MPs to investigate whether artists are paid fairly for streaming music

[CS70]

If I can stream a song anytime I want, it's the same as owning it, isn't it?

I don't think so. If I *own* something (say, a CD), I'm free to do what I choose (within reason) with that thing - consume it how I choose, lend it to friends, sell it etc. If I choose to keep it for my lifetime, if I'm responsible and look after it, I'll always have access to it and be able to enjoy it.

It's not about the ownership of the physical support (obviously you don't have a cd when you stream) but of the information. DC is talking about the information.

I'm able to access my Spotify all the time and able to enjoy it - given of course that I have the necessary infrastructure (access to a working network connection). But that's the same with any support layer.. can't enjoy a CD if I don't have access to a CD player.

But streaming services (and indirectly, labels) still very much control that relationship to that media. It can be withdrawn/removed at any time, outside of my control.

Not really. You have a legal licensing contract that entitles you to access that information. There may be glitches due to errors of course (and therefore access on a streaming platform may be more fragile than a physical platform as a CD.. but not sure about that , but Spotify cannot arbitrarily deny or change that access without your consent.

The agreement terms can change at any time. My account can be revoked at any time. The payment terms may change requiring me to pay additional money to access the content that I already previously had access to for free. Advertising may be inserted into that content. Etc etc.

When you subscribe, there is a formal, legally enforceable agreement between two parties. This is no different than any other service. You use electricity to run your CD player and that electricity is delivered to you via a service contract - you still own the electricity you use, in the sense that it's physically there to run your laser. You don't own the support platform (well, only a small part of it, the termination cabling, just like your terminator - the phone).

The bottom line is that ownership comes down to control, and for media I own, *I'm* in control, and for streaming media - who knows who's in control, it probably changes month by month - but it's certainly not me.

It does not change without your agreement? As anyone working with software products know, the legal departement of any SW company worth its name is kept quite busy by drafting and maintaining the license agreements. Lots of consumer consider it just yadayada but it seldom is. It defines what you own (or not)

Of course you're right that there's a difference: services are, by their own nature, more subject to change that physical products... and if you do not agree to a particular change, you may need to stop using that service. But - critically - you will do it without penalties whatsoever, because it is not a breach of contract. Whereas if you want to unilaterally stop using a service that it's time-bound before it expires, it can well be that you can't or you need to pay a penalty (say a yearly gym subscription, for example).

Anyway, forgetting any legal distinctions for now, one of the key main difference to me between my own library of music I've bought, versus having a streaming account and being able to listen to anything, is that *I can rely on the music I have bought to be there* - I will never have content I own removed from my library by another company, or have the terms of use change at a corporate whim, and I will never have to pay additional money to continue to access my content.

As an aside, the legal distinctions are not at all irrelevant - contrarily to what too many people think, they *are* what defines any formal relationship we have. Without legal distinctions, there's no ownership whatsoever (other the temporary one granted by a having a bigger club than the people nearby, and a good ability in swinging it).

As of the point about changing the content - it's not something structural to streaming or not, but rather a property of the specific contract you sign (hopefully, with open eyes).

I know this has bitten people who have, in one example, bought Disney movies on iTunes and when the legal agreements didn't work out Disney pulled all it's movies, so people's iTunes accounts which previously had Disney movies they'd paid for now had all their movies removed...

So no, I do not at all equate access to ownership. To very different words, with very different meanings. I mean, I have *access* to all the world's websites...

On the Disney thing... I sympathize, but well, that's the challenge with not reading contracts before signing them. Or, if Disney was in breach of contract, you could have sued - exactly like if a CD you purchased did not contained the information you thought it id. And you probably didnt for the same reason.. not worth it economically and in energy.

As for access and ownership... owning a physical support does not mean you own the information.

I have, for example, all the original Star Wars trilogy DVDs but no longer have any DVD player, and I'm not interested in getting one. So I don't really own Star Wars. These days I want to show the movies to my son, and I'm actually contemplating a temporary Disney subscription just to do so..

I understand it'd be nice to go about by "common sense" and forget all the complexities involved, but that's one if the main reasons for which musicians often get shafted..

