ends up. Spoiler alert: it's not with the artists. Here's the overall share of the 9.99 Euros that people pay for a premium account on these services:'
20.8% - Platform
16.7% - Taxes
45.6% - Labels
6.8% - Artists
10% - Songwriters/Publishers
So the labels get almost half of the before-taxes profits, while the artists get less than ten percent. Of course given who funded the research they tried to spin it by claiming that it was only right that the labels got such a huge cut because they were having to pay out the various costs related to recording/promotions and whatnot, 'forgetting' to mention that those costs are ones that the artists have to pay out of their share, which makes the label's cut pure profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You want to talk about those that 'hate musicians' and aren't paying enough, try looking at the labels, who grab the majority of the profits from streaming services, leaving little but scraps for the actual artists.
Really, can you at least try to get some new material? Your current stuff is so old it's almost in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lost in all this is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate attitude
The Corp markets it..
the Corp does the paper work..
The Corp breaks it apart and makes PARTS of it(music, lyric,instrumental,whatever)
The Corp controls the distribution EVEN when it fails to work..(they THINK they know Who wants it)
The CORP controls WHO and how much Every person listening PAYS..(car drivers can listen to radio, but passengers must NOT)
The CORPS have the lawyers.
The Corp controls it..
By the time you are done, 1 album is paying 200 paper pushers for 1 album..
COST of 1 album printed is LESS THEN $5..you pay $20..The artist gets $0.10..
Corps get to write MOST of it off, as deductions and tax write offs, as part of manufacturing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To use an often mis-used phrase...
The market has decided the price of streaming. No amount of hand-wringing or whining will change the decision of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorist are the new Nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming From Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streaming From Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Let me interrupt your Free Music Stream
"Let me interrupt our prime-time streaming of 19 performances of free music stream to everyone for free around so I can tell you that people paying for music aren't paying enough"