|
|
Post by m03 on Mar 9, 2017 19:25:12 GMT -6
Not even remotely realistic. Every streaming media business would cease to exist overnight. And that would be a BAD thing? I don't think so, if it was coupled with adequate enforcemernt of piracy laws. Let 'em die! I don't find any ecological r4eason to protect cockroaches. That ship has sailed. To lament over the march of technology, and the massive increase in convenience it affords the consumer, is a waste of time. Neat. None of that disproves my statement. The simple fact is that no consumer is going to pay 50% of the purchase price to stream a track a single time. For a car analogy, if you are in the business of renting cars, and you told someone that the cost to rent a $10,000 car was $5,000 for a single day, you'd get laughed at. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 9, 2017 19:42:50 GMT -6
And this is exactly why we should just ask them to pay the .006-.008 that they CLAIM to pay. It's obvious that they don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Mar 9, 2017 21:06:06 GMT -6
What is really a rip for content creators is the free or ad supported tier of streaming services. They pay next to nothing and the services depend on them to build their business.
I subscribe to both Spotify and Apple Music family plan and I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off, even though a lot of stuff is still unavailable.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Mar 9, 2017 21:42:52 GMT -6
perhaps something should be done about the amount the record labels are skimming off the top? What if the streaming services are actually paying 0.006 per stream, but the label is getting 0.005 from that? that leaves 0.001 for everyone else. Perhaps there is a way to pass streaming revenue to only the creators?
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 9, 2017 21:52:43 GMT -6
And that would be a BAD thing? I don't think so, if it was coupled with adequate enforcemernt of piracy laws. Let 'em die! I don't find any ecological r4eason to protect cockroaches. That ship has sailed. To lament over the march of technology, and the massive increase in convenience it affords the consumer, is a waste of time. The ship has sailed. So what? Let the sailing ship run into a broadside from the guns of a navy dreadnaught. That'll teach 'em! Hang the captain from a yardarm! That's the way we deal with pirates, even those that started out with a king's letter as privateers. It worked once, it can work again! Who said anything about 50%?: Not me! The figure I mentioned was around 5% - 10%,. which is more than fair. You don't wanna pay that, buy the damn record. (It's cheap at the price.) Or do without. Perspective is SERIOUSLY being lost. Purchase price of a single song is about the same as purchase price for a medium candy bar or a small soda pop. Either of those will give you maybe 10 minutes of enjoyment, rot your teeth, make you fat, and possibly give you diabetes. The song will last you close to forever and not impact your health. Tell me, which is the better deal? Yet nobody complains about the cost of candy or soda. There's only one reason for that - you can't steal candy or soda with not merely impunity, but collusion from government and big business. Hell, even 50% would be a better deal, not that I'm advocating that... Invalid analogy. Rental of a car does not cannabalize sales of the car, and it somebody is going to rent the car for a length of time remotely approaching any reasonably period of ownership the rental cost would be FAR in excess of the purchase price. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 10, 2017 0:13:26 GMT -6
BTW, I definitely DID sign and tried to repost to Facebook, although I'm not sure if that took. I certainly hope everyone else does as well - every little bit helps and if we don't stand up for ourselves nobody else is going to do it for us!
And even if you don't happen to write songs (I do) we all need to stick together.
E Pluribus Unum. (Out of the many, One!)
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,082 
|
Post by ericn on Mar 10, 2017 0:30:24 GMT -6
Signed, you guys are screwed, as long as some kid is willing to put their stuff up for free on YouTube and Radio is corporate conglomerates, kids are going to consume free music over paying for music. Kids grow up never learning that music has value means adults who see no. value in music. Yet they think who cares? Katy Perry, Beyoncé & Adel are richer than god so why pay ?
Sad that my 12 year old won't be telling stories of how he cashed his teenage paychecks at the local record store or that it was his church, even if it wouldn't lead to his vocation and a lifetime of memories.
Instead it's the Apple Music Family plan !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 6:12:48 GMT -6
'course, we haven't mentioned the elephant in the room yet - file sharing sites .... mine was on more of those than the kosher sites within two weeks (no drama as it's a hobby), but imagine how much the pro's are losing. Any deal with the big players is pretty much just academic while this is going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitchkricun on Mar 10, 2017 7:49:26 GMT -6
I've pretty much accepted the idea that streaming is probably the future, and performance royalties HAVE to be more fair to the content creators, but am I crazy to think that a big part of the problem is that potential consumers don't have a digital product that's WORTH owning? If a (digital file) song or album purchase only gives you a picture of the album cover to look at while you play the song, playing that song on YouTube or a Streaming service, is pretty much the same experience, with the disadvantage of taking up hard drive space for the purchase. But what if your purchase actually gave you something that YouTube or Streaming didn't offer?
