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

[HarmFull]

Lemme just drop this here to show what will happen:

 

[mikeeginger]

Welp Rip Spotify listeners

If they do 

[Ialyrn]

This was talked about on the forum this couple of months back

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are looking closely into Apple’s business practices in relation to its upcoming music streaming service, according to multiple sources. The Verge has learned that Apple has been pushing major music labels to force streaming services like Spotify to abandon their free tiers, which will dramatically reduce the competition for Apple’s upcoming offering. DOJ officials have already interviewed high-ranking music industry executives about Apple’s business habits, but it appears the FTC has taken the lead in recent weeks.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/4/8540935/apple-labels-spotify-streaming

So I guess we can all thank Apple for putting pressure on the music industry first.

[Murdoch]

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

 

 

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.   

 

Yeah, most of the agreements are behind NDA anyways, so it's hard to tell exactly what artists are being paid, and if it's fair. I'm largely basing the fact it's not very much, on what artists have said they get paid, and reports in the media. There's no doubt Spotify are doing this due to pressure from the big labels. Personally, I can see where they are coming from, the free service offers far more choice and freedom than a traditional radio service. If for example, I wanted to listen to a specific Led Zeppelin song on the radio, it would be a miracle if I could find a station playing it. On Spotify free, I could find it in seconds, and play it on repeat, and it would pay the artist almost nothing. This gives me a strong incentive not to purchase music, yet doesn't provide enough revenue to justify it being allowed for free (from the perspective of the artists and labels). It's different from traditional radio, which coexisted with Music sales for decades, which actually promoted sales, rather than discouraged them.

 

If people just want to listen to ad supported radio, that's fine, Pandora, or other digital radio services work. The key difference is being able to play whatever you want. And that is ultimately what will be restricted, to me the reasons are obvious.

[s3ns3]

Spoken like a true pirate

no . i have spoken for the 99% of the population

[patrick3027]

We have one, ONE good tech company in Europe... Of course Apple takes it down...

Thank you Apple, thank you. *slow clap*

[SeriouslyMikey]

Never even used Spotify. 

[HalGameGuru]

fair, unfair, value, its all subjective. And beyond the scope of what we can come to any agreement on. The ONLY paradigm that has any bearing is voluntary and mutually consented contract. It does not matter what we think in one way or another, what matters is what was agreed to by the parties in question, and have those agreements been held to.

[othertomperson]

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.

 

I didn't buy that argument when it was coming from Taylor Swift, I don't buy it from you either.

 

I was going to make a hypothetical analogy here, but I really don't need to. I'm a teacher in a state school. My wages are paid indirectly through taxation, and not through a direct charge to my pupils' parents. Should I be kicking and screaming that "doing my job for free" devalues it, in spite of me still getting paid to do it regardless? Fuck no. Taylor Swift can complain about Spotify or Apple or whoever not paying her enough (or at all), but as soon as she takes issue with other companies subsidising her art via adverts or whatever so that people who can't afford $10 per month can enjoy it while still paying her in the process, she can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned.

[Murdoch]

I didn't buy that argument when it was coming from Taylor Swift, I don't buy it from you either.

 

I was going to make a hypothetical analogy here, but I really don't need to. I'm a teacher in a state school. My wages are paid indirectly through taxation, and not through a direct charge to my pupils' parents. Should I be kicking and screaming that "doing my job for free" devalues it, in spite of me still getting paid to do it regardless? Fuck no. Taylor Swift can complain about Spotify or Apple or whoever not paying her enough (or at all), but as soon as she takes issue with other companies subsidising her art via adverts or whatever so that people who can't afford $10 per month can enjoy it while still paying her in the process, she can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned.

 

Bizarre example dude. It really makes no sense, you do get paid for your work, it's funded by general taxation, advertising revenue is not a Government based taxation model.

 

Lets take your example further, it would be more like using adverts in schools, to try and fund a large chunk of the School system, and then having to pay teachers peanuts, because the funding model is inadequate.

 

Now you can debate all you want whether the "amount of money" is adequate or not, but it's the artists and labels that are saying it is not, therefore, they can do what they want. It really is irrelevant whether you buy the argument or otherwise.

