|
Post by raliverpool on Mar 11, 2019 21:05:34 GMT 1
Spotify and Amazon 'sue songwriters' with appeal against 44% royalty rise in the United States - Music Business Worldwide
In a joint statement, Google, Pandora and Spotify – who are all asking the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the CRB’s recent decision – said: “The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), in a split decision, recently issued the U.S. mechanical statutory rates in a manner that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. “If left to stand, the CRB’s decision harms both music licensees and copyright owners. Accordingly, we are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the decision." ---------------------------------------------------
I salute Apple for deciding not to join them. The average person probably won't care but as a fan of music who believes musicians & songwriters should be valued I hope this stupid appeal is shot down.
|
|
|
Post by smokeyb on Mar 11, 2019 21:40:10 GMT 1
I don't know much about what royalties artists get from streaming sites, as I buy all my music in a physical format. I am happy that the artist gets paid from a physical sale,if you think you should get free music without the artist receiving a payment then don't be surprised if there are less musicians in the future.
|
|
|
Post by raliverpool on Mar 11, 2019 21:51:29 GMT 1
One very interesting fact is: In 2010 Spotify paid out $0.0017 per stream:
And yet, despite Spotify getting more and more popular, the pay out per stream has decreased to $0.00064 per stream as of end of 2016 (Apparently it climbed slightly to $0.00066 per stream as of end of 2017):
But that still means a stream earns nearly two thirds less than it did in 2010.
And yet the Spotify chief and co-founder is worth $2.3 billion.
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,397
ONLINE
|
Post by TheThorne on Mar 11, 2019 21:53:23 GMT 1
Well its a helluva lot better than how things were 15 years ago. Millions of ex-pirates or potential pirates are now contributing towards the music industry compared to a few thousand hard-core singles buyers like myself were doing in 2003.
Yes more albums were sold then but still millions were lost to piracy.
Music piracy is now a blip compared to what it once was.
|
|
|
Post by raliverpool on Mar 11, 2019 22:15:30 GMT 1
Well its a helluva lot better than how things were 15 years ago. Millions of ex-pirates or potential pirates are now contributing towards the music industry compared to a few thousand hard-core singles buyers like myself were doing in 2003. Yes more albums were sold then but still millions were lost to piracy. Music piracy is now a blip compared to what it once was. That is true. Even I can't argue with that as:
The internet has driven down the value of content and the world of traditional content creators (musicians, filmmakers, writers, photographers, people who make media). There's just so much media available at a cost of nothing or next to nothing for one thing, so the supply is almost infinite; and the Internet is a medium of the masses, not a mass media is multiway, it's participatory, it's for self-selectors, so people want to participate and engage interactively, not passively consume content. It doesn't matter if you're a musician, a journalist, a photographer, a filmmaker, you're never going to make the same kind of living the same way you did before the internet. If you want to make money from producing recorded music, you're not going to be able to do it the way people did in the 20th century.
That genie is not going back into the bottle. Some people who can't engage with entertainment media the network-centric way they're used to will say, "Oh, OK then, I'll buy a CD or a DVD," most will not (or cannot as they don't live nearly a record shop that sells what they want; and they are not invested enough to order off Amazon). Hence why record labels are promoting the most profitable medium vinyl; and prices for music gigs are at a record (in real historical monetary terms) high to compensate. They will just choose some different kind of media to engage with. Will that be better for the artists? Perhaps financially in the short term, but in the end, if the music is not where the people are available the way the people want to access it, the artists will become increasingly marginal in terms of their public profiles (Dave Clark 5; Slade; Garth Brooks; & others not available on streaming platforms who are becoming forgotten).
People are never going to stop making music even if there's no money in it, just like people don't stop sculpting because they're unlikely to have their sculptures placed on sale at a top auction for £100K, or because their novel is not going to spawn the next Harry Potter franchise.
It reminds me of the famous David Bowie quote "Lorde is the future of music". Which Iggy Pop first mentioned on his Radio 6Music show about a conversation he had with his then reclusive friend prior to his two album comeback before his death.
Of course, the music industry took it literally as massive praise of the New Zealand born artist; and after his death she was booked to perform that great tribute at the BRITs... However, when Iggy Pop paid tribute to his old friend exactly 6 months after Bowie's death (as he finally felt composed enough to do so, playing 2 Hours of his music) he revealed the statement by Bowie was actually in reference to a specific episode of South Park, and how more & more musicians are going to have to do the job as a hobby:
However, do you really think it is fair for the co-owner of Spotify to have become a 2 times billionaire off the back of other creatives work?