What about something like an "Album/Song App"? You launch the app and in addition to playing the song, you could have scrolling lyrics, liner notes (I used to love listening to music while reading the lyrics and pouring over who wrote/played what, where it was recorded, who produced, who engineered, etc.), video content, extra artwork/pictures, maybe some hidden bonus material... or whatever creative content the artist can think of. Each one would would be a unique piece of art, with artist and labels trying to push the envelope as to what kind of experience they can offer the consumer. Who remembers Dark Side of the Moon coming with 2 full sized posters and 2 stickers? I would love to see mechanical royalties becoming a significant part of the equation again. Just sayin'
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Mar 10, 2017 12:12:29 GMT -6
iTunes lets you upload a pdf for liner notes with your album when you submit it. artists just aren't doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 10, 2017 13:02:38 GMT -6
1,000,000 streams really isn't that many. Yet insurmountable by most. I look at the streaming play numbers on so many things that were minor hits, artists with a regional name, etc. So many are in the low thousands. |
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Mar 10, 2017 13:15:42 GMT -6
That ship has sailed. To lament over the march of technology, and the massive increase in convenience it affords the consumer, is a waste of time. The ship has sailed. So what? Let the sailing ship run into a broadside from the guns of a navy dreadnaught. That'll teach 'em! Hang the captain from a yardarm! That's the way we deal with pirates, even those that started out with a king's letter as privateers. It worked once, it can work again! Cool story. Who's money are you planning to spend in an attempt to reign in millions of off-shore teenagers who your local laws don't apply to? That's the reality of the situation. Who said anything about 50%?: Not me! The figure I mentioned was around 5% - 10%,. which is more than fair. You don't wanna pay that, buy the damn record. (It's cheap at the price.) Or do without. Context is key. My response that you originally responded to was in context to the poster who mentioned 50% per stream. Even 5% is unrealistic, given how the content is actually being consumed in the modern era. Music is not a life changing experience for people today...there's far more content, and it's everywhere....it simply serves as a backdrop for the people who are consuming it. Perspective is SERIOUSLY being lost. Purchase price of a single song is about the same as purchase price for a medium candy bar or a small soda pop. Either of those will give you maybe 10 minutes of enjoyment, rot your teeth, make you fat, and possibly give you diabetes. The song will last you close to forever and not impact your health. Tell me, which is the better deal? Yet nobody complains about the cost of candy or soda. There's only one reason for that - you can't steal candy or soda with not merely impunity, but collusion from government and big business. See above. Invalid analogy. Rental of a car does not cannabalize sales of the car, and it somebody is going to rent the car for a length of time remotely approaching any reasonably period of ownership the rental cost would be FAR in excess of the purchase price. Ever heard of leasing, or subscription car service? It's more popular than ever: www.edmunds.com/about/press/number-of-leased-vehicles-reaches-all-time-high-in-first-half-of-2016-says-edmundscom.htmlfuturism.com/cadillac-launches-subscription-services-for-their-cars/With automation gaining momentum, even owning a car is going to become a thing of the past far sooner than people realize: www.wsj.com/articles/how-electric-vehicles-could-end-car-ownership-as-we-know-it-1484488803futurism.com/welcome-to-the-future-of-driving-are-you-ready/www.futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/the-coming-of-peak-car/ |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 10, 2017 14:18:42 GMT -6
'course, we haven't mentioned the elephant in the room yet - file sharing sites .... mine was on more of those than the kosher sites within two weeks (no drama as it's a hobby), but imagine how much the pro's are losing. Any deal with the big players is pretty much just academic while this is going on. ENFORCEMENT! Whatr they're doing is a federal felony. Whack 'em in the head with a nail studded 2x4!!!! Or, mor realistically, give 'em penalties similar to those meted out to drunk drivers - 6 months to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine for the first offense, escalating for repeat or multiple infractions. We get rid of the pirate sites and then we can tackle the "legal" streamers scammers. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 10, 2017 14:31:34 GMT -6
1,000,000 streams really isn't that many. Yet insurmountable by most. I look at the streaming play numbers on so many things that were minor hits, artists with a regional name, etc. So many are in the low thousands. 1,000,000 streams is ONE HELL OF A LOT, especially when you take into account the fact that the books (on those artists reporting much larger figures) are cooked by companies employing "server farms" (or whatever the equivalent is) of machines doing nothing but calling the services to generate bogus plays for those megastars that can afford such services. Even if the numbers were legit - which they're not - 1,000,000 streams is the equivalent of about 100,000 hard copy sales. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 10, 2017 14:35:55 GMT -6
