Is Music streaming legalized theft with no ethical basis to subscribe?

Which is all good except you’ve conveniently omitted the fact that the streaming services and record labels continue to make copious amounts of money off recorded music.

It’s not that profits from recorded music has ended. It’s that the musicians have been largely cut out of those profits.

No question, music streaming is the best consumer value in the history of money. But the musicians are being hosed. That’s the reality.

For as long as civilization has existed, legal has not always aligned with ethically correct.

Ultimately it is us, the consumer, who is equally complicit in this shakedown. We, as a whole, embraced free music downloads and forced the creation of streaming services which are essentially a torrent site like Napster or Apollo (google it) with a nominal monthly fee.

Streaming is essentially a Walgreens flash mob robbery in downtown San Francisco. Legal, but super shady.

3 Likes

What I omitted from my little and rather brief history lesson was the fact that musicians have been getting ripped off by capitalists for as long as there has been capitalism. The sheet music publishers ripped off the composers, the record companies ripped off the musicians, etc, etc. Does the name Norman Petty ring a bell?

Unfairness is not a bug of capitalism, it’s a hardwired and built in feature.

4 Likes

While true, ain’t no problem with pushing back on the man :+1:

2 Likes

Indeed, the never-ending struggle goes on.

With each new advance comes a new ways to exploit.

2 Likes

Artist + Record company is not a symbiotic relationship? Artists should run from a record company contract rather than coveting one?
As we support Roon thus we support streaming? Quite the quandary then.

@OffRode It’s heavily rigged. The artists are left with an unfair reality that for most, a record company contract mostly serves as publicity rather than a revenue stream. The can choose between no publicity, or some publicity. All the while someone else makes the lion share of revenue off their music. Nothing will change unless they unionize, but the artists might be too scattered to get such a thing together.

All that aside, we as consumers are left with a choice as well. We can participate in the theft by streaming, or buy CDs/ Vinyl as directly as possible from our favorite artists.

I totally get the consumer appeal to streaming. But at least for me, it has me questioning my Tidal subscription on ethical grounds rather than “oh, something for free” grounds. Such debates are highly personal.

2 Likes

Since we are talking about right things to do, we should buy digital downloads rather than pieces of plastic.

1 Like

@Marian
Yes, digital download and 3D print a record :rofl:

1 Like

Spotify has lost over 3 billion euros since inception. It is likely that no streaming service is turning a profit.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/244990/spotifys-revenue-and-net-income/

2 Likes

I have the answer , lets all nip onto Pirate Bay and download it for free , it probably came from Spotify anyway by some tricky software route . That way it’s equality no one gets anything :smiling_imp:

SORRY JOKING before the Thought Police start working

This getting a bit heavy , I never really rated @John_V as anything other than a tad sarcastic :sunglasses:

3 Likes

This is the primary reason the CEO of JRiver will not touch streaming services , along with I suspect a few burnt fingers from trying .

They do however support certain video streams which are profitable , Netflix, Amazon etc

When has a “flash mob robbery” been legal, but super shady?

2 Likes

Netflix isn’t profitable either. Amazon is however although it’s propped up by the online retail and AWS services. It’s just a means to get people in the Amazon Eco system like Apple does for music and Apple TV+. They are all loss leaders. The big studios are also struggling to make streaming hugely profitable, Disney just axed loads of stuff, Paramount isn’t doing as well nor Warner’s with HBO max. The main issue with video is too fragmented now not one single provider to give you all that’s around. Unlike music services.

2 Likes

I agree with this for new releases. I wonder how much recycled material is used, if any, in new CDs and vinyl.

Unfortunately if you wish to have an original release from years gone by, vinyl or CD would be the (probable) only option. Record labels and to some degree streaming services as we know don’t always have early versions available when remasters become available.

Buying second hand is a way of recycling I suppose.

:innocent:

3 Likes

It keeps them out of landfill and helps insulates my attic now all the vinyl is downstairs :grin:

3 Likes

This article makes me think. There are many musicians, who write and sing their on songs. But reading this article illustrates, what is behind the “music business”.

Looking back in history, stereo microphones were used, but the musicians were told, it is mono. Because the recording companies did pay less for mono …

No excuse for todays behaviour, but it was always a rip off somehow.