[ManFromGlass]

The only useful thing regarding the subject line is that it helps keep the issue of fair compensation to the content creator in front of the public. And possibly the name of any MP who briefly takes up the cause.
I can’t imagine fair compensation will happen in my lifetime as that would mean value and respect for creators and artists would have dramatically shifted in our culture.

[Drew Stephenson]

Bearing in mind the government of those same MPs advice to people in the artistic sector a couple of weeks ago was 'retrain and find other jobs', I'm not holding out much hope.

But download/stream distinction aside, there are very important discussions that need to happen, but they probably need to happen in LA/Washington (or possibly Stockholm) because that's where the businesses are based.

[muzines]

It's not about the ownership of the physical support (obviously you don't have a cd when you stream) but of the information. DC is talking about the information..

I know. It was an example to keep things simple (trying to tackle every facet means a lot of typing). But really, I'm talking about my information - the digital information in my manually curated iTunes library - much of it of course came from CD's, some from downloads, some of it my own content etc.

You have a legal licensing contract that entitles you to access that information.

Not if the large corporation somehow decides they want to change their T&C's (pretty much always in their favour, and to make sure they retain as much control as possible). As a consumer, you basically have three options in this scenario - agree to the new terms, disagree and no longer use the service, or fight them legally (which is basically more or less impossible unless you have bottomless bank account.)

Spotify cannot arbitrarily deny or change that access without your consent.

I'm pretty sure that all these companies have clauses in their agreements that they can change, withdraw, or terminate user accounts for more or less any reason they deem justifiable.

When you subscribe, there is a formal, legally enforceable agreement between two parties. This is no different than any other service. You use electricity to run your CD player and that electricity is delivered to you via a service contract - you still own the electricity you use, in the sense that it's physically there to run your laser. You don't own the support platform (well, only a small part of it, the termination cabling, just like your terminator - the phone).

I understand this. Have you ever read reports of people using online accounts from various companies that have been shut off - sometimes for no understandable reason - and you can't speak to anyone about it? Google, Amazon, Apple, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, plenty more. Apple have terminated (paid) developer accounts for no reason, shutting off business owners from their markets and their revenue streams. YouTube arbitrarily take down or demonetise people's personal content because a Moog filter sweep they made on a video while performing happens to be automatically filed as a copyright complaint because some algorithm matched it to a similar sounding Moog filter sweep on a record.

These account suspensions, terminations, etc for these kinds of services *happen all the time* and the user, regardless of whatever contract terms they think they have, is almost always *powerless* to do much about it.

If you're on, say, a free Spotify tier, I'm pretty sure that Spotify can suspend your account if they want to, and you don't really have much rights or say in the matter. Or they can decide to remove the free service and require everyone to pay a subscription or go away. I'm not saying they will, but I'm saying they *can*.

Of course you're right that there's a difference: services are, by their own nature, more subject to change that physical products... and if you do not agree to a particular change, you may need to stop using that service.

Yes, I believe I covered this pretty well - I can lose access to my content because someone else controls the terms of use, and the terms of use can become onerous or very different to how it was when I signed up.

As an aside, the legal distinctions are not at all irrelevant

I didn't say they were irrelevant, I said "forget them for now", meaning I didn't want to go into a long legal debate about definitions of terms (also: not a lawyer).

On the Disney thing... I sympathize, but well, that's the challenge with not reading contracts before signing them, isn't it?

I don't think the specific contract is the point. The point I made was that in these cases, someone else is calling the shots, and I cannot depend that the media I'm enjoying now I will be able to continue to enjoy in the future, because someone else controls my access to it - unlike my own content. That's it.

As for access and ownership... owning a physical support does not mean you own the information.

I know. It's not about CD's, as I said - simple trivial example to quickly illustrate some points.

I have, for example, all the original Star Wars trilogy DVDs but no longer have any DVD player, and I'm not interested in getting one. So I don't really own Star Wars. These days I want to show the movies to my son, and I'm actually contemplating a temporary Disney subscription just to do so..

I'm not saying streaming services are bad, aren't useful, or whatever. I'm just calling out the poster above who basically equated access on a streaming service to ownership, and why this is not, as I see it, in real practical terms, the case.