perhaps something should be done about the amount the record labels are skimming off the top? What if the streaming services are actually paying 0.006 per stream, but the label is getting 0.005 from that? that leaves 0.001 for everyone else. Perhaps there is a way to pass streaming revenue to only the creators? That's a damn good question, Charles. I had always assumed that when they said they paid "content creators" .006-.008, they were referring to publishing, performance and mechanical royalties. I assumed that labels made their own deals for "master recordings"...but is that coming out the part of the pie that song creators get? If so, it's utter bullshit. Apparently, the labels which just so happen to be the biggest publishers too (shock!) gave bargain deals on the publishing side in order to get better deal on the label side (master recordings pay at a higher rate). I want to confirm that this is all coming from the same .006-.008 rate they claim to pay though. This article is an eye opener. www.google.com/amp/flavorwire.com/539066/why-the-major-labels-are-the-streaming-wars-true-villains/amp"So there’s definitely money to be (and being) made. But how does it get divvied up? Following the precedent set by Apple’s iTunes Music Store, Spotify takes a 30 percent cut of all revenue generated by paid subscriptions and advertising from their freemium tier. The remaining 70 percent gets split by rights holders. There are three different kinds of royalties paid out for music licensed through streaming services: master recording rights, performance rights, and mechanical rights. Masters are the most lucrative, and are typically owned by the label that produced and/or distributed the record. Performance royalties are paid to the writer and publisher of a composition, usually in a 50/50 split. Mechanical royalties are set by the US Copyright Review board and are paid out on a per-unit basis for the use of a recording. Major labels with publishing arms — such as Universal — can potentially get a piece of each royalty that Spotify pays out. 41WYf+ZFqML._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_This is where it starts to get ugly. Spotify says that in the United States, statutes dictate that publishers receive approximately 21 percent of the amount that master-recording owners receive. So when Universal negotiated its contracts with the streaming services, their publishing arm accepted bargain rates on the publishing end in order to get more favorable terms on the more lucrative licenses for master recordings, according to “one music publisher” Seabrook interviewed (The Song Machine, pg 297)." |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 10, 2017 14:48:42 GMT -6
Just thinking out loud. It is documented that the four writers of "Need You Now" split what - $6000 for 72,000,000 streams. Spotify says they pay .006 per stream. Multiply that by 72 Million and that equals $432,000. Where did the other $426,000 go? To the label for the master recordings? Surely the big labels/publishers didn't make that bad a deal for their publishing arms, right? I find this really hard to believe, though. Entirely more likely that these streaming sites are paying dramatically less than they purport.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 10, 2017 15:04:40 GMT -6
The ship has sailed. So what? Let the sailing ship run into a broadside from the guns of a navy dreadnaught. That'll teach 'em! Hang the captain from a yardarm! That's the way we deal with pirates, even those that started out with a king's letter as privateers. It worked once, it can work again! Cool story. Who's money are you planning to spend in an attempt to reign in millions of off-shore teenagers who your local laws don't apply to? That's the reality of the situation. No, it's not. We're not talking about downloaders, we're talking about uploaders and hosting sites. As far as off-shore bad actors are concerned, block 'em! It works with kiddie porn, it can work with piracy IF THERE'S THE WILL! Bullshit! The problem is that the majority of product bein pushed by the majors is uninteresting crap being ground out on the cheap that nobody really wants to listen to. And the reason for that is that your pirate buddies and their "legal" streaming analogs have sucked the lifeblood out of music so that there's no longer any investment capital available fror the creation of great product that inspires people. In today's environment there could be no Beatles, no Dylan, no Rolling Stones, no Led Zepplin because they'd never get signed. It takes time aqnd investment to develop a major talent and those things are lacking today. 5% is not "unrealistic", 5% is MINIMAL if we are to revitalize the music business.
2015 was the first year that "legacy" music outsold new music. That indicates to me that new commercial music probably isn't worth listening to.
First, I have no interest in what the lying shills for the tech industry have to say.
While owning a car might be a thing of the past for people living in dense urban environments - I lived in San Francisco for many decades and didn't own a car after the mid '80s - not everybody lives in such urban anthills and outside such places a automobile is still a necessity.
I now live in a small, suburban city 90 miles north of SF and guess what - owning a car is an absolute necessity. Without a well developed public transportation grid - which is definitely NOT going to happen here for several decades, if ever, for resons too numerous and complex to enumerate here you need a car to do almost anything.