 

It's also worth pointing out, advertising revenue, isn't some magical pot of gold that can just fund everything. But yes, in an ideal world advertising would provide enough revenue to keep everybody happy. I have no problem with that idealism, but in reality, Spotify are being forced to change by the labels. If they don't I'd imagine we'll go back to fragmented crap, where there's loads of stuff missing from their catalogue. I really want to avoid that situation, so I'd rather people considered paying for the service. For my money, it's cheap as chips, and really quite worth it.

 

I don't see anybody complaining that Netflix, HBO, or Amazon don't offer a free online video service funded by advertising, which was my original point, the expectations are different, largely in part because people have become accustomed to getting all music for free. I completely understand why the industry want to change that, and I also understand people moan when something free is taken away. But they're just gonna have to suck it up.

[HalGameGuru]

Adequate or inadequate are not arguments. It's all a question of the contracts involved. If the compensation enumerated in the contract is not good enough don't enter into it. If you enter into a contract and are then unhappy with the amounts you receive via the contract that is on you. There is no inherently moral level of compensation. There is only what is agreed to and whether that is held to. 

 

Who this drama really hurts are those content creators who want these outlets to provide exposure rather than remuneration. A streaming service could be seen as a massively effective advertising outlet, exposure to new listeners and amassing name recognition without spending a penny. Those who wish to make their money by live performance or direct sales rather than through record labels can benefit greatly from readily available access to their content. Those outlets being choked by the large established firms, especially if its outside the purview of the contracts involved, is unconscionable.

[Murdoch]

Adequate or inadequate are not arguments. It's all a question of the contracts involved. If the compensation enumerated in the contract is not good enough don't enter into it. If you enter into a contract and are then unhappy with the amounts you receive via the contract that is on you. There is no inherently moral level of compensation. There is only what is agreed to and whether that is held to.

 

Who this drama really hurts are those content creators who want these outlets to provide exposure rather than remuneration. A streaming service could be seen as a massively effective advertising outlet, exposure to new listeners and amassing name recognition without spending a penny. Those who wish to make their money by live performance or direct sales rather than through record labels can benefit greatly from readily available access to their content. Those outlets being choked by the large established firms, especially if its outside the purview of the contracts involved, is unconscionable.

 

These are fair points, and it's the upcoming renegotiation of big label contracts that are primarily the cause of this thread. The labels have honoured their contracts with Spotify, whether they renew them on the same terms is a different story.

 

To your second point, most artists in that bracket wouldn't have initially signed up to big labels. That's where indie labels come in too. A number of my favourite artists simply made their music freely available on their website to start off with, or opted for the "pay what you want" approach. I always try and support those guys, cause they're fucking awesome.

[mr moose]

Yeah, most of the agreements are behind NDA anyways, so it's hard to tell exactly what artists are being paid, and if it's fair. I'm largely basing the fact it's not very much, on what artists have said they get paid, and reports in the media. There's no doubt Spotify are doing this due to pressure from the big labels. Personally, I can see where they are coming from, the free service offers far more choice and freedom than a traditional radio service. If for example, I wanted to listen to a specific Led Zeppelin song on the radio, it would be a miracle if I could find a station playing it. On Spotify free, I could find it in seconds, and play it on repeat, and it would pay the artist almost nothing. This gives me a strong incentive not to purchase music, yet doesn't provide enough revenue to justify it being allowed for free (from the perspective of the artists and labels). It's different from traditional radio, which coexisted with Music sales for decades, which actually promoted sales, rather than discouraged them.

 

If people just want to listen to ad supported radio, that's fine, Pandora, or other digital radio services work. The key difference is being able to play whatever you want. And that is ultimately what will be restricted, to me the reasons are obvious.

Not to nitpick but that's a contradiction.

 

The only part of the royalty agreement that is not public knowledge is the amount, but if you read the BMI website they lay out pretty clearly how royalties are collected and paid.  I don't know what share of those royalties labels absorb, but then we have to remember agreements between artists and labels are not the consumers concern and well beyond spotify's control.  If spotify are paying the same rate per play as a radio station then it doesn't matter that spotify provide on demand music, they are still supposed to be paying the same royalties for each performances.   At least that is if they are claiming all the times they play a said song, they might only be claiming 1 in every 3 songs.  Which BMI have already claimed in a veiled sort of way.  

