"It's great, I never have to pay for music again!" Such was the exclamation from someone I know in regards to Spotify.
I was baffled at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it annoyed me. Because my acquaintance isn't alone in this thought. It's prevalent among many, and it extends beyond music.
What they're really saying is: "I want you to entertain me, but screw you for trying to make a living at it."
What the what?
When I started at Circuit City, back in the bygone era of the '90s, I was forced to sit through a presentation amusingly called "Loss Prevention." As a long-haired, flannel wearing (no judgment, it was the '90s) proto-punk, I remember thinking: "your loss . . . but my prevention? That seems stupid." The presentation, taking place in the dank, under-lit back room of Circuit City Dedham, was a mildly threatening treatise that amounted to: "People steal. You're people. You'll steal."
I remember little about what was actually said (not paying attention to stupid is one of my better traits). The handy pamphlet, though, housed an interesting diagram entitled "Triangle of Theft" or "Pyramid of Pilferage," or something. I may be giving them more credit for alliteration than likely deserved.
It outlined the three requirements most people (hey, I'm most people!) need to steal:
Desire (well, who doesn't want stuff?)
Opportunity (hey, I work in an electronics store now!)
Justification
This last one intrigued me, enough that I still remember it well so many years later. They gave examples, like "it won't hurt anyone" and "the company won't miss it." I suppose an extrapolation could be "I needed a new MiniDisc player" or "If I had a StarTAC, people would like me."
I admit to falling into this triangle myself. Not that I stole anything from CC (seriously), but a few years later when music "sharing" really took off, I was on it like it was bacon wrapped bacon. My desire (I want more music) and opportunity (Mmmm, Napster), were obvious. How did I justify it? Well, I wouldn't download music I would have actually bought. That way, in my mind, the artists weren't actually losing any money. I wasn't going to give them money anyway. Fascinating how that triangle works, isn't it.
Here's the thing. Even at the peak of my music "borrowing," I still bought more CDs than anyone I knew. I still do. Why? Because I'd like to thank those who entertain me doing what they do, and do whatever I can to keep them doing what they do.
So my way of saying "thanks for letting me rock out to your new album, Buffalo Tom" is by buying the freaking album. And let's be honest, as far as entertainment-per-dollar goes, is there really any better deal than music? I still get regular enjoyment from CDs I bought years ago (I had all my CDs stolen in 1999, so that's as old as my current collection gets).
Which brings us to Spotify and MOG. These music-on-demand services pay a tiny fraction of what an artist would get had you actually purchased their song. Paying them less for you to enjoy the song just as much... and listen to it whenever you want. That doesn't seem fair.
But like the quote that led off this rant, many people obviously justify this unashamedly unfair deal: "I want music, I can get music, and they don't need my money anyway." Or maybe most people don't give a thought to artists getting paid. Or maybe they think there's some magic dust behind the scenes that results in money.
Guess what, there isn't. The record labels and RIAA make deals with services like Spotify, and the artists have little or no say in the matter.
Why don't I include Pandora and Slacker? Because these operate more like radio stations. A song can be heard by an entirely new audience, acting, in a way, like an advertisement for the band. An advertisement they're also getting paid for. Maybe they'll make new fans, maybe someone will buy the CD or song. I do this constantly. I'll hear a new band on Pandora, check them out elsewhere online, and invariably buy their CD. Pandora costs me a fortune.
But with Spotify and the like, the artist is predominantly just getting money (a tiny fraction of a penny) from people who already know the band, or at least heard of them enough to search and listen. These people have therefore decided not to purchase the song. Why pay for it, when now you can get it free any time you want? Not only are the artists not getting new blood, their existing fanbase is now paying next to nothing to get the same thing.
"That's where we're headed, to a place where there's less music, as musicians are forced to work "real" jobs instead of entertaining."
Hogwash. In fact, it's been the exact opposite for decades now. There's TOO much music from TOO MANY bands and this has more to do with their ability/inability to make a living as anything else. The consumer base and demand has not increased at anywhere near the rate of supply. The pie has not grown at a rate that can sustain the sheer number of those trying to get a slice of it. For example, look at Earache Records (and I'm a fan). 45 bands on this label and it's likely the average person has heard of none of them. They're catering to a niche and they know it. But even as a fan of this niche, am I expected to support FORTY-FIVE bands with my music budget?? No.
It's irresponsible to blame the consumer and things like Spotify alone for dwindling music sales. What about data plans and high speed internet and Netflix and Sirius and the app store, etc. that all compete for a similar portion of our monthly paychecks? And still - a ten minute search for new music will easily net you twenty bands you've never heard of. The flood gates of music are not closing, no matter how few are getting rich off of it.
So thank God for Spotify (and labels like Earache who make all their music available there). Honestly, how else am I supposed to keep up??
"There's TOO much music from TOO MANY bands..." "... how else am I supposed to keep up??"
There will always be reasons to deny due payment to artists. This one is creative, I'll have to give it that much. Regardless, an artist's music is a recognized commercial product for which the artist is due payment. We all know this, it's not something new. And no amount of complaining or justifying is ever going to change it.
Due payment is determined by the market. I can slap paint on a canvas and throw a $10,000 price tag on it, but unless someone is willing to pay that then it doesn't matter what my perceived due payment is. Look at iTunes. Apple and the labels determined the value of a song is between 99 cents and a $1.29. The market responded by making iTunes the largest music retailer in the U.S. Right or wrong, it's a reflection of what people want.
Seems you're confusing due payment with fairness. If so, then remember even before mp3s most major label artists received roughly three cents for every album sold. How much do you think they make now per song from iTunes? An educated guess suggests it could only be a fraction of a cent... which is absolutely no different than Spotify, Mog, or Rdio. Is it a fair rate? Probably not, but that's between artist and label and again - I don't think it's something that's changed drastically in the past 20 years.
Interesting the author gives a pass to Pandora. How much do artists make off of that service? Are they getting paid per stream like on Spotify? I hope not, since Pandora basically picks what you hear. Oh, and your argument that you constantly buy CDs after listening to artists on Pandora? Yeah, that's the same thing people who use BitTorrent say. And in fact, I believe there's some research to suggest it's true... Which means your argument against Spotify and Mog is what again exactly?
I listen to *free* Pandora a lot. It provides a service which has a cost to them. If they didn't have a way to make money to provide that service they would cease providing it and I would lose that avenue of entertainment. The artists who provide the music on Pandora live under the same income/expense dynamic and if they don't have enough money to pay for the expenses of recording and distributing their music then your only chance of hearing them is if they have enough time outside their day jobs to rehearse and play live somewhere near you in a venue you can afford to attend.
There was a Pandora player I was using that I liked because not only did I not have to open my browser to use it, but it also eliminated my having to listen to the occasional advertisements. To make a long story short, I realized that by using that player I was breaking a link in the chain of income/expense for both Pandora and the artists I was listening to. I was getting something for nothing and others were paying the expenses to provide it to me. I'm not that cheap so I don't use that player any more. Not only that, but a worker is worthy of their wages. Give them their due, or click 'skip'.