[CS70]

I'm pretty sure that all these companies have clauses in their agreements that they can change, withdraw, or terminate user accounts for more or less any reason they deem justifiable.

I group this in one.. And I agree, because I already had mentioned it.

Thing is, when you buy something, you buy that something, not something else - be it physical products or services.

I agree it'd be nice that there were companies which had the services you want with the conditions you want, but probably there aren't. Once again, the issue you mention is not about streaming vs. physical products, the issue is the products you'd like vs the products that someone is willing to sell.

But this thread is not about that. It's about the "fair pay" that is the subject of this thread. Not about the products that we'd like existed, but don't... and neither was DC's remark, on which I commented.

That is the context. "Ownership equates access" when it comes to musical content and the way musicians should (I believe) be payed - because, in that context, what matters is that you can access a song or not in a given moment and pay for that access.

That is why I remarked that it was pretty clear what DC was talking about.

There's gazillions other contexts in which owning a CD or download a copy of the digital data in a sandbox on your phone are different... for one, you obviously don't have a CD when you stream, as I said. But they are fairly irrelevant for this thread.

There is one aspect however which *is* relevant - and it is that you don't get the same product. At the moment, it's unfeasible to stream the original, CD quality data, so what you stream is technically lower quality (even if it may not necessarily be perceived as so).

That could justify, if you want, a different - lower - price for play than a CD purchase.

I understand this. Have you ever read reports of people using online accounts from various companies that have been shut off - sometimes for no understandable reason - and you can't speak to anyone about it? Google, Amazon, Apple, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, plenty more. Apple have terminated (paid) developer accounts for no reason, shutting off business owners from their markets and their revenue streams. YouTube arbitrarily take down or demonetise people's personal content because a Moog filter sweep they made on a video while performing happens to be automatically filed as a copyright complaint because some algorithm matched it to a similar sounding Moog filter sweep on a record.

These account suspensions, terminations, etc for these kinds of services *happen all the time* and the user, regardless of whatever contract terms they think they have, is almost always *powerless* to do much about it.

All true and agreeable, but again, when one enters an agreement with YouTube, he/she signs a contract - it's not yadayada. It's not "arbitrary" insofar one has accepted the possibility of that change in the contract.

There are a number of fundamental rights that cannot be waived away by a contract, of course, but YouTube publication rules aren't among them.

If you're on, say, a free Spotify tier, I'm pretty sure that Spotify can suspend your account if they want to, and you don't really have much rights or say in the matter. Or they can decide to remove the free service and require everyone to pay a subscription or go away. I'm not saying they will, but I'm saying they *can*.

Er.. yes - but so what? If you are on a free tier (even not considering that you are not paying anything, which changes the context quite a bit) you have still signed an agreement which includes that your account can be suspended etc etc... In particular, whether or not you are aware of it, you are formally agreeing that you will look at advertisements and not use the platform in a way to eliminate the advertisement part. Which is the usual cause for suspension. Spotify _wants_ you to be there (hopefully so that you convert.. or maybe not, not sure what their business model is this week), so they have zero interest in arbitrarily suspending you. If they do is because they constitute your actions as a breach of contract.

Which you could, in theory, litigate - because a contract its is.. so not powerless, no.

Again, as an analogy in physical terms, a DVD often contain advertising at start and sometime isn't skippable.. but that's what you can buy. You buy what you buy, not what you're thinking of buying.

I didn't say they were irrelevant, I said "forget them for now", meaning I didn't want to go into a long legal debate about definitions of terms (also: not a lawyer).

Yeah, I made that comment because it seems fairly common to me that most people are unwilling to go enough in the details. It's not about being a lawyer or not, but be willing to look at the complexity. The only things that practically matter in these kinds of "fairer environment" discussions are the "legal" ones. Don't need to be a lawyer but things aren't simple and common sense - as a musician - gets you shafted. That's the world we live in. And incidentally why lawyers make way more money than musicians

I don't think the specific contract is the point. The point I made was that in these cases, someone else is calling the shots, and I cannot depend that the media I'm enjoying now I will be able to continue to enjoy in the future, because someone else controls my access to it - unlike my own content. That's it.

