MPs to investigate whether artists are paid fairly for streaming music

[CS70]

- The market for not wanting to buy (and re-buy) CD's at £10-20 a pop any more
- The market not valuing music as being something that needs to be paid for, or owned
- The high availability of "free" music (in the old days of course, we still had "free" music, because of radio - the difference being, although the end user didn't see the costs, the radio stations *were* paying to play that music.)

Without doubt, the last one. The actual culprit, if you want, is a political and executive environment which has allowed recorded music to be stolen without consequences.
It's like if people were going around stealing cars or stuff from shop at random and there was no response from anybody. Like in good old "jungle law" times.

Even in old days, radios were very careful to put commercials or fades well placed to reduce the amount of people lifting tracks when played (I know - my and my sister in our early teens did try!). And the quality of what you got was very far from what you could get if you bought the stuff. Not so, of course, for digital copies.

"The market" is not about the people who buy (or not) and how much they buy or not.. - it's about the rules, it's the place where things can be bought and sold, and the possibility of secure transactions.

In reality, we don't know whether or not people would want to buy music or not - because when anyone can easily take it for free, there is no market. The unfairness is simply there: recording music is not a viable trade _even if you make it big_ because your product can be had for nothing.

[Drew Stephenson]

But that's true of virtually any digital product and yet there are still plenty of people making their living like this.
It comes back to the lowest common denominator thinking. Say you make your music available on a pay what you want basis. Some people, fans, will pay your recommended amount, some, superfans, will pay more, some will pay less. Some, if you allow it, will take it for free.
But are those last ones actually lost sales or are they potential future fans? Or would they simply never have paid and therefore not listened if that was the alternative?
I think most people are better than the lowest level but they just need a prod to show that their money is going to a worthwhile cause.

[CS70]

But that's true of virtually any digital product and yet there are still plenty of people making their living like this.

It seems so at first, but there are important uniquenesses to music as digital content: it's small in size, it's a solitary experience, it's digitally safe and 90% of the product *is* the digital content.

Not so for others. For example, for software, most of the serious money has been historically made licensing to businesses - for which it is always been possible to enforce property rights and payment. And it's now made in services, where there's no sale at all. There are, of course, some open source digital products whose funding does not come from sales, but are marketing exercises from companies with sizable financial muscles, which reap their benefits in marketing terms or as control of a given standard. For consumer software, there's all kind of licensing enforcement (ilok, anyone? Windows activation?) and using cracked products comes with a risk of virus infections etc - which helps keeping the average joe away.

Games might have suffered more if they were the "old style" ones - single player, single computer installation. But 99% of the big games nowadays have an online component which is fundamental to the customers, and that means that cracked copies simply don't work where it matters. Hence gamers buy games - at quite hefty prices - and there's a flourishing indie game market (very competitive, but definitely working well).

And of course, there are the small software producers aimed mostly to the consumer market that are indeed killed by piracy.

For movies - there's two aspects: one, of course the product is more than the digital content: it's about the cinema experience and the timing. You want to see the big Star Wars movie with your children when it comes out, not three months later. Second, it's the size - movies of HD quality are massive downloads. It still happens in droves of course, but the evidence is that the effect is not as big (big movie companies keep existing and making big movies, the successful one make quite a lot of money). Sure they could do more, but it's not a market killer - you can't download cinemas (or gadgets or merchandise).

Similar arguments can be done for most digital content which is not music like. Just like shoplifting, a degree of stealing always exists and is physiological. It's the free for all that makes a market impossible.

[Drew Stephenson]

The parallel that sprang to my mind as i wrote was with comics and cartoons.

EDIT: But all of this is getting away from the thrust of the thread.

[James Perrett]

While we may hark back to the old days, it is worth thinking about how many artists actually recouped their advances from the labels. As I understand it, very few ever did but it was the tiny number who were extremely successful who subsidised most of the others. Does streaming allow the same cross subsidies to exist?

[Drew Stephenson]

That is a very good question. Especially coupled with the absence of the front-loading effect of hard copy sales that Hugh talked about earlier.

On the positive side, overall music industry revenue is back up to 2004 levels.
I know that going back 16 years isn't normally a positive but it is part of a steady growth.

[RichardT]

While we may hark back to the old days, it is worth thinking about how many artists actually recouped their advances from the labels. As I understand it, very few ever did but it was the tiny number who were extremely successful who subsidised most of the others. Does streaming allow the same cross subsidies to exist?

For labels with top artists, I guess opportunities for cross-subsidy do exist. But an increasing number of artists at the lower or even middle tier of sales are not bothering with labels at all. So they are on their own - but they have the freedom to do what they want to do.

[CS70]

While we may hark back to the old days, it is worth thinking about how many artists actually recouped their advances from the labels.

Few, and very slowly, from what I read. With labels using all sort of tricks to get much more than the percentage apparently agreed (including fees and additional cuts which were justified maybe in the 50s but still well in use in the 2000s).

