I think the issue with your second point is it goes back to rights holders, not the artists necessarily. It's going to labels, and they have awful contracts with their artists generally, particularly when compared to CD sales.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Music
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
I think the issue with your second point is it goes back to rights holders, not the artists necessarily. It's going to labels, and they have awful contracts with their artists generally, particularly when compared to CD sales.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
When you have free streaming like Spotify do it drives the royalties down though. I'd feel happier if they abandoned their free ad-based service. The value put on the content is too low, this is part of the problem.
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
That appears to be the case. But, and I ask this in all innocence! They signed a 'contract' to 'sell' their copyrights for reward. Surely the argument should be between the artists/agents/record companies!
For the avoidance of doubt - I'm not saying that I think the artists are being treated fairly or otherwise! ( I don't really give a monkeys about multi millionaires! - I do realise there are young/new artists )
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
That's exactly what Apple want! Just on that basis Spotify should continue the model. Not everyone can afford to pay.
I have heard artists say, that they prefer fans to hear their music, even if they can't afford to purchase it.
It's a difficult discussion, as broadly speaking art costs money to create and artists should be compensated in my opinion. Art has value, and consumers should pay if this is what the artist wants. And we do have radio which has poor royalty payment as well. I find this topic difficult to compose a coherent argument.
That said, I do what I feel is right and that's generally always buy physical and go to gigs. These guys enhance my existence, and I want to pay them back for this. I encourage others to do the same, but don't criticise those which don't.
Spotify raises $526m as it braces for costly battle with Apple
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5966fc0e-0f4e-11e5-897e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3cjmrroTw
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5966fc0e-0f4e-11e5-897e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3cjmrroTw
clippedgull
Hotdogs, extra onions
Paywall link HT!
Ha, slightly amusing given the debate!
Here you go, for free.
http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/news/national/fundraising-cash-boost-for-spotify-1-7303022
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Apple are not going to pay any royalties for people taking up the three-month trial
http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/10/a...y-royalties-on-music-streamed-by-trial-users/
"A leaked contract for the service obtained by Digital Music News include that “no license or royalty fees” will be due in connection with trial accounts or complimentary accounts (i.e. free accounts for industry types and Apple employees).
Given that all Apple users are being offered a three-month trial, that could be a lot of lost revenue for labels, publishers and artists. The excerpt is only a small section of the whole contract, so it’s hard to decipher the exact implications of the clause (at the bottom of the second page).
Digital Music News also points out that the contract shows that Apple will pay out 58% on subscription revenues, lower than the approximately 70% Spotify dishes out to rights holders."
Not good news. Not good at all.
http://www.factmag.com/2015/06/10/a...y-royalties-on-music-streamed-by-trial-users/
"A leaked contract for the service obtained by Digital Music News include that “no license or royalty fees” will be due in connection with trial accounts or complimentary accounts (i.e. free accounts for industry types and Apple employees).
Given that all Apple users are being offered a three-month trial, that could be a lot of lost revenue for labels, publishers and artists. The excerpt is only a small section of the whole contract, so it’s hard to decipher the exact implications of the clause (at the bottom of the second page).
Digital Music News also points out that the contract shows that Apple will pay out 58% on subscription revenues, lower than the approximately 70% Spotify dishes out to rights holders."
Not good news. Not good at all.
That's crap, very crap.
I presume the publishing and recorded rights holders had to agree to this though? Or is there a loop hole?
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I was wondering the same. I'm baffled as to how Apple can just say 'NO' to paying bands a fee for playing their music. If Apple are offering trial memberships then its they who need to shoulder the cost of this, not the performers. Apple are acting in exactly the same way as Tescos in passing the cost of their promotions onto the ultimate supplier.
I hear what you're saying. And there is a discussion to be had for the relationship between rights holder and the artist. Maybe there is a blurring of lines between what is a direct royalty and what is public performance royalty though. The money from Spotify seems to be the latter. I think it should be closer to the former.
I'm sure the answer will come out soon but I share your concern about this. Streaming is here to stay, and we have to accept this, but we don't have to accept his rubbish. This is unfair on the artist, plain and simple.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
imo the answer is for the artists to leave the labels that tie them into these deals, or at least form a collective label of their own that provides for better royalty distribution.
I have yet to understand why this hasnt happened, the major labels should have died by now as artists dont need them to publish and distribute their work (i'm probably missing some detail on how artist/labels work together).
I have yet to understand why this hasnt happened, the major labels should have died by now as artists dont need them to publish and distribute their work (i'm probably missing some detail on how artist/labels work together).
Trufflehound
Re-enfranchised
Marketing budgets... Record companies have them. Self-published artists don't.
Yup. And contacts. If you want a really, really good producer for your next record the label can a) set you up with the guy/gal you want and b) pay the upfront cost for the producer's time, studio time, etc... Of course a good manager can set this up to.
As I understand it, it's not a label issue. This is a publishing issue.
I stand corrected. The labels can and do get a slice of the pie as they will own some rights to the recording.