Spotify set to end free music streaming under pressure from Universal, Warner and Sony

[Misanthrope]

Hardly surprising, adverts simply don't pay much money, they're pretty close to being worthless tbh. Paying customers have been subsidising the free users since Spotify started.

 

Actually while their gains are too little, you also have to consider just how overpriced music really is: sometimes a CD is more expensive than a DVD movie, because fuck thieves henceforth legit users pay us more. With that kind of logic, I'll stay a thief, I'll just support bands that deserve my attention by buying merch directly from them.

[Murdoch]

Did I wake up in a parallel universe in which TV and Radio never existed?

 

I was talking about internet services, obviously. I guess I will go on to explain my point, cause you seem to have missed it. Films, TV shows, Books, and Games for the most part haven't embraced the "completely free advert supported revenue model", and have stuck with the "you still have to pay for stuff" approach. And most people have accepted that, yet, most people won't accept the same for music.

 

Offering up something for free, to an extent devalues the product.

[oldgamer4life]

I have YouTube so I don't care.  The heck with Spotify.  Check out my **** at this link below .....

[HalGameGuru]

Radio station also have agreements in place for broadcasting music.

Hence my point? All involved parties have voluntary agreements in place over compensation. (although sometimes less than "voluntary") For record labels to be making a fuss is inane.

[FunkyFeatures]

Paying for Spotify (if you're a student) is literally like skipping ONE kebab meal for a month. Don't tell me you can't afford that.

How much more convenient do you want it to be before you will pay for your music? You want the singer to come to your house and sing it to you? And BS if you think pirating is easier..

I just dont think 10$ is worth it unless i listen to music every day. Music is a thing i might use for about 3/4 hours a week, therefore the price doesnt justify the service for me. Also, considering what i get payed by my shitty student job, a spotify subscription is 12% of my monthly pay. (I get 2.5$ an hour if you would want to know)

So in this case, piracy is easier compared to what you pay. Id rather spend an extra hour or two a month, pirating instead of overpaying for a service that i might use every now and then

[arnavvr]

r u srs

 

plz dont make me go back to youtube, youtube sucks ass for quality ._.

[CyanideInsanity]

I was talking about internet services, obviously. I guess I will go on to explain my point, cause you seem to have missed it. Films, TV shows, Books, and Games for the most part haven't embraced the "completely free advert supported revenue model", and have stuck with the "you still have to pay for stuff" approach. And most people have accepted that, yet, most people won't accept the same for music.

 

Offering up something for free, to an extent devalues the product.

 

A big part of it is that those who run the industry often attempt to kill off any paradigm shifts out of fear for their laziness. That's what pisses a lot of us off. Instead of new ideas dying off because they won't work in the long term we get things like this(if it is true, the companies pressuring spotify) where companies who hold the power of money want to stop any opposition by force.

 

A bit of a side note, books do have a free service alternative, libraries haven't gone extinct yet!

[Murdoch]

A big part of it is that those who run the industry often attempt to kill off any paradigm shifts out of fear for their laziness. That's what pisses a lot of us off. Instead of new ideas dying off because they won't work in the long term we get things like this(if it is true, the companies pressuring spotify) where companies who hold the power of money want to stop any opposition by force.

 

A bit of a side note, books do have a free service alternative, libraries haven't gone extinct yet!

 

I'm gonna start from scratch, cause I don't think people really get where I'm coming from.

 

The Music industry has actually embraced change (albeit reluctantly), way more than the TV and Film industries have. Which is why I think it should be properly supported, and people should be willing to pay a small subscription fee. I'll state this pretty clearly, I was a huge fucking Music pirate back in the day, mainly because "illegal services" offered functionality that that was light years ahead of the music industry. Napster was amazing, Oink was truly paradigm shifting - I had instant access to any music album I could think of, a vast library of practically every album recorded, all the new releases, awesome methods of finding new bands and songs, all in high quality. And I pirated the shit out of it, because it was awesome. That was Oink in 2004, and I said at the time, If this service was legal, I would happily pay for it. Well it took a decade or so, but Spotify is just as good. The only thing that's changed in those 10 years, is either through piracy or because of ad supported music / vids. We've become accustomed to getting music for free.

 

And I know that Libraries are a thing. FFS. If I wanted to give a fucking example, people would rather buy an ebook for the kindle, than read 10 pages and have an advert pop up for 30 seconds.

[CyanideInsanity]

I'm gonna start from scratch, cause I don't think people really get where I'm coming from.

 

The Music industry has actually embraced change (albeit reluctantly), way more than the TV and Film industries have. Which is why I think it should be properly supported, and people should be willing to pay a small subscription fee. I'll state this pretty clearly, I was a huge fucking Music pirate back in the day, mainly because "illegal services" offered functionality that that was light years ahead of the music industry. Napster was amazing, Oink was truly paradigm shifting - I had instant access to any music album I could think of, a vast library of practically every album recorded, all the new releases, awesome methods of finding new bands and songs, all in high quality. And I pirated the shit out of it, because it was awesome. That was Oink in 2004, and I said at the time, If this service was legal, I would happily pay for it. Well it took a decade or so, but Spotify is just as good. The only thing that's changed in those 10 years, is either through piracy or because of ad supported music / vids. We've become accustomed to getting music for free.

