> the other big mistake and looks at what the artist makes.
Actually I'm calculating only what the rights holder gets and doing the comparison between sales and streaming income.
Its completely irrelevant to the discussion what the artist/label deal is, only what the spotify|iTunes/payee deal is.
> Spotify can hardly be blamed for the artist having a crappy deal with his/her record label.
No, the stated payout rates are what the rights holder receives. That is the publishing company or sound recording copyright holder which is usually but not always the label. In many cases indie labels are owned by the artists. I get 100%
I'm not fond of this demonization of the labels as though they were the whole problem. The music industry has gone through dramatic changes and its not really useful to try to identify a bad guy. The musicians certainly are getting fucked though, that's always how it goes.
> Also I don't get your BBC-comparison, did BBC broadcast it to one person?
But that's the thing: a Spotify streaming play requires a large number of people to actively select to listen to your track. Radio plays to a huge number of people who are mostly passive (after they've selected to listen to the radio or not). Its vastly more difficult to achieve that kind of focused high traffic streaming income in the super fragmented world of streaming.
So comparing the payout rate to broadcast royalty rates IS completely irrelevant, yet that is what everybody is doing and that's basically how the payouts are being calculated.
And yet its sales that they are replacing. For the user its play on demand. It looks like iTunes. I pulled up tracks the other night on Spotify while making dinner for my girlfriend. Its just like owning the tracks.
So for the rights holder its an awful disruption.
> And the reason for why it is sooo bad is of course because it hasn't matured yet. But the only problem in the equation is the record labels.
Because Spotify was designed as an alternative to P2P/piracy. So the price point is in comparison to that, not in competition with sales. Its accidental that its cannibalizing sales, and in fact Spotify would love to be resulting in large amounts of sales (with their buy buttons). The problem is that the music is available on demand, so the incentive to buy is very low.
> The reason for why I didn't buy albums was because I didn't enjoy listening to albums. I enjoy listening to tracks and I don't feel like buying twenty when I only like two of them.
iTunes disrupted that back in 2001, so I would say that's pretty irrelevant to the Spotify vs. digital sales discussion.
Actually I'm calculating only what the rights holder gets and doing the comparison between sales and streaming income.
Its completely irrelevant to the discussion what the artist/label deal is, only what the spotify|iTunes/payee deal is.
> Spotify can hardly be blamed for the artist having a crappy deal with his/her record label.
No, the stated payout rates are what the rights holder receives. That is the publishing company or sound recording copyright holder which is usually but not always the label. In many cases indie labels are owned by the artists. I get 100%
I'm not fond of this demonization of the labels as though they were the whole problem. The music industry has gone through dramatic changes and its not really useful to try to identify a bad guy. The musicians certainly are getting fucked though, that's always how it goes.
> Also I don't get your BBC-comparison, did BBC broadcast it to one person?
But that's the thing: a Spotify streaming play requires a large number of people to actively select to listen to your track. Radio plays to a huge number of people who are mostly passive (after they've selected to listen to the radio or not). Its vastly more difficult to achieve that kind of focused high traffic streaming income in the super fragmented world of streaming.
So comparing the payout rate to broadcast royalty rates IS completely irrelevant, yet that is what everybody is doing and that's basically how the payouts are being calculated.
And yet its sales that they are replacing. For the user its play on demand. It looks like iTunes. I pulled up tracks the other night on Spotify while making dinner for my girlfriend. Its just like owning the tracks.
So for the rights holder its an awful disruption.
> And the reason for why it is sooo bad is of course because it hasn't matured yet. But the only problem in the equation is the record labels.
Because Spotify was designed as an alternative to P2P/piracy. So the price point is in comparison to that, not in competition with sales. Its accidental that its cannibalizing sales, and in fact Spotify would love to be resulting in large amounts of sales (with their buy buttons). The problem is that the music is available on demand, so the incentive to buy is very low.
> The reason for why I didn't buy albums was because I didn't enjoy listening to albums. I enjoy listening to tracks and I don't feel like buying twenty when I only like two of them.
iTunes disrupted that back in 2001, so I would say that's pretty irrelevant to the Spotify vs. digital sales discussion.