• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Spotify CEO to Taylor Swift: The Pirates Are Going to Get You

Further confirmation that radio needs to continue to fight to keep music royalty free for OTA. Here a company pays $2 billion, and it's not enough. It will never be enough.
 
You know these people make absolutely No Sense at all. The complain about Pirate, but when a service like Spotify feeds them for every stream played its still not enough. I mean the business model is changing from physical CD's DvD's Blue Rays to the cloud/Download to Hard Drive. People are willing to pay for services like Spotify because it allows you to take your music with you and play it on your smartphone. The Economy is bad and when you have folks who use to serve our country who's lost their jobs and no long can support themselves or family and worse yet has to stand in the food bank link for food at their local food pantry I'm sure buying a shopping bag full of CD's is way out of the question. Truthfully here in NC I've seen folks with an education who's thought they would never end up like that and guess what there they are at the food bank and at the salvation army buying glothes or trying to get help with their electric bill to heat their home for the winter.

It turns my stomach every time I hear these billionaire's bitch about losing money to Piracy and blame everything on Piracy. Grow up, fact the facts and stop griping about how life is treating you. You don't like what you do and don't want your music on Spotify how about getting a night shift job and do some hard labor and do a tour of duty in Iraq. Then come back and cry because you have it so bad. I'm tired of our tax dollard wasted on sue them all court cases to feed these cry babies. If I were a judge I'd freeze all her assets and force her to go for 12 months on nothing but Roman and baked beans and less than 1K/Month to live on and support her family.

I hope the backlash is huge and she loses it all just like Metallica and all the other greedy pigs did. That is why Progressive Rock is better at least those folks aren't cry babies and really do concerts, and have worked hard not stand behind a beat box and halla.
 
TheBigA said:
Further confirmation that radio needs to continue to fight to keep music royalty free for OTA. Here a company pays $2 billion, and it's not enough. It will never be enough.
Click to expand...

That's for sure. Just look at the royalty rate Sound Exchange is trying to set for 2016-2020 for internet radio. $.0025 for 2016, increasing to $.0029 for 2016. And there has been little mention of exceptions like the current pureplay agreement. Pandora is paying over 60% of their revenue at their current rate of $0.0013. The new rate would be over 100% of their total revenue and Sound Exchange doesn't care.

If OTA has to start paying performance royalties then OTA radio like we know it will go away. Even if the rate starts low they will increase the rate endlessly until only the highest billing stations in the largest markets remain.
 
Last edited:
Is losing Taylor going to kill Spotify? No. But Taylor's label seem to be singling out Spotify, while her music remains on Pandora, iTunes, and iRadio and other streaming outlets. So it's not about the money, or streaming, but specifically Spotify.

I was at a conference where a streaming service was complaining about not having access to all catalogues. He was asked by a music industry rep why they need to have every song on their service. The point was that brick & mortar record stores never had complete catalogues in stock. Why do streaming services feel they need complete catalogues. To be honest, I don't have an answer for that. But I'm just conveying the view of the music industry.
 
Last edited:
Casey said:
The new rate would be over 100% of their total revenue and Sound Exchange doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't. To quote the President of Taylor's label: Your business model is not my problem. So if it costs them 100% of their revenue, that's what it costs. Don't like it? Don't use our music. No money is better than too little money. Because, as Taylor says, it's about respect for her art. They live in a very different world from you and me.
 
So, if the record companies and pissed-off artistes like Taylor Swift get their way and streaming dies because nobody has a business model that can factor in the royalty rate and avoid bankruptcy, do music fans go back to camping out at the music store on Tuesday to get the latest hot CD by the latest hot pop star for $18 (or whatever they're selling for these days; haven't bought one at list price in a store for at least six years)? Can the clock really be turned back by the music cabal and a compliant, bought-and-paid-for, US Government? Or does everyone start patronizing whack-a-mole streaming sites in Moldova or Turkmenistan or Romania, where the government don't give a crap what Uncle Sam thinks about the entrepreneurs basing their operations on their servers, the way thousands of sports fans access blacked out games, fights and wrestling events?
 
CTListener said:
So, if the record companies and pissed-off artistes like Taylor Swift get their way and streaming dies because nobody has a business model that can factor in the royalty rate and avoid bankruptcy,
Click to expand...

As I said, I think this is mainly about Spotify, not streaming in general, since they haven't attacked Pandora yet. They're playing favorites. They like some companies, not others. So they're hoping to direct their fans to users of services they like.

But I get what you're saying, and I agree that if Spotify becomes the new Napster, and gets put out of business for some reason, a new competing service WILL come up. I've been to other music conferences where the artists and labels are really trying to find ways to keep control on their music. Meanwhile, the public isn't listening, and they're the ones driving the bus. The internet has no control.
 