3 Likes

This forum is a bit schizophrenic: some people think that streaming is stealing because of its price, while others think that Tidal is exaggerating by charging $19.99 or removing their advantageous Best Buy offer. But isn’t the whole point of streaming, and Spotify in particular, to get large numbers of users who previously didn’t pay to pay a small fee and thus increase their numbers? Prices will undoubtedly rise, but streaming services need to find the right balance to suit the profile of the vast majority of users, who tend to be young and oriented towards Rap (https://cnm.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DMS_2021_ENG.pdf), and who experience music as a consumer item rather than a cultural object (which is regrettable, but that’s the way it is). Isn’t the sale of second-hand records also theft for the musician, who gets nothing out of it, and the same goes for copies of CDs (illegal, but commonplace). If streaming is not beneficial for musicians, we can also think that it has enabled an incredible increase in the number of musicians who would not be known without these services and would not benefit from sufficient CD sales.

5 Likes

I think this is key to this thread.

Streaming services set the cost.

We pay for it.

Would we be happy to pay more.

Poll time :+1:

1 Like

Quite enjoy some of the tongue in cheek stuff in this thread, as well as more serious comments :+1:.

But still, it makes me ponder where I stand, as a very happy (Qobuz) streamer, and what in fact I know about my own behaviour and how great, or terrible, it is for artists and others involved in creating music.

I tried to quantify and qualify my behaviour, and what it means, and probably got it all wrong. Here goes …

Streaming
Over a year I play approximately … (via Roon)

  • 1200 hours - 18000 songs?

Plus a bit more via radio and direct from Qobuz and other sources - 21000 songs total?

My Roon playtime of course includes local, already purchased, content…But let’s e.g. assume 2/3 is from outside the local collection - Qobuz streams in my case. This is admittedly a wild guess, and (deliberately) towards the high end of what occurs to me as realistic.

So, I would get exposure to maybe 14000 streamed songs, via low-cost (but not free) ‘window shopping’.

Purchases
(full albums) … bought over a year for my own collection and some as gifts. Approximately :

  • 125 CDs ;
  • 30 Vinyl records ;
  • 100 Digital downloads (without physical media) from Bandcamp ;
  • 35 Digital downloads (without physical media) from other sources, (10 or so via Amazon, remainder direct from artist or label)

In total 290 records. Average 10 songs. By ca 250 (album) artists.

Total purchase cost ex shipping and tax around 3000 GBP for close to 3000 songs. (Not so clear to me how much of this goes to artists, to independent labels, to big fish in the chain …)

In other words…

Streaming 14000 songs (the ‘window shopping’) converts into spending GBP 3000 of my money (on average ca 1 pound per song bought) on music purchases, effectively on a lifetime right to listen to play ca 3000 songs whenever I like. I don’t feel I am over- or underpaying.

As I buy albums, not songs, these are not a simple subset of what I streamed. And the bulk of my money benefits only those involved with the sales chain of around 250 album artists - I may have streamed from many more, perhaps 10K artists? So my purchases are more ‘concentrated’ in the sense of covering a relatively limited number of artists. But that is not really different from window shopping old style, I guess.

But still, despite not knowing where the money exactly goes, my ability to stream unlimited (at a very low cost) appears to make me spend more, not less, on music than at any time before I had this opportunity. And a good proportion of it is spent through channels that I hope benefit and reward artists fairly.

Please, tell me I am deserving to sleep the sleep of the innocent :innocent:

Sweet dreams all!

2 Likes

Well, the forum is not a schizophrenic hive mind but different individuals with different opinions

I agree that this is part of the calculation. In the past, before digital downloads, a very small percentage of people actually purchased records in any significant numbers.

My parents, rather average people, didn’t buy one in decades as far I am aware. Nor did any relative in my family as far as I recall. Among my friends in my youth, most of them interested in contemporary music at least in principle and some being fans, maybe bought one or two a year if at all. I was regarded as a frequent buyer for maybe buying one a month (which was all I could afford).

Many of the greatest “alternative” records of the nineties (apart from Nevermind or something like that) sold 50K or 100K if they were lucky, which works out to a few K USD for the band - if they saw any money at all (Compare Steve Albini’s “The Problem with Music” essay from that time).

Maybe the numbers don’t work out with streaming either, in the current scheme, but to me it seems that in principle it’s not impossible if you get hundreds of millions of subscribers to pay a small subscription fee

2 Likes