Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: JNugent <JN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:25:31 +0100
performingchimp wrote:
icarusi wrote:"performingchimp" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Spotify is literally using the work of indie artists to pay a fixed rate to corporate music companies. Which is, for me, a bitter irony and makes me feel physically sick.
It's *trading*. I think as an independent you need to treat the big name on-line vendors as loss-leaders or window display and make sure *all* your stuff isn't available there but the bulk from a place where you get a bigger share of any remuneration. The corporates get more because they have more clout in all ways than most independents, unless you're an existing big name who's gone indie later.
It's not accurate that, mate. If I sell a track on iTunes, I make the same as if anyone else does within a few pence. If I want I can charge *more*. It's not a loss leader, it's income. I can also sell on amazon, they are really easy to sort it with and do great deals.
I wouldn't be making a big deal about spotify if it was just like everywhere else.
That's the point; it isn't.
The other two are retailers of a product you just can't get from them for free. The purchase price generates the income to be split between the various people involved.
Spotify is... well... what *is* it?
It's like a radio station, whose only income is advertising revenue (and the odd £9.99 pa a premium subscriber pays).
And with the best will in the world, it's hard to see how the advertising that Spotify play out is going to be all that lucrative.
OTOH, I did pay them £7.99 for an album download - the only time I've ever paid for a download.
The difference is, Spotify are doing something new: they don't sell copies of mp3s, you don't download the file to keep. It is more like radio or a jukebox.
Well, radio, certainly. The machinations of Wiondows Vista notwithstanding, you can record the Spotify output, obviating the need to pay for downloads if prepared to satifice on quality. That's not so easy with a jukebox.
If it comes to the point where they are profiting but not paying per play (all plays are surely logged, so it would be easy to be 100% accurate with payments), then they need to be treated like radio and be subject to PRS, or like a jukebox and have to buy content in the first place AND pay PPL or PRS.
PRS are not stupid and will be onto this, and unlike Youtube, if Spotify has to simply stop having mainstream UK content it will shut down.
I think you're right. But don't artists have the right not to be played out on Spotify, or do they just buy a CD and make it available over their service?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: performingchimp
- Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: performingchimp
- Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- References:
- Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: performingchimp
- Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: Sjfdix
- Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: performingchimp
- Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: icarusi
- Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- From: performingchimp
- Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- Prev by Date: Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- Next by Date: Re: Paging Mr. J Nugent,,,,
- Previous by thread: Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- Next by thread: Re: Spotify: ripping off independent artists?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|