12 ms·

That's cool, I'll listen to it on BitTorrent and no one will make any money. I pirated music for 10 years until the 'business' actually figured out what I want

by pixie_ 14y ago

That's cool, I'll listen to it on BitTorrent and no one will make any money. I pirated music for 10 years until the 'business' actually figured out what I want - all the music, anywhere, anytime, for a flat fee, which has much more value-add than pirating. I'm not going to be forced into some other contrived broken business model. The only simple solution I can think of is another level of Spotify membership for early access - like $15 a month. Other than that, Spotify is about volume. Get your name out there, make some money, and make real money by playing shows and selling merch. Making money by sitting back and collecting royalties for 50 years is waaaay too lucrative. Spotify is fixing that.

chrischen 14y ago
What if instead of $10 a month, I think $1 a month is a fair price for unlimited music? Can I now justify pirating because someone has pulled my arbitrarily defined "fair" price for unlimited music? The artist is stating that they would like you to pay for the download, and just because the streaming service is legal doesn't mean it's fair or works.
- aggftw 14y ago
  Then don't use the $10 a month service and go pirate music by all means. That gives signals to the actors, which they will take into consideration when figuring out what their business model should look like. The fact that services like Spotify have caught on as of late are proof that many people like the business model. Let musicians see how much more money they make by delaying the release of their albums in these services. They will figure it out eventually, I hope. It's all about finding the distribution of that arbitrary "fair" price in order to maximize earnings.
  - chrischen 14y ago
    Yes and what if this signal that consumers want to send–$10, $1, or $0.01–doesn't work for the musicians???? Musicians can send a signal too. They can stop producing content. Fewer young people will consider going into the arts because they don't want to be starving (this is already the case, actually). I'd love to pay only $1000 for a brand new car, but that doesn't work for car manufacturers. There's no reason a $10 a month service is necessarily sustainable just because that's what people want to pay. Heck, if consumers can demand what they want to pay they'd most likely just go with $0. Why can't they send that signal? It's convenient for the consumer to say $10 because they are comfortable with that. This amount is what labels can squeeze from consumers (because piracy has left them no options), but that doesn't mean it's the final and perfect solution. If music subscription services end up not being much better than piracy, then all it does is grant a false sense of entitlement to these people who might as well still be pirating.

by pixie_ 14y ago

chrischen 14y ago

What if instead of $10 a month, I think $1 a month is a fair price for unlimited music? Can I now justify pirating because someone has pulled my arbitrarily defined "fair" price for unlimited music? The artist is stating that they would like you to pay for the download, and just because the streaming service is legal doesn't mean it's fair or works.

aggftw 14y ago
Then don't use the $10 a month service and go pirate music by all means. That gives signals to the actors, which they will take into consideration when figuring out what their business model should look like. The fact that services like Spotify have caught on as of late are proof that many people like the business model. Let musicians see how much more money they make by delaying the release of their albums in these services. They will figure it out eventually, I hope. It's all about finding the distribution of that arbitrary "fair" price in order to maximize earnings.
- chrischen 14y ago
  Yes and what if this signal that consumers want to send–$10, $1, or $0.01–doesn't work for the musicians???? Musicians can send a signal too. They can stop producing content. Fewer young people will consider going into the arts because they don't want to be starving (this is already the case, actually). I'd love to pay only $1000 for a brand new car, but that doesn't work for car manufacturers. There's no reason a $10 a month service is necessarily sustainable just because that's what people want to pay. Heck, if consumers can demand what they want to pay they'd most likely just go with $0. Why can't they send that signal? It's convenient for the consumer to say $10 because they are comfortable with that. This amount is what labels can squeeze from consumers (because piracy has left them no options), but that doesn't mean it's the final and perfect solution. If music subscription services end up not being much better than piracy, then all it does is grant a false sense of entitlement to these people who might as well still be pirating.