Re:A brief history of why artists are no longer making a liv...
by jjeaff on Thursday March 21, 2019 @07:08PM
(#19458270)
Saying there isn't a market for something is not the same as saying they aren't worthy of being paid.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A brief history of why artists are no longer making a liv...
by anigbrowl on Thursday March 21, 2019 @07:42PM
(#19458435)
There obviously is a market for songwriting and composition, but anger over excessive copyright (eg Disney style life+90) has drastically undermined all copyright. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and is justified (above and in other comments below) on the idea that music lacks utility.
Re:A brief history of why artists are no longer making a liv...
by chipotle_coyote on Thursday March 21, 2019 @07:55PM
(#19458499)
You're right -- I think the reason this is so contentious is that the market for recorded music didn't collapse, to the degree it did, due to lack of demand; it collapsed due to the marginal cost of reproduction dropping to effectively nothing. I'm not making a moral argument here, lest market libertarians prepare to jump -- I'm not saying the market as it existed should have been propped up artificially. I'm just making the observation that "there is no market for recorded music" is a very different statement than "there is no market for horse-drawn carriages." People are listening to recorded music as much as ever, by some measures more so; we just don't expect to have to pay more than ten bucks a month for All The Music.
Re:A brief history of why artists are no longer making a liv...
by TheOtherHobbes on Friday March 22, 2019 @04:41AM
(#19460555)
Spotify could pay far more for each stream than it does. But it chooses not to, and the money mysteriously disappears into the bank accounts of the management team, assorted investors and Spotify's owners - which include the major record companies.
The arts publishing/management/distribution businesses have always been about relentlessly screwing value out of creators, usually by leveraging differences in political and corporate power to intimidate and bully creators into "voluntarily" signing over their income in return for access to various walled-garden markets.
Streaming media have really taken it to a new level.
Re:A brief history of why artists are no longer making a liv...
by Kalium on Friday March 22, 2019 @05:02AM
(#19460662)
You're absolutely right! Spotify could pay far more per stream than it does.
Spotify currently spends 79% of its revenues on royalties. How much more do you think they should spend?
Re:A brief history of why artists are no longer making a liv...
by chipotle_coyote on Friday March 22, 2019 @01:23PM
(#19464707)
While this is probably an Unpopular Opinion™, I think the heart of the problem is ultimately that streaming services undercharge. There's no objective reason to believe that their current price is correct, and the fact that Spotify loses money while artists think they're being underpaid seems to strongly suggest that the price is too low. But consumers now believe that $10/month -- less than the price that a single CD generally is, even on Amazon -- is the Objectively Correct Price, and everyone is stuck.