Someone's calling the shots because you - as a buyer - have agreed to that.
You seem to construct that as a kind of oppression (apologies if I am mistaken) but it's not.

I'm not saying streaming services are bad, aren't useful, or whatever. I'm just calling out the poster above who basically equated access on a streaming service to ownership, and why this is not, as I see it, in real practical terms, the case.

As I wrote above, in the context in subject, it seems pretty plain that streaming and ownership are similar enough. It's simple looking at facts that apply in the context and reaching a logical conclusion - not necessarily my preference (I am not invested in neither streaming or CDs, nor have particular liking for any or care for them at all - I just like to make and listen to music).

[Drew Stephenson]

As I wrote above, in the context in subject, it seems pretty plain that streaming and ownership are similar enough.

I don't think this is shown in the debate above. And it's a really important point about that debate.

[muzines]

Er.. yes - but so what? If you are on a free tier (even not considering that you are not paying anything, which changes the context quite a bit) you have still signed an agreement which includes that your account can be suspended etc etc...

It's not about contracts - I agree and have already covered these in my previous posts. That contracts exist for services is not and was never my point.

My point is simple, and that I'm not sure you acknowledge it (but let's not draw this out). The fundamental difference, for me, between content from a streaming service, versus my "owned" content (however you want to define that) is that for my "owned" content, there is no third-party that can remove, or change, or be in control of my access to that content.

That's it, but that's a big one, for me, and one that invalidates the access = ownership comment.

I understand that I super enjoy a TV program on Netflix, and if I choose to no longer be a Netflix subscriber, I'll lose access to that content. That's fine, and that's what I signed up to Netflix for - there's no expectation of ownership of Netflix shows, but there is an expectation of access to their available content - it's what you're paying for. I understand that if I wanted to watch it again next year, but for rights reasons that show was longer on Netflix - I wouldn't be able to. That's the deal, and I understand it as a consumer.

But if I bought the DVD, or the DRM-free digital download of the show, because I liked it, and *wanted to be sure I could always watch it without any third-party involved* - then this for me is a clear difference of "ownership" of a piece of media over "access" to the stream content.

This seems such a clear and obvious difference I'm surprised that you keep coming back to "well that's what you sign up for with a streaming service contract", which we all know, and is obvious...

Someone's calling the shots because you - as a buyer - have agreed to that.

See above.

You seem to construct that as a kind of oppression (apologies if I am mistaken) but it's not.

No - your word, not mine. All these things are thankfully, consumer *choices*. (Well - for the most part - it may be that in a lot of cases - say a Netflix TV show, there *isn't* a legal download/ownership option, so a streaming option is all you get).

I'm not arguing that any of this is good, bad or otherwise. I'm arguing that for me, there *is* a fundamental difference that factors into my consumer buying choices.

The version of my favourite album in my library will always stay that version, whereas the version of that album on a streaming service may be replaced with a different, remastered version, or even with different songs (yes, I've heard many cases of this happening) - the service provider are of course in their rights to do this, and it will all be part of the contract I signed up for (blah blah we all understand this) but it doesn't mean I *like* it that way, and I'm certainly not in control of it.

As I wrote above, in the context in subject, it seems pretty plain that streaming and ownership are similar enough. It's simple looking at facts that apply in the context and reaching a logical conclusion

Hmm. "Similar enough", I might agree with. But that wasn't the comment I was calling out, which was equating them, and I fundamentally don't agree on that, based on my arguments above. This also seems "logical" to me, but if you can't see, or don't agree with the point I'm making then that is of course your preroragative...

I think we've probably bored everyone enough with this, so we'd probably better move on...

[CS70]

That's it, but that's a big one, for me, and one that invalidates the access = ownership comment.

Fair enough, I don't see that particular distinction as very relevant to the subject of the thread (and the point that DC was making, and with which I agreed), so no point in commenting further...

[CS70]

As I wrote above, in the context in subject, it seems pretty plain that streaming and ownership are similar enough.

I don't think this is shown in the debate above. And it's a really important point about that debate.

I'm not surprised my friend - on this particular subject there is no rational argument that would show you otherwise No harm done, we don't get to decide anything anyways and it's Friday and life's good.

[Drew Stephenson]

The thing is MPs are meeting to discuss streaming payments, not download payments.
I don't think anyone is arguing that download payments are unfair are they?

[DC-Choppah]

Most folks are now arguing that the value of a stream is actually much HIGHER than the value of a download. The penny rate for being able to stream a song should therefore be higher.

If you download a song and own that recording, you have to do the work to put it onto your devices to give yourself access to it everywhere. That is time consuming and a pain.

If instead it is available by streaming, then it is more valuable actually.

The value that people place on something is very much tied to how much it impacts their time. If I get the same value (ability to play 'Play that Funky Music') whenever I want, but in one case it takes 20 mins to set up, and in another case it takes a few seconds, then the later case is MORE valuable.

This discrepancy in the value placed on the options (by the non-free market royalty judges) is exactly what causes the problem.

I am willing to consider that a stream is MORE valuable than a download, and therefore the penny rate should be higher for the ability to stream a song, then to own a copy through a download.

This discrepancy in true value vs. the value assigned (through the royalty judges) is exactly what creates the current problem for artists, and boon for the distributors.

As a matter of fact, downloading a song to my PC is a mechanical copy of the music and I can trivially capture it for use later. Everybody knows that. There is no reason to do this though, since I can just stream it more easily. Hence the ability to stream on demand, is MORE valuable than the download.

[zenguitar]

A general comment rather than a response to any individual.

The mods here have to approve the 1st three posts from any new members, as part of our efforts to keep out spammers. And we are particularly interested in keeping out spam that also breaks forum rules. One rule we are very keen on is this one...

No links are permitted to web sites offering pirate/cracked/illegal software or illicit music and/or video downloads and anyone found to have posted such a link will have their SOS Forum access withdrawn.

So, we routinely disapprove spam posts offering links to sites/tools designed to rip streamed content. And as far as the mods are concerned, ripping streamed content is illicit. There may be plentiful tools available to rip streamed content, but on these forums at least, there is a clear distinction between legitimate downloaded content and streaming.

Andy

[Drew Stephenson]

That's am interesting argument DC, and not one i've ever heard before. Fundamentally it assumes an 'always connected' world which is far from the reality for many non-urban dwellers.
However, rather than get into a discussion on the accuracy of FCC broadband mapping, or whether the convenience value is actually in the access rather than the content, i'd just say that this is yet another reason not to conflate streaming with downloading.

[Sam Spoons]

When you sell a download of a track you are getting paid once for a theoretically unlimited number of plays, when you get paid for a streamed track it is a 'per play' payment. For comparison you would need to know the average number of times an individual listens to a downloaded track (or CD).

[CS70]

When you sell a download of a track you are getting paid once for a theoretically unlimited number of plays, when you get paid for a streamed track it is a 'per play' payment. For comparison you would need to know the average number of times an individual listens to a downloaded track (or CD).

Well, that can be easily modeled under reasonable assumptions, like Drew did above.

Thinking of the latest twist in this conversation, I realize part of the reason I think how I think is that ultimately I've never cared of owning anything in my life - only of having the possibility of using stuff to get done what I want to do.

I am not sure if I would consider a stream more or less valuable than any other way of achieving a listening experience - I think it depends on what is streamed. If I'm losing information (i.e. the stream is compressed) then I'd say it isn't. But if I stream the full PCM data, the experience is the same. On the to other side, it's true that, to achieve the experience, a stream requires less work than other ways... How much these things weight against each other is, I suspect, a very personal determination.. as this thread shows.

All this reminds me of the brilliant ad I read once, by a guy selling a an almost-new piece of IKEA furniture at a price higher than you would get at IKEA. He claimed that it was right to cost more, because it came already mounted.

[Drew Stephenson]

So have we agreed that value is in the perception of the user?
I wonder how many people will be at the hearing speaking for the position of the user?

[Sam Spoons]

Once I have the download on my computer I just click the iTunes tab, choose a song and click 'play' and it works every time. Streaming will only work when I have a reliable internet connection, fine when I'm at home but why bother, I have the song on my computer, not so fine when I'm away from home and relying in mobile internet, with limited bandwidth and potential unreliability, much easier to put the download on my iPhone...

Then there is the problem of content, my tastes are eclectic to say the least and a fair percentage of the content I want to listen to is not on Spotify or other streaming platforms.

Then, even when I have good internet at home and try to use Alexa to listen to BBC radio it drops out all the time

I'll stick with downloads or CD's thanks.

[CS70]

So have we agreed that value is in the perception of the user?
I wonder how many people will be at the hearing speaking for the position of the user?

Yes! Was it ever a disagreement? In general terms, the (economic) value of something is its price, which is determined by supply and demand. The perception of the user is part of what determines demand, so it's definitely one of the factors that drives the price.

A fair environment is an environment where supply is not infinite and demand is whatever its. Then the price you get is a fair price.

And then we're back on how to get a fair price: ensure supply is not infinite, and generate demand. Obviously that does not mean that the price is necessarily over zero..

[CS70]

Once I have the download on my computer I just click the iTunes tab, choose a song and click 'play' and it works every time. Streaming will only work when I have a reliable internet connection, fine when I'm at home but why bother, I have the song on my computer, not so fine when I'm away from home and relying in mobile internet, with limited bandwidth and potential unreliability, much easier to put the download on my iPhone...

Then there is the problem of content, my tastes are eclectic to say the least and a fair percentage of the content I want to listen to is not on Spotify or other streaming platforms.

Then, even when I have good internet at home and try to use Alexa to listen to BBC radio it drops out all the time

I'll stick with downloads or CD's thanks.

Ahah exactly! Different people, different perspectives. There's lots of fields where you the same happens, with similar debates - say cashless society.

In the end the idea of value that "wins" depends, I guess, on how which perspective is taken by a majority of people.. and more than one can survive at the same time, I guess.

[CS70]

I wonder how many people will be at the hearing speaking for the position of the user?

As for this... it seems evident from this thread that there is no single position of the user. Different users will have different positions.

Fairness however, comes before both users and producers - it comes from the structure of the market. That is, a place with rules that govern the exchanges vs. the law of the jungle (where "legal" means simply that you can do it)

[RichardT]

The value of an individual stream is important, but just as important is how many streams each artist gets, ie how is the total revenue pot distributed across artists? I hope they look into that. I would be very interested in seeing what they come up with. Is the long tail a myth or a reality?

[Drew Stephenson]

So have we agreed that value is in the perception of the user?
I wonder how many people will be at the hearing speaking for the position of the user?

Yes! Was it ever a disagreement? In general terms, the (economic) value of something is its price, which is determined by supply and demand. The perception of the user is part of what determines demand, so it's definitely one of the factors that drives the price.

A fair environment is an environment where supply is not infinite and demand is whatever its. Then the price you get is a fair price.

And then we're back on how to get a fair price: ensure supply is not infinite, and generate demand. Obviously that does not mean that the price is necessarily over zero..

And if the user decides that the value of an item that can be infinitely reproduced for practicaly zero, or is virtually replaceable with another from a near-infinite pool, is zero?
Let's face it, even if you restricted every song on spotify to one play, there are 50 million songs on the platform... at 3 mins a track that's nearly 300 years of solid listening. We're near as dammit to infinite supply. Demand, however, is finite because we have other pressures on our time.
So how do you propose to limit supply? Because that really hasn't worked very well over the last 20 years...

And if we're going to talk fairness, an alternative view might be that if you can make all the worlds art and entertainment available to all the world for free (your infinite supply), would that not be the fair thing to do? Fair is a very nebulous term, especially when dealing with the digital economy but it translates into the material one as well. There is more than enough food in the world but millions starve every year, is that fair?
I digress, but basically I don't think your argument that "A fair environment is an environment where supply is not infinite" is logically sound. Hence I don't think the rest follows...

I've done a quick read on the committee as well. There are no consumer groups (the users) listed in the piece. Which just reinforces the fact that this will achieve nothing because it won't be grounded in any kind of reality.