As I understand it, very few ever did but it was the tiny number who were extremely successful who subsidised most of the others.

Yes, that's how I unerstand the model as well.

Does streaming allow the same cross subsidies to exist?

In a sense, yes - Spotify pays a huge share to successful artists' labels, and they potentially can invest them in new acts.

In practice they do very little if any "new acts": the internet means also that most artists need to build their own following before getting on any serious label's radar. Playing it safe is the rule and A&R is almost inexistent, from what I see. New acts are usually not very new - they are already locally successful. It may still happen, but usually as a consequence of a producer or other actor "in then know".

What labels do is to try to take an already locally successful act and bring it into a national or international dimension. Recording costs have become much smaller, but the marketing investment for doing that is as significant as it's always been, and I guess label use some of the revenues they get from already successful acts to that purpose.

On the other side, the accounting method of Spotify is skewed to favor the bigger artists (don't recall the details at the moment, can probably find out) at the expense of the smaller ones, so small acts (or small labels) maybe lose more than they used to do with mortar and brick shops (but I am not sure, I haven't looked at that aspect of the "old" model).

[BigRedX]

I've just been through my CD Baby statements for the various streaming services and going back over the last 12 months for a single track (my "best selling" one) of 2' 59" duration the payments appear vary from $0.001 to $0.01 per stream. I'm assuming that this is before CD Baby take their 9% cut? This track only gets a handful of plays per week split across all the various services, so I don't make very much, but if the band were more popular I would suspect that it would add up to be a "nice little earner".

Therefore I can only assume that if your music is popular and you still aren't making a lot from streaming, then someone else is taking the lion's share of the revenue, probably the record company. Therefore the problem isn't the streaming services themselves, but with all the "middlemen" taking their cut of the revenue stream before it reaches the people who actually produced the music in the first place. How "fair" this is will very much depend on when you signed your recording contract. I can understand those who are bound by deals made before the rise of the internet and streaming services for music consumption being more than a little upset, as it is unlikely that 10 years ago many would have predicted that this would be the way that the majority of listeners would consume music. However if I did have a recording contract from back then I would be looking very closely at the small print for how income from hitherto unknown revenue streams would be divided between the record company and the artist. And AFAIAC, anyone signing a recording contract in the past 5 years only has themselves and their legal advice to blame, if they consider the split to be less than fair.

IIRC none of the streaming services on their own turn a profit. Amazon and AppleMusic are supported by their parent companies, Spotify has been artificially propped up by investment capital and an over-inflated IPO, with investors hoping that in the long term the company will somehow figure out how to make money from advertising and the subscription services. So from that angle my average of $0.005 per stream looks like being pretty good value for money.

In the end the problem is going to be the age-old one of record companies being seen as unfairly exploiting musicians, although how true that is these days is probably the subject for a separate thread.

[DC-Choppah]

- The value proposition of the internet media companies (You Tube, etc) has always been to give people access to copyrighted music for a fraction of the alternative cost. That value attracts people, and while they are there, you sell them advertising. Same business model as a stolen goods salesman charging a small fee to give people access to a pile of stolen property.

- The copyrights for music were not enforced, so the product has been devalued. This can come back (and is coming back).

- A stream is the same as a download. To say otherwise is to deny reality. The penny rate should be the same. Ownership is access. 24 Hr access to a song is ownership. It is up to the distributor to keep track of who has or has not paid for their copy.

- The cost of the enforcement of copyright is a business expense for the digital music providers and must be born by them.

- Internet digital music providers are distributors.

[Drew Stephenson]

A stream is the same as a download.

Must we go through this again?
The other points are debatable (as we've shown previously) but this is just factually wrong.

[CS70]

A stream is the same as a download.

Must we go through this again?
The other points are debatable (as we've shown previously) but this is just factually wrong.

I think the "ownership is access" point is quite a good explanation of what DC means?

It seems a bit of a syntactic distinction only. For example, technically you don't own any software (they're all just licensed to you) but in practice most people using Word or Cubase etc would say they own it?

If I can stream a song anytime I want, it's the same as owning it, isn't it? The only difference is that the license is not perpetual... but then also a CD is not really perpetual, because at a certain moment it will not play anymore..

[muzines]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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...

[Drew Stephenson]

What Desmond said. ^^^

In practical terms, if I go on a long car journey I can plug in my phone and play the downloaded songs from the memory. Reliably, consistently. Likewise when I get back on my daily commute, or if I go away for a weekend somewhere remote.
I can't do that with a stream.

Similarly content that I've 'bought' on Netflix or Prime occasionally disappears because there's a licensing squabble between providers and 'my' content is no longer available.
That doesn't happen if I've got a download rather than a stream.

So it's not just semantics, there are real, practical consequences. So they are different things and conflating them just muddies the water for everyone.

[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.