 

 

This is my assumption prediction as to the issue:

 

If anything is going on here, it is not that spotify is on demand that is the problem, it is that spotify's ad-based model does not earn enough to pay the same royalties as radio station ad-based revenue (which we have to admit even today is still huge) or that spotify are burning the books in order to pay less royalties. 

[Murdoch]

Not to nitpick but that's a contradiction.

 

The only part of the royalty agreement that is not public knowledge is the amount, but if you read the BMI website they lay out pretty clearly how royalties are collected and paid.  I don't know what share of those royalties labels absorb, but then we have to remember agreements between artists and labels are not the consumers concern and well beyond spotify's control.  If spotify are paying the same rate per play as a radio station then it doesn't matter that spotify provide on demand music, they are still supposed to be paying the same royalties for each performances.   At least that is if they are claiming all the times they play a said song, they might only be claiming 1 in every 3 songs.  Which BMI have already claimed in a veiled sort of way.  

 

 

This is my assumption prediction as to the issue:

 

If anything is going on here, it is not that spotify is on demand that is the problem, it is that spotify's ad-based model does not earn enough to pay the same royalties as radio station ad-based revenue (which we have to admit even today is still huge) or that spotify are burning the books in order to pay less royalties. 

 

It's not really a contradiction, you can roughly establish the value of the adverts from information on comparable services. Sure we don't know the exact amount, but we can get a rough idea, Spotify runs 2 adverts every 30 minutes of music or something along those lines, and some banner adverts.

 

What we don't know is the actual payment plans per label / artist, and how it's all divided up, that was the point I was making. Many artists are complaining, yet we have no idea if they are correct to complain or not. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, given what some artists I respect have said. But those deals are all under NDA, they could well be hustling us all. Some websites online state the average payout from Spotify to be $0.003 per play, that's including both the free and premium services. How much of that makes it's way to artists, I have no idea. Having said that, I'm speaking from a UK perspective, where the PRS can't comment on revenue from YouTube / Spotify etc, perhaps the BMI is more transparent.

 

You can look at how much commercial ad supported radio stations pay and their audience size and work out what pays more per listen I guess. I can't find those figures for the PRS, the UK equivalent to the BMI. But I suspect the main sticking point is the free service being a little too free, while also not paying out very much.

[mr moose]

It's not really a contradiction, you can roughly establish the value of the adverts from information on comparable services. Sure we don't know the exact amount, but we can get a rough idea, Spotify runs 2 adverts every 30 minutes of music or something along those lines, and some banner adverts.

 

What we don't know is the actual payment plans per label / artist, and how it's all divided up, that was the point I was making. Many artists are complaining, yet we have no idea if they are correct to complain or not. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, given what some artists I respect have said. But those deals are all under NDA, they could well be hustling us all. Some websites online state the average payout from Spotify to be $0.003 per play, that's including both the free and premium services. How much of that makes it's way to artists, I have no idea. Having said that, I'm speaking from a UK perspective, where the PRS can't comment on revenue from YouTube / Spotify etc, perhaps the BMI is more transparent.

 

You can look at how much commercial ad supported radio stations pay and their audience size and work out what pays more per listen I guess. I can't find those figures for the PRS, the UK equivalent to the BMI. But I suspect the main sticking point is the free service being a little too free, while also not paying out very much.

 

BMI passes on 85% of all royalties to the artist**. BMI also get paid per play regardless of radio or internet service.  So any discrepancy between radio and spotify is intentionality* on spotify's part.

 

*I say this because I fail to see how they could not know how many times a user has streamed a particular song, thus the royalty's they should be paying.

** What split the labels get from this is between the artist and the label and is moot in this discussion as it does not effect the royaty amount payable. 

[Murdoch]

BMI passes on 85% of all royalties to the artist**. BMI also get paid per play regardless of radio or internet service. So any discrepancy between radio and spotify is intentionality* on spotify's part.