TheBigA said:
Is losing Taylor going to kill Spotify? No. But Taylor's label seem to be singling out Spotify, while her music remains on Pandora, iTunes, and iRadio and other streaming outlets. So it's not about the money, or streaming, but specifically Spotify.

I was at a conference where a streaming service was complaining about not having access to all catalogues. He was asked by a music industry rep why they need to have every song on their service. The point was that brick & mortar record stores never had complete catalogues in stock. Why do streaming services feel they need complete catalogues. To be honest, I don't have an answer for that. But I'm just conveying the view of the music industry.
Click to expand...

No Brain answer: Because myself who has subscribed to several services looking for Progressive Rock. I go for two factors. 1. Bit Rate utmost important. The service better stream @ no less than 256K-320K preferably 320K or at AAC+ type stream at 160K. I've found services like Rhapsody streaming @ 128K (Not exceptionable when you're paying for a service). 2. I'll go for every artist that I listen to from Aerosmith to Brian May, Starcastle, Captain Beyond, Queen, Rolling Stones and so on to see if Every Studio Album with every song is there. Check with Wiki to see every album and make certain its there. Spotify has the lions share of the Progressive Rock, Classic Rock with Beats Music (formally MOG) not far behind. They stream at 320K all day long. Between Spotify and Beats Music those two are the ones I have kept my eye on. Both have a decent price and both have apps for Smartphones and a nice web player. I have noticed that Spotify and Beats Music does have a nice sound quality as well when you pay for the premium service. But what makes me mad is when some of the songs are grayed out on an album and I can't listen to the entire album. Again we're comparing apples to oranges when we are saying "Record stores don't have an entire catalog." When it comes to Internet subscription services you have better have your ducks in a row. Otherwise maybe be a Progressive Rock subscription service only and dedicate to only Progressive Rock artists and albums, Classic Rock and so on. Maybe that will be the future of subscription services. I can see paying $9 for a Progressive Rock service where I can get every song from every artist from every album and then another $9 for a Classic Rock subscription service or maybe just have a service for Rock only (which includes all Rock), Country for country fans, Rap for Rap fans. This way a service could have every single song ever recorded for the genre they like (Just like torrents and the old Napster). that is what made Napster appealing was the fact that any album I wanted I could type in and bang get it. I'm willing to pay for a service that I can stream anything I feel like listening at that time. That is what the Internet should be all about. For Me my computer is part of my entire home theater system so its point and click all the way for me. I don't even like DvD,Blue Ray as they can get scratched and won't play without skips. But I can guarantee I can fire up my computer and click away at what I want and never hear one single pop or click or hiss. this is what everyone wants Audiophile sound with every song/album/artist they like and till we get that the industry will continue to fail. The publid will get what they want and until that day comes the cry baby's will have to be whipped into shape like a spoiled brat till you break their spirit and they cave in and eventually do as we ask. History repeats itself since 2003 and you can see how the sue them all campaigns and the Oh gotta educate the public on how physical CD's which can fail is better than Digital which never ever ever will fail. You can purchase a digital copy of Bruce Springsteen - Born on 11/14/2014 and on 11/14/3014 someone can fire up a computer and that album will sound just as good as it did 100 years ago. You can't do that with any physical medium in the universe. Digital is undying, trustworthy, and is the perfect value for the money. But the record companies don't want your music to last forever they'd rather it wear out like an 8 track tape did where every 3 months you buy the same album over and over again.
 
Last edited:
thelegacy said:
But the record companies don't want your music to last forever they'd rather it wear out like an 8 track tape did where every 3 months you buy the same album over and over again.
Click to expand...

But that's why this makes no sense. Streaming isn't downloading. It's simply listening to a song once. It's like a quarter in the jukebox. If you want to listen again, the artist gets paid again. Not so with a downloaded album. Once you own it, you can listen forever. So while the streaming royalty is a fraction of a penny, the goal is for you to put it in your favorites, and stream it multiple times, with everyone getting paid every time they stream.
 
That's Right everytime you play a song they get royalties for streaming. So the artists/Songs that get streamed the most they get paid the most. So if their work is loved by many users who continue to listen they will get paid. So why do they cry about this? If their not getting enough money they need to contact Sound Exchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, SOCAN (For Canada). These are the companies that handle Internet Radio/Streams. They charge the webcaster so in return they should be paying the artists. If the artists are not getting money its these entities that should be audited and investigated to be sure things are handled in the right way. Again Piracy may not be the major issue here its who handles the money and what is being done with the money they collect.
 
Streaming On Subscription Services

OK so does anyone know if she has her music on Rhapsody, Beats Music these are the two other all you can listen to monthly subscription services I can think of. I'd like to know if this is something that will effect other subscription services and if so will it eventually trickle down to FREE Internet Radio stations? Usually these folks start the ball rolling with a well known service and then it trickles everywhere else. To what I've seen in the past their attitude is "You gotta start somewhere" so I can see why they'd target Spotify since there was a lot of buzz about it way before it was open to US users.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom