-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Taylor Swift pulls music from Spotify because music shouldn't be free
- Thread starter jwk94
- Start date
- Status
To Far Away Times
Member
Cool, can she pull her song from the radio too while she's at it?
I'm glad someone made this joke
Ditto.
Conkersbadfurday
Member
That's bullshit. Art takes an enormous amount of time and work to make. It shouldn't be free.
Khaos_Knight
Banned
Lol I didn't know there were any Swift fans in here. I don't like her music but lets just agree to disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10utJGbQQLs
This was just a couple of weeks ago but they sold out at MSG.
I don't know the specifics about how much the artists make but touring and live shows are definitely a big thing for EDM artists. A computer is no less of an instrument than a guitar or a cowbell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10utJGbQQLs
This was just a couple of weeks ago but they sold out at MSG.
Herpes Reasons
Banned
Talentless hack.
Plasticine
Member
This is such a horrible opinion. What makes it even worse, is that I know there's countless numbers of people who feel the same way.
She made $39 million from her art last year. So it's definitely not hurting her.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
If she doesn't want her music to be considered a commodity instead of art then she needs to target a market that would consider purchasing her music as an investment in art. Her audience uses music as a lifestyle decoration and it is price accordingly.
She'll get even less money from the people who decide to download it since they can not get it else where.
Have you written a check to the Lourve for every time you saw a picture of the Mona Lisa online?
She'll get even less money from the people who decide to download it since they can not get it else where.
Have you written a check to the Lourve for every time you saw a picture of the Mona Lisa online?
ConstructMe
Banned
Whats ridiculous about it? hes got a point.
Shes in your profile pic....are you taylor herself?
IdreamofHIME
Member
Let her have her money, she'll need it in 5 years when she's irrelevant.
Conkersbadfurday
Member
That has literally nothing to do with it.
"She made money already, so her art should be free now" is not a valid argument. It's just a way for people to rationalize theft and not feel any guilt.
shacklesmcgee
Member
Sorry, what
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Markets don't have to rationalize anything. If the market decides that her music is worth the time to pirate it instead of buying it, then that is what her product is worth.
They're actually selling the entire thing though, aren't they? Rights and all?
Whoever buys it can do what they want.
That's different than a traditional album where you're basically just licensed.
Personally, I think that's part of the reason why music has been devalued. People are realizing (especially with easy access to creation tools, digital video sharing, etc.) that what artists are offering (a private license to listen) really isn't that much.
If buying an album for $20 meant that I could safely post a video of my niece singing her favorite song on Facebook or YouTube and not worry about getting sued (or getting a copyright notice), it would be a much better value proposition.
That's actually something that's changing in the video game industry (and rather quickly).
Publishers (lots of them) have embraced the idea of public streaming and letting fans share their experiences freely. Knowing you have that right adds more value to the purchase, even if you never use it.
Times like these always remind me that the entertainment industry days are numbered if they don't adapt.
These people need to work with the current market rather than trying to fight it and make something where they can get the compensation they need but is realistic for the present day consumer.
These people need to work with the current market rather than trying to fight it and make something where they can get the compensation they need but is realistic for the present day consumer.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Plasticine
Member
I wonder how Da Vinci feels about his royalty rate?
Do you think that money just fell from the sky? She got paid FOR IT. She made music, and in turn the record company paid her for it. She then used that music to put on a tour that made her even more money. I'm trying to find a point she doesn't make money off her art.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
I image searched your avatar.
Did you pay for the rights to use this person's image for your own personal stylistic choices?
shacklesmcgee
Member
I don't think any human needs $39 million, but you know cameras, instruments and microphones cost money right?
Conkersbadfurday
Member
Generally, the market would go, "that's not worth my money" but because we have hte Internet and everyone feels entitled to free, people just go and take.
The thing is, if the market thought her music were worthless, they wouldn't bother taking it. They'd just leave it be. This isnt' about markets but about people feeling entitled to shit because "art should be free hur hur hur"
BrokenEchelon
Banned
Fewer people being exposed to her garbage is a net win for society.
Byebitch.gif
Byebitch.gif
Are you employed?
The fact that anyone would suggest someone should go unpaid for their work. Hollering at the naivety.
Conkersbadfurday
Member
I believe I misunderstood your original claim and thought you were referring to "art should be free" (which was brought up a page ago) and not the Spotify bit. My apologize.
YuriLowell
Member
I hope my artists follow suit.
Str0ngStyle
Member
This is such bullshit. They had an agreement to play her music on their service legally and she ended that arrangement. I think it was a stupid shortsighted decision personally but it is her right. BUT, equating listening to her stuff on spotify with stealing is hot fucking garbage
Back to the topic at hand, after doing an quick google search, the average price of a physical copy of her cd is $10-$12 US. How much of this money is going to her paycheck? Just saying bitching about spotify stealing her money while her record label is legally robbing her blind is a bit hypocritical I think
Oh I don't think it should be free, but throwing a hissy fit over Spotify rates after you made $39 million is kind of stupid. Exposure is a good thing, since the more listens you can get means more people might want to spend money on shit.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
If you put a product out and no one buys it, it goes into the bargain bin and the price is cut until it is given away for free along with the purchase of something someone actually wants.