 

And I know that Libraries are a thing. FFS. If I wanted to give a fucking example, people would rather buy an ebook for the kindle, than read 10 pages and have an advert pop up for 30 seconds.

 

If people have gotten used to it, yeah its obvious a change worse for the consumer wouldn't be taken sitting down. But I don't think as many would be against this if it was spotify stating that continuing to offer an ad supported service wasn't viable as opposed to this alleged 'bribery'.

[mr moose]

I was talking about internet services, obviously. I guess I will go on to explain my point, cause you seem to have missed it. Films, TV shows, Books, and Games for the most part haven't embraced the "completely free advert supported revenue model", and have stuck with the "you still have to pay for stuff" approach. And most people have accepted that, yet, most people won't accept the same for music.

 

Offering up something for free, to an extent devalues the product.

 

If spotify are paying the same royalties as a radio station then I don't see how it is any different, the end consumer still gets to hear the music without paying.

[Murdoch]

If people have gotten used to it, yeah its obvious a change worse for the consumer wouldn't be taken sitting down. But I don't think as many would be against this if it was spotify stating that continuing to offer an ad supported service wasn't viable as opposed to this alleged 'bribery'.

People will just leave the service. Like they did when they implemented the 5 plays, or time limit restrictions for free users.

There's a certain percentage of Spotify users that simply won't pay for the service. And I completely understand why Spotify want to cast them aside. I'm sure in time, if this actually happens Spotify will explain why it's not viable to retain the free service in its current form.

[Murdoch]

If spotify are paying the same royalties as a radio station then I don't see how it is any different, the end consumer still gets to hear the music without paying.

 

Well, given the stand off between YouTube and the PRS a few years back, when YouTube had to remove practically all music in the UK. I think royalties from the likes of YouTube are extremely low when compared with things like traditional radio stations. From what I understand, Spotify would be able to offer over double the royalties per play, if they dropped the free service.

 

Also, the difference is you can chose the song you want to play, and play it as many times as you want... that's quite different from a radio station.

[mr moose]

Well, given the stand off between YouTube and the PRS a few years back, when YouTube had to remove practically all music in the UK. I think royalties from the likes of YouTube are extremely low when compared with things like traditional radio stations. From what I understand, Spotify would be able to offer over double the royalties per play, if they dropped the free service.

 

Also, the difference is you can chose the song you want to play, and play it as many times as you want... that's quite different from a radio station.

My understanding of radio royalties is they pay per play, so If spotify pay per play then there is no difference.

[Murdoch]

My understanding of radio royalties is they pay per play, so If spotify pay per play then there is no difference.

 

Well it would be if you were comparing it to something like Pandora. And if the royalties roughly worked out to the same amount per listener.

[mr moose]

Well it would be if you were comparing it to something like Pandora. And if the royalties roughly worked out to the same amount per listener.

 

If the story is true, I wouldn't be at all surprised if BMI found a way to more accurately account for performances and spotify can no longer play more than they are claiming.

 

http://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/internet_music_mobile_entertainment

 

To the extent that music usage information has been submitted to us, we have distributed and will continue to distribute royalties for performances of your music over the Internet on sites licensed by BMI and for performances of your music made available by licensed mobile entertainment providers. However, due to the nature of these services and the systems that we or they may employ to track the use of your music, the number of performances listed on your royalty statement may not reflect the actual number of performances.

 

This basically is BMI telling the artists that they can only pay royalties based on the numbers given to them by internet services regardless if they are true or not.   

[Jasmin]

Why would they? The fact that they offer free streaming is why theyre so popular...

And the fact that we've yet to hear anything from Spotify makes me wanna think this is just some stupid rumor who follows everything Taylor Swift and wants to try and make her idea sound like the ultimate solutilon

Becasue, as we have already heard, Apple was allegedly pushing labels to deny service to competition - while this has gone silent for a while, maybe while the 3-month trial period is nearing its end, Apple got numbers to back its eariler demand.

[ThreePinkApples]

I've been expecting this as long as I've used Spotify. Although the last 5 years I've payed for Spotify, so it doesn't bother me, I still think it might turn out to be a bad move, maybe. They have quite many free users and if enough of them choose to pay if they end free, they will earn on it.

But of course, this will make piracy increase again, but if it ends up increasing money for both Spotify and the companies, it's still a win, somewhat. 

[ShadowCaptain]

its not that I can't afford it, I would rather put my money towards other things.

 

Then don't listen to music

 

(this is not specifically aimed at you, just the mentality in general)

 

Basically you want to use a product or service, but because of its price, or the fact you do not use it enough, you expect that you should get it for free?