*I say this because I fail to see how they could not know how many times a user has streamed a particular song, thus the royalty's they should be paying.

** What split the labels get from this is between the artist and the label and is moot in this discussion as it does not effect the royaty amount payable.

What I meant by that was not the discretionary percentage that goes to a particular label & their artist. As you say that's between them. I was referencing, what I gather is the case, that certain labels and artists have better deals than others, thus it's not a flat payout per play (the same for everybody), as you would expect.

Edit: Scrub that, according to Spotify they use a basic formula for dividing revenue.

Edit 2: having looked a little closer, it seems some labels have used the opportunity when signing contracts with spotify and artists. To fuck over their artists and take a bigger cut of revenue than through traditional means of selling music. There's a leaked contract of lady gaga, that shows her label takes all the streaming revenue. If this is widespread, no wonder artists aren't happy. I'm kinda changing my mind on this tbh, seems like it's the labels yet again that are the biggest problem here.

[EthanTheFrogMan]

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

In my case it is the DRM, not that I think I am entitled to music, I own thousands of songs and it would be nice to sell them and use that to buy new ones. If spotify gets rid of the free streaming I will just pay for it, but I am not going to now.

[Equlix]

NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUu dont make me return to pirating music

thats exactly their goal. get more people to pirate then pass more anti open internet laws under the guise of copyright protection. don't be cheap ass, just buy a premium membership. 

[thekeemo]

thats exactly their goal. get more people to pirate then pass more anti open internet laws under the guise of copyright protection. don't be cheap ass, just buy a premium membership. 

not of all of have a real source of income

[Knaj]

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/spotify-set-to-end-free-music-streaming-under-pressure-from-universal-warner-and-sony-20150810-givytn.html

 

"Reports have emerged that the music streaming market leader Spotify may be preparing to shut down much of its free content and migrate to a subscription-based model."

 

Spotify HAS NOT yet commented.

 

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[emachado99]

The only reason I bought premium was because I loved using the service for free, but wanted to have the music for offline purposes.

 

Offering the music streaming for free is what made them so popular.

[dalekphalm]

In my case it is the DRM, not that I think I am entitled to music, I own thousands of songs and it would be nice to sell them and use that to buy new ones. If spotify gets rid of the free streaming I will just pay for it, but I am not going to now.

The thing is, with digital, there's never really going to be an easy way to "sell" a used copy of a song. At least, not without some CRAZY invasive DRM - which everyone hates.

 

If you want the ability to sell your old music that you don't like to listen to anyone (and use that to buy new music), then the answer is quite simple: Buy physical CD's.

 

Many places have a vibrant used CD market. Here in Canada we have several large chains of Used CD/DVD/Record stores. They'll buy pretty much anything from you. Sure, you won't get much per CD or DVD, but it's the same as selling your used games to GameStop or EB Games, etc. Want to make more selling games or CD's or DVD's? Do it privately over Craigslist, Kijiji, eBay, or in person to friends/over Facebook.

[ShadowCaptain]

In my case it is the DRM, not that I think I am entitled to music, I own thousands of songs and it would be nice to sell them and use that to buy new ones. If spotify gets rid of the free streaming I will just pay for it, but I am not going to now.

 

Sorry can you elaborate on what you mean by DRM, you mean on spotify? I guess the problem is its not the same,if you buy a CD you can easily sell that to make money back, and rip the contents to your PC to archive as an MP3

 

That can be a good way to buy music, and sell the CDs online, or to one of those recycling places

[Chicken]

Heaven forbid people PAYING for things they LIKE. 

That's unheard of in this parts /s most of the people who complain about this are probably kids/teenagers or really really poor adults... in which case music streaming should not be their concern.

[jaggysnake57]

there seams to be a notion that people deserve to get paid for products they try to sell.  im sorry but no they dont. thats not how it works. people paid for music in the past because they didnt have a choice. now they do, and its clear that they dont want to pay for music. if spotify do cancel there free music, then many people will return to pirating, and artists will get paid jack shit.

 

and im sorry but i will never buy the poor artists story as long as i see many "poor artists" rolling in money  then they will have no sympathy from me.  if any one is entitled its the music industry, the cash cow is dead, move on