I now lease a 2016 Toyota Prius - and guess what? After having had it for around 6 months I'm realizing that it probably would have been cheaper to buy the damn thing than lease - and I drive very little - about 1200 miles in 6 months - but I still couldn't live here without it.
|
|
|
|
Post by m03 on Mar 10, 2017 15:07:57 GMT -6
Yet insurmountable by most. I look at the streaming play numbers on so many things that were minor hits, artists with a regional name, etc. So many are in the low thousands. 1,000,000 streams is ONE HELL OF A LOT, especially when you take into account the fact that the books are cooked by companies employing "server farms" (or whatever the equivalent is) of machines doing nothing but calling the services to generate bogus plays for those megastars that can afford such services. Even if the numbers were legit - which they're not - 1,000,000 streams is the equivalent of about 100,000 hard copy sales. Spotify alone was streaming 1 billion tracks a day, a year and a half ago. That's streaming 1,000,000 tracks, one thousand times every single day, and they probably do considerably more now. Now consider that they're only one provider. 1,000,000 streams is nothing. musically.com/2015/07/22/spotify-1bn-streams-every-day/Hell, even look at Netflix...two years ago, 75,000,000 members were consuming 1.5 hours of content every single day. time.com/4186137/netflix-hours-per-day/The way people consume content is not directly comparable to the way they did it in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 10, 2017 15:45:55 GMT -6
2015 was the first year that "legacy" music outsold new music. That indicates to me that new commercial music probably isn't worth listening to.
I still think this is mostly older people buying reissues and mp3 versions of their classic albums while the younger generation stream their music rather than new music not being heard. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 10, 2017 16:11:17 GMT -6
1,000,000 streams is ONE HELL OF A LOT, especially when you take into account the fact that the books are cooked by companies employing "server farms" (or whatever the equivalent is) of machines doing nothing but calling the services to generate bogus plays for those megastars that can afford such services. Even if the numbers were legit - which they're not - 1,000,000 streams is the equivalent of about 100,000 hard copy sales. Spotify alone was streaming 1 billion tracks a day, a year and a half ago. That's streaming 1,000,000 tracks, one thousand times every single day, and they probably do considerably more now. Now consider that they're only one provider. 1,000,000 streams is nothing. musically.com/2015/07/22/spotify-1bn-streams-every-day/How many of those "1 billion tracks a day" are being downloaded by automated "farms" being operated by big promotional companies, if not the labels themselves? There's really no way to tell for sure, but it does go on. Hell, there have been cases of indie bands publically asking their fans to set their media devices to continually play their tracks unattended to boost their numbers. If they're doing it (albeit in a low rent, clumsy, and obvious way) what are the big boys doing? And, of course, that's taking Spotify's word for it and they don't release actual numbers. So it's really a bunch of hot air and scamming any way you look at it. 1,000,000 REAL streams of REAL content owned by a REAL band is quite a bit. 1,000,000 streams downloaded by 1,000 automated servers running in a warehouse in an industrial park somewhere is nothing, and skews the results and economics in a way that's highly deleterious to real musicians trying to make a real living. That's a totally different market and those figures are pretty much in line with the way people watch TV. Wrong. The way people listen to music hasn't really changed since the advent of the pocket transistor radio. The gizmos involved have changed. People's habits haven't. What HAS changed is that illegal techniques were (and still are) employed to seize control of where the money goes, from an industry invested in the creation of music to an industry that views it as nothing but a loss-leading commodity to be used for the promotion and sales of gizmos and services. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 10, 2017 16:28:19 GMT -6
2015 was the first year that "legacy" music outsold new music. That indicates to me that new commercial music probably isn't worth listening to.
I still think this is mostly older people buying reissues and mp3 versions of their classic albums while the younger generation stream their music rather than new music not being heard. I don't. I think it's primarily young hipsters. The kind that wear funny looking hats like Jack White. I don't think that older people buy MP3s AT ALL, unless they're totally tech illiterate. I have an Ipod (used mostly for listening at bars when I can't stand the stuff coming out of the jukebox or the bartender's Pandora) and I have not purchased one single MP3 for it, ever. I rip my CD collection. I'd only buy an MP3 if I couldn't find something in hard copy. Watching 20-somethings in a bar can be quite interesting - the unconscious change that comes over many of them when legacy music replaces the "modern" pap being force-fed them by the media (on the juke box.) They start listening and even singing along instead of just standing there and vacuously doing the "20-something wiggle dance." They don't do it always but it's pretty frequent. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 10, 2017 21:12:49 GMT -6
Hell, at this point how about $.000925? That would be $925 per million. Just a tad under a million streams on Youtube paid me roughly $116. I'm not sure $925 is even fair, but it's a hell of a lot better than the $116 I got. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 10, 2017 21:21:07 GMT -6
that leaves 0.001 for everyone else. I know you're just tossing out numbers, but 0.001 for a stream would be a GIGANTIC improvement over what we now get. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 10, 2017 21:25:59 GMT -6
I remember the good old days when it was only fans who stole our music via torrent sites.
We were styling back then, blissfully unaware of the cacophony that would hit when things became "legal, fair and right" and people quit stealing, went legit and started using streaming instead.
We can thank high tech and government for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 10, 2017 21:39:46 GMT -6
Hell, at this point how about $.000925? That would be $925 per million. Just a tad under a million streams on Youtube paid me roughly $116. I'm not sure $925 is even fair, but it's a hell of a lot better than the $116 I got. Got a link? I'll give you 50 more streams. |
|