Internet just cuts out that entire process.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
She's just mad that this puts her on the same level as independent artists.
SoundsOfScience
Member
I dont disagree, but its not as easy as saying she gets "x" amount of money and the big wig record company boss get the rest. Granted, a big majority of it goes towards the record company, but plenty of people work on big pop albums like whatever album she just released.
Conkersbadfurday
Member
I'm not equating spotify with theft. Spotify is great. Someone in the last page literally said, "art should be free" so I'm arguing against that since it shouldn't be.
Spotify compensates the artists.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Probably more than $0.00007 per listen. At that rate, it take 136 listens to earn $0.01. At that rate, playing a concert to a packed stadium would only earn about $7.36.
That "one" song is the 13th most played song since the song's release, it's unlikely his other songs are making nearly as much "bank."
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
Imho, "free" music does hurt a few hundreds of major artists, but in return, it helps thousands of minor artists that would only make sells on a local level without that advertising. Overall, it does more good than harm.
The major artists get les money, but they also earn enough via CD sales, concerts, and so on, that the loss doesn't really impact their way of life. It's just a smaller number on the bank account.
The minor artists, on the other hand, can possibly, actually live from their passion.
The major artists get les money, but they also earn enough via CD sales, concerts, and so on, that the loss doesn't really impact their way of life. It's just a smaller number on the bank account.
The minor artists, on the other hand, can possibly, actually live from their passion.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
The majority of musicians make their money in live shows.
"Free music" only hurts record labels.
GameGuru59
Banned
We know. We're discussing what it should cost. Just because making art is hard doesn't mean you should be paid millions for it. Ideally, people would make art for the sake of art. As our society is currently organized, that isn't really possible. But just because something is, doesn't mean it always will be. Look at all the freeware software available these days. People work hard making that for the sake of providing free tools for all to use. 20 or so years ago, that would be pretty much inconceivable. Hell, look at Wikipedia!
Squirrel Killer
Member
I agree, new distribution methods are great for "minor," new, or disruptive artists. But that doesn't obligate "major" or well established artists to participate in a distribution model that hurts them. So while I do roll my eyes every time David Lowery opens his fucking mouth, I do see where he's coming from and as long as he doesn't try to dismantle the new distribution models, I just move on.
And the artists inexorably tied to the record labels, like Taylor Swift.
johnFkennedy
Member
You don't know what you're talking about. The only people that Spotify benefits is the consumer. Independent artists make jack shit from Spotify streams.
SoundsOfScience
Member
And what about the musicians who aren't signed to any labels? Or the one's signed to minor record labels?
Warm Machine
Member
Go watch that documentary on Netflix called "Artifact" by 30 Seconds to Mars. It claims they have never ever made a dime from album sales are still owe EMI millions even though they have sold millions of albums.
The music business is not cut and dry in that Taylor is swimming in cash even though she is selling loads of records.
The music business is not cut and dry in that Taylor is swimming in cash even though she is selling loads of records.
Here's a really interesting piece on how fucked the value of modern music is these days: http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html
tldr: Grizzy Bear, a relatively big and successful indie act, are broke as fuck. They all can't even afford health insurance.
tldr: Grizzy Bear, a relatively big and successful indie act, are broke as fuck. They all can't even afford health insurance.
The point of spotify is not to get rich, it's to get exposure. Hell, I started listening to chvrches on there, and now I'm going to buy tickets next they come to town. I think that's a win for chvrches if you ask me.
That freeware software either (a) acts as a bullet point on someone's résumé, (b) a part-time hobby that leaves enough time for the person to have a full-time job to sustain him or herself, or (c) a pet project related to that person's paying career.
An actual music career hardly leaves time for anyone to do anything else to sustain themselves in a scenario where their work is free. Who is going to take care of these artists?
Using Wikipedia as an example underscores the above question. That service runs on donations, and Wikipedia can (somewhat) achieve the feat of living off donations because they are a behemoth that is constantly present on everyone's minds.
How is a single artist going to support him or herself in a scenario where their art is free? How is a single artist even going to convince people to donate their disposable income to them rather than the million other starving artists? Is anyone even going to be selfless enough to pay for their living? (the spotify users who can't even bother to pay for the premium service probably will never be checking off that last question.)
brianjones
Member
spotify owns
bought the premium quick
like the idea of not having a bunch of mp3s bloating up my music players and hard drive
bought the premium quick
like the idea of not having a bunch of mp3s bloating up my music players and hard drive
- Status