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,397
ONLINE
|
Post by TheThorne on Mar 11, 2019 23:17:45 GMT 1
No of course not but that's big wigs you will always have that. Record companies had their chance to this and better services like legal Napster existed but they weren't pushed enough and now Spotify is the best we have.
I have thousands of mp3s and records but I never play them now Spotify is too convenient. If I did play my mp3s or records, the artists wouldn't get any more revenue would they?
Now they do constantly but yes we want more money for artists but on the other hand we don't want Spotify to go bust as every alternative is worse.
|
|
|
Post by raliverpool on Mar 12, 2019 19:38:37 GMT 1
The thing is the big three record labels have significant shares in Spotify; and indeed they pushed through in many of the countries charts a disproportional favourable compiling accounting system(s) when it came to the Single & Album charts in Financial terms as opposed to Physical Media. The reason the big three Record Companies were so keen to push Spotify (over Apple iTunes which they missed the boat on) was because of their large piece of the "Pie" (Chart) with regards Streaming on Spotify in % terms (after tax, and Spotify taking their 20.2% "Retail" handling & maintenance cut):
Compared to CDs (after tax):
Compare the Label's cut in those two Pie Charts with the Publishing Royalties and you'll see exactly why Record Labels love streaming; and are quite happy to not push CD sales; and why artists & songwriters feel the other opposite way.
Remember Spotify & co action is against the Artists & Songwriters/Publishers share of the Streaming Pie, not the Labels.... and it all should help become clear why more and more artists are becoming impoverished because of the proportional change in those two Pie Charts.
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Mar 12, 2019 20:04:39 GMT 1
Actually I think bands are just charging ridiculous amounts to see them live instead now, my local(ish) 11,000 capacity Metro Arena has recently held these sold out shows at these prices
Snow Patrol £80 (£880,000) Mumford & Sons £65 (£715,000) ELO £100 (£1.1m) Killers £65 (£715,000)
Now I have no idea who takes what cut but say a 15 venue tour over a month at similar size venues your talking between 10.7m-16.5m for 1 small tour, now if your an act that cant play live or attract a fanbase to ese you live your in trouble as CD sales were their major income
I only bring this up as I was shocked at what these artists were charging and refused to go, they are all on the downward slope of their career
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,397
ONLINE
|
Post by TheThorne on Mar 12, 2019 21:02:17 GMT 1
I saw Snow Patrol for £2.00 in 2000 hehe
|
|
|
Post by raliverpool on Mar 12, 2019 21:15:36 GMT 1
Actually I think bands are just charging ridiculous amounts to see them live instead now, my local(ish) 11,000 capacity Metro Arena has recently held these sold out shows at these prices Snow Patrol £80 (£880,000) Mumford & Sons £65 (£715,000) ELO £100 (£1.1m) Killers £65 (£715,000) Now I have no idea who takes what cut but say a 15 venue tour over a month at similar size venues your talking between 10.7m-16.5m for 1 small tour, now if your an act that cant play live or attract a fanbase to ese you live your in trouble as CD sales were their major income I only bring this up as I was shocked at what these artists were charging and refused to go, they are all on the downward slope of their career Interestingly, If you were a bit of a music "snob" you could make a counterargument that Spotify is the opposite of "An Enemy Of Sustainable Arts" as it now means you have to have some sort of performing "talent" to attract people to see that act in a live environment.
Another way of thinking about the old physical system versus the new Streaming system, is that back in time the amount of acts available to be purchased was restricted by the record labels themselves who worked as a "talent" filter. Now anyone can make a track in their bedroom with a PC/laptop and some digital downloaded music equipment, and then pay the required entry fees for those files to be added to Streaming sites....
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Apr 2, 2019 15:16:15 GMT 1
Actually I think bands are just charging ridiculous amounts to see them live instead now, my local(ish) 11,000 capacity Metro Arena has recently held these sold out shows at these prices Snow Patrol £80 (£880,000) Mumford & Sons £65 (£715,000) ELO £100 (£1.1m) Killers £65 (£715,000) Now I have no idea who takes what cut but say a 15 venue tour over a month at similar size venues your talking between 10.7m-16.5m for 1 small tour, now if your an act that cant play live or attract a fanbase to ese you live your in trouble as CD sales were their major income I only bring this up as I was shocked at what these artists were charging and refused to go, they are all on the downward slope of their career Supply and demand. By having all their back catalogues easily available for everyone to hear it is easier to gain a new fanbase. They can sell out bigger venues even at those prices and make money. As well as making some from the streams of their old music that was previously making them nothing.
|
|