 

I only use my motorbike on weekends, but when I bought it, I did not tell the shop keeper I dont think I should pay for this, I only use it a few times a month, 

 

People act like they are entitled to listen to music, and are not prepared to pay for it, it angers me a lot. if I was a musician and people just ripped my music off youtube, or illegally downloaded my album I would be extremely hurt, and if it made me lose money its possible i would just stop making music

[TheMcSame]

Then don't listen to music

I wouldn't go that far just yet, if people want to listen to music but they'd rather put money towards other things then there's still plenty of free services, some of which have a much larger selection than spotify, and some (mainly Youtube) are pretty safe from the music industry's backhand.

[ShadowCaptain]

I wouldn't go that far just yet, if people want to listen to music but they'd rather put money towards other things then there's still plenty of free services, some of which have a much larger selection than spotify, and some (mainly Youtube) are pretty safe from the music industry's backhand.

 

Listening to music that has been uploaded by the artist (or their label) onto add supported YouTube (or if they choose to have no adds) is fair enough, they have made a concious decision to make their music available on that platform and choose to either support it with adds, or let you watch it for free through YouTube

 

 

But ripping the audio and downloading it I do not agree with

 

I did not say do not listen to music for free, as long as that platform is legal, and is supported by the artist whos music is on that site (whether free, paid or add supported)

[matjojo]

I just plain can't afford music, plus there are almost no people selling gangster rap anywhere:P

[Prysin]

just going to put this out there. But a few Djs in Norway, most notably internationally atm is probably Broiler, said that unless your song has MORE then 1 million plays on Spotify, the money you make from the streams are so little you cannot even afford food on the table for a week. Yes i know, he is from norway, yes it is atrociously expensive here, but the rate which you are paid at does not change.

The reason spotify doesnt pay artist atm, is because according to their own statistics, 85-90% of their users are free accounts, with the remaining paying users and commericals alone having to cover ALL the licensing fees. Knowing how the music industry is, those fees are probably viciously expensive, even being artificially expensive. SO... spotify isnt really helping indies as much as you'd think. Gigs and CD sales are way way way way more lucrative.

[euniqe]

People act like they are entitled to listen to music, and are not prepared to pay for it, it angers me a lot. if I was a musician and people just ripped my music off youtube, or illegally downloaded my album I would be extremely hurt, and if it made me lose money its possible i would just stop making music

 

 

You're kidding, right? This is the exact fucking sentiment that has RUINED the music industry - that you musicians feel that it's a "job" and you need to get "paid". Not that it's an artform and you make music for the sheer pleasure of making people sing and dance. 

 

Musicians make next to nothing at all from record sales. That fact notwithstanding, if I was a musician and I got even the vaguest whiff that someone enjoyed my music enough to warrant owning it, I would be fucking flattered. I wouldn't give a shit that that person pirated it or not, because at the end of the day, the most popular person wins.

 

That person who has my music could then come to enjoy my music to such an extent that they buy merchandise, or a concert ticket. They then get their friends into my stuff, and THEY go and buy some merchandise or a concert ticket etc. 

 

There are so many other benefits to being a music producer/manufacturer/artist than simply selling records. This is why everyone called Lars Ulrich a fuckwit over the Napster issue. Just because a band doesnt have thier fanbase buying thier music with money doesnt mean the artist isn't grateful for their appreciation. 

 

If someone listens to my music, the last thing I'm caring about is bloody profit. 

[TroubleKlef]

You're kidding, right? This is the exact fucking sentiment that has RUINED the music industry - that you musicians feel that it's a "job" and you need to get "paid". Not that it's an artform and you make music for the sheer pleasure of making people sing and dance. 

 

Musicians make next to nothing at all from record sales. That fact notwithstanding, if I was a musician and I got even the vaguest whiff that someone enjoyed my music enough to warrant owning it, I would be fucking flattered. I wouldn't give a shit that that person pirated it or not, because at the end of the day, the most popular person wins.

 

That person who has my music could then come to enjoy my music to such an extent that they buy merchandise, or a concert ticket. They then get their friends into my stuff, and THEY go and buy some merchandise or a concert ticket etc. 

 

There are so many other benefits to being a music producer/manufacturer/artist than simply selling records. This is why everyone called Lars Ulrich a fuckwit over the Napster issue. Just because a band doesnt have thier fanbase buying thier music with money doesnt mean the artist isn't grateful for their appreciation. 

 

If someone listens to my music, the last thing I'm caring about is bloody profit. 

 

If you were. The rest of the musicians probably like getting paid for their work. If not, they can always upload their music to free music sharing sites and tweet out "Check out my new mixtape bros!~~"

[ShadowCaptain]

If someone listens to my music, the last thing I'm caring about is bloody profit. 

 

While I agree, and while that would be nice, the cold hard truth is that the world does not work that way, making music takes time, it costs money for recording studio time, and getting cds made, their instruments cost money as does travelling to venues, even if its a local pub, they need fuel for the van, money for food etc

 

It is not always possible to go to a gig, the artist might be from another country, perhaps they do not sell merchandise or its not available to ship to my location etc

 

 

 

Music is an art form, but musicians are people, people that need money to survive and function in order for them to make more music