[Drew Stephenson]

The value of an individual stream is important, but just as important is how many streams each artist gets, ie how is the total revenue pot distributed across artists? I hope they look into that. I would be very interested in seeing what they come up with. Is the long tail a myth or a reality?

There are already different ways of doing this. Some sites pay per stream (Tidal, apple music etc) some pay with a percentage of the pot (Spotify) - this is why the arguments that Spotify should just triple their payments (one of the themes doing the rounds) is nonsense - that would take them to 195% of their revenue.
So if you take CS70 and DC Choppah's suggestion of limiting supply, it's still not going to change that payment. You need to make the pot bigger. Which means getting more people to sign up for the paid service, which means giving them a reason to do so.
- maybe that's a limit on streams, but do they just hop onto another service when the first one's full? We're back to that infinite supply thing.
- maybe it's a better payout rate (surveys suggest more people would pay (or those paying would pay more) if more went to the artist), but if Spotify is paying 65% to the rights holders but only 13%* is making it back to the artist then maybe the problem isn't with Spotify?

Again, I have no solutions here (other than investigating the contracts between artists and their labels), but 20 years of trying to stop piracy by limiting access achieved nothing but falling revenues. Streaming has turned that around, if we make it unworkable for those operations then we're not going to go back to the glorious 70s, we're going back to the terrible 2000s.
I reckon. But I'm no economist.

* According to one study.

[James Perrett]

if Spotify is paying 65% to the rights holders but only 13%* is making it back to the artist then maybe the problem isn't with Spotify?

Isn't that where we started on page 1?

For the cases that I know about there are two people getting paid apart from the artist - the distributor and the label. The artist ends up with quite a bit more than 13%.

[CS70]

And if the user decides that the value of an item that can be infinitely reproduced for practicaly zero, or is virtually replaceable with another from a near-infinite pool, is zero?

Of course, yes. The economic value of something is zero if people don't want it. If the something can be infinitely reproduced is zero even if people want it. It's just enough that it's very abundant.

Let's face it, even if you restricted every song on spotify to one play, there are 50 million songs on the platform... at 3 mins a track that's nearly 300 years of solid listening. We're near as dammit to infinite supply. Demand, however, is finite because we have other pressures on our time.

But absolutely! We discussed this already, if I recall. Whether we like it or not, music in generic terms has no economic value at all. It's never had it. What has value is music (like anything else) that is scarce.

So a musician has to create scarcity. There's a limitless supply of generic music, but a very limited supply of music by, say, you. If you manage to create scarcity around _you_ and your name, the music you produce has economic value.

Voss water and all that.

So how do you propose to limit supply? Because that really hasn't worked very well over the last 20 years...

I don't - and never did? You cannot limit the supply of music in generic terms. Not much has changed in that respect - anyone could pick up a guitar and make a song and sing it in the street in times past. But you can create scarcity around a specific artist - by the usual tools of good product and marketing.

And if we're going to talk fairness, an alternative view might be that if you can make all the worlds art and entertainment available to all the world for free (your infinite supply), would that not be the fair thing to do? Fair is a very nebulous term, especially when dealing with the digital economy but it translates into the material one as well. There is more than enough food in the world but millions starve every year, is that fair?

The thread is about fairness for the artist. I was under the impression that what we were discussing here "fair" as in a way to enable artists to reap the economic value of their work.

I've been giving a simple advice - just the same as I would if someone asked how to operate a compressor: as an artist, given that you can produce a good enough product, focus on create scarcity around yourself - i.e. focus on marketing and any activity that create a traction on your name. Or have someone else do it for you, of course - which was the old labels' job.

That will increase the economic value of what you do - streaming included.

It shouldn't be particularly controversial - it's just how things work in the world.

As I have already said, there are other types of value than the economic one - and I for one find them superior. But in terms of making money for your work, we're talking about economic value.

I digress, but basically I don't think your argument that "A fair environment is an environment where supply is not infinite" is logically sound. Hence I don't think the rest follows...

Perhaps the clarification above helps.

As of fairness.. I don't think it's so hard either. Fair is when there is a balance between someone's work (can be a musician, can be a miner) and the demand for that work. With music, means that if enough people want a piece of you, they get it, but you get to make a living out of it. Not rocket science, I'd say.