Why musicians need to get off Apple Music and Spotify

[SampleScience]

Interesting article about the effect of music streaming on musicians incomes:

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/apple-m ... ef=Default

A French musician I like (Saez) once said that the problem with music being free on the net is not the people who consume it, but the Internet providers who make money off the musician "content" without paying for it.

But the ultimate question is: Should we pay for music or is it something that became free because of new technologies?

[Aleatoriac]

Under the old "paradigm" we should pay for it. But it has become free because of new technologies.
If the fruits of an artist's labors should be free... why shouldn't everything?

Better that we have a society such that people do things because they *seek to better their world and themselves* with their unique abilities and desires/bents.

What came first... the wheel or the cave painting of it?

[arkmabat]

Def Leopard put up just a live album. Smart smart move if you ask me. You can still hear their music but still have to pay for the real deal.

[arkmabat]

Movie companies had time to develop better protection methods. People were ripping CDs in Win 3.11.

[ntom]

I saw the title and was ready to rip on Tedinmexico for yet another daft post. I was left disappointed after clicking on the thread.

[arkmabat]

I saw the title and was ready to rip on Tedinmexico for yet another daft post. I was left disappointed after clicking on the thread.

[mutantdog]

Def Leopard put up just a live album. Smart smart move if you ask me. You can still hear their music but still have to pay for the real deal.

I believe the Def Leppard thing is actually due to disputes with their label rather than a desire to restrict their streaming catalogue.

[chaosWyrM]

Movie companies had time to develop better protection methods. People were ripping CDs in Win 3.11.

i dont think it has anything to do with copy protection. considering that you can dl any movie you want sometimes before its even released.

i think the difference boils down to access to entry.

making a film is many magnitudes more difficult, time consuming, and expensive than making music. as a result, the music field is completely saturated. musicians need to scrape and claw for exposure and many are willing or even eager to give it away.

making a film is a great undertaking that really cant be done by a single person (yes yes...it *can* be...but not really) or without tens of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) of dollars worth of equipment, plenty of people make albums all by themselves...at home with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment.

mad max fury road cost $150 million to make, and took hundreds of people years to make it.

the film industry doesnt have to give anything away for free because content is not easily obtained. the people who create it can ask for money and get it because there arent 9 million other people all trying to get people to watch some movie they made.

[fmr]

making a film is a great undertaking that really cant be done by a single person (yes yes...it *can* be...but not really) or without tens of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) of dollars worth of equipment, plenty of people make albums all by themselves...at home with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment.

mad max fury road cost $150 million to make, and took hundreds of people years to make it.

the film industry doesnt have to give anything away for free because content is not easily obtained. the people who create it can ask for money and get it because there arent 9 million other people all trying to get people to watch some movie they made.

And yet, just a few years ago, you could buy a DVD for 10 or 15 euros, while you were asked 20, and sometimes 30 for a CD.

With CDs priced at a fair price, I believe thing would never become so out of hand as they are now. Anyway, I just bought music online once, and will never again. It's a ripoff.

[Acid Mitch]

But the ultimate question is: Should we pay for music or is it something that became free because of new technologies?

Of course "we" should. Why do you think people should not be compensated for their work ?
What other goods and services do you think we should not be paying for ?
Shouldn't you be giving your samples away for free "because of new technology " ? It's not he 80's anymore when only rich/well off people could afford samplers.

[trimph1]

Apple is of the EVIL.
Spotify not as much.

[Deep Purple]

Def Leopard put up just a live album. Smart smart move if you ask me. You can still hear their music but still have to pay for the real deal.

I believe the Def Leppard thing is actually due to disputes with their label rather than a desire to restrict their streaming catalogue.

I think so. I believe their label said they felt they could no longer inflict such music on the world and bowed their heads in shame while pulling the plug on their back catalog.

[SampleScience]

But the ultimate question is: Should we pay for music or is it something that became free because of new technologies?

Of course "we" should. Why do you think people should not be compensated for their work ?
What other goods and services do you think we should not be paying for ?
Shouldn't you be giving your samples away for free "because of new technology " ? It's not he 80's anymore when only rich/well off people could afford samplers.

I think I poorly expressed myself. I didn't meant to say that we shouldn't pay for music. Personally, I often pay for albums on Bandcamp and Discogs. But I'm under the impression that for a lot of younger people who were born at a time when music was easily accessible for free and on demand (unlike radio), that for them the question is valid. Apple Music and Spotify are made for this mass of people who thinks music should be totally free and accessible all the time at any place. This is not the way I think, but it seems to be the way a lot of people think nowadays.