Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
OT: Spotify responds to its critics.
OT: Spotify responds to its critics.
Page:
1
isaacullah
2877 posts
Nov 12, 2014
10:02 AM
|
Read the response from Spotify to the recent and very public critique of its business model and how it hurts artists. The rebuttal is actually thought provoking, an did cause me to rethink my opinion on the matter a bit. not sure if I buy that Spotify's model is THE model for streaming, but their response put some things in perspective, and it's always good to hear from the other side. For those that don't know the MBH context to this post, here's the original thread: why streaming rips of musicians
---------- YouTube! Soundcloud!
|
Honkin On Bobo
1290 posts
Nov 12, 2014
10:33 AM
|
The first thing that jumps out at me is spotify claims to pay out over ten times more per stream than Kudzu says he is getting.
$0.006 to $0.008 vs. for Kudzu $0.0005. Maybe not enough of a difference to change kudzus original premise....but notable nonetheless
PS: you will probably see a second copy of this post on this thread, after its restored by a mod, as the spam-bot ate my first attempt. (@@!#$#$%^ SP*M FILTER!!!!).
--------------
Last Edited by Honkin On Bobo on Nov 12, 2014 10:47 AM
|
scojo
492 posts
Nov 12, 2014
10:41 AM
|
"Piracy doesn’t pay artists a penny – nothing, zilch, zero."
Spotify, on the other hand, does pay a penny. A little less, actually.
And their comparison of their on-demand, choose-your-own-song model to a radio audience hearing a song once is absolute nonsense. The crucial difference is that the Spotify user can play a song whenever they like by streaming it, INSTEAD OF PURCHASING IT.
Sorry, and no offense Isaac, but I'm calling bullshit on this "thought-provoking" rebuttal..
|
isaacullah
2878 posts
Nov 12, 2014
10:58 AM
|
Actually, the "free" users of Spotify (and other related streaming services) CAN'T play a song whenever they like. They have to subscribe (and pay a monthly fee) to be able to do that. And, Spotify (and other streaming services) actually pay higher royalty fees for songs played with their paid services than with their free, ad-supported versions. It's complicated, but that means that the actual average per-song revenue for an artist depends on the mix of "free" (ad-supported) plays and "paid" (subscription) plays. Although it certainly is slanted from their own perspective, the FAQ from Spotify pretty plainly lays this out: http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/.
Now, before I'm misquoted as a supporter of Spotify and it's business model, I want to go on record to say that I don't think their response changes the debate in a major way. This issue still revolves around how much an artist should get paid when their song is "streamed". What it does do is offer some perspective that not all "streams" are equal. Some are certainly closer to the old radio model (i.e., the ad-supported, not "on-demand" model), but others are something entirely new (on-demand, pay to play). Actually, the pay-to-play model is more akin to a juke-box in a bar than it is to a radio broadcast. These days, some bars charge patrons a dollar a song to use the juke box, and people pay that. I have no idea how much of that dollar goes to the artist, but someone is making money from it. That's the debate here, I think. The radio-style streaming service is probably a net positive for most artists, since they would get nothing from a radio play, and get a small amount from the streaming "radio". The other one - the jukebox model - I'm not sure of. ----------   YouTube! Soundcloud!
|
Honkin On Bobo
1291 posts
Nov 12, 2014
11:07 AM
|
I thought scojo had a good point which was as I read it: You can't compare a paid streaming service with radio play because radio was unlikely to cannibalize any paid physical purchase or paid download since you can't pick precisely when and what will be played on the radio.
Whereas, a paid streaming service most definitely cannibalizes the physical/digital purchase (spotify's protest to the contrary notwithstanding - I thought the Canada analysis was weak), insofar as it's a perfect substittution........ as long as the streaming library is large enough.
Last Edited by Honkin On Bobo on Nov 12, 2014 11:55 AM
|
scojo
493 posts
Nov 12, 2014
12:26 PM
|
Yeah, HOB has it right. Actually, I DON'T have a problem with the free, ad-supported version of Spotify because you can't pick songs on demand. That's like what Pandora does, which is more like souped-up, personalized radio (as Isaac indicated), and I have no problem with that.
|
nacoran
8120 posts
Nov 12, 2014
2:51 PM
|
And now Google is jumping into the fray.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/12/youtube_offers_a_subscription_service_spotify_should_be_terrified.html ---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
First Post- May 8, 2009
|
Komuso
452 posts
Nov 13, 2014
7:06 AM
|
TAYLOR SWIFT'S TEAM CALLS BS ON SPOTIFY'S REVENUE-SHARING NUMBERS
---------- Paul Cohen aka Komuso Tokugawa HarpNinja - Your harmonica Mojo Dojo Bringing the Boogie to the Bitstream
|
ted burke
15 posts
Nov 13, 2014
7:16 AM
|
Spotify could put this to rest if they just paid the musicians what they are due, straight forward, no gimmicks, no accounting tricks. As it goes, the artists provide the content that attracts people to their add-supported and paid services, and in either case the creators of the music must be paid a fair and continuing fee for their part in creating a fortune for the corporation. I am inclined to believe the musicians' side of the story, as I've seen first hand the financial breakdowns from too many artists I know who have remained fantastically under rewarded for all the play they've gotten from Spotify and other streaming outlets. Pay the musicians! ---------- Ted Burke __________________ ted-burke.com tburke4@san.rr.com
|
scojo
494 posts
Nov 13, 2014
9:12 AM
|
A penny per play. I think that's, like, the bare minimum as a starting point for discussion.
|
isaacullah
2879 posts
Nov 13, 2014
9:17 AM
|
"Spotify could put this to rest if they just paid the musicians what they are due"
Ted, I think this is the exact crux of the issue. I asked in the original thread, "So, what is a fair rate that an artist should get paid for a stream?", but no one answered. And I think the reason no one responded to that, is that NO ONE KNOWS what an artist should get paid for a stream, and for it to be a fair rate. Should Kanye West get more money for a single stream of one of his god awful songs than Paul Butterfield's estate gets paid for one of his awesome tunes? Kanye makes waaaaaay more money for the labels and streaming services, so an economic argument says he gets more. A talent-based argument says Paul's estate gets more. A socialist argument says they each get the same. And this is without even settling on a fair base rate to pay out. Honestly, right now, market conditions are setting the base rate, and it's in the range of .05 to 4 cents (US) per stream. If you are on the higher end of that range, you are doing very well. If you are on the lower end, probably not so well, UNLESS you can "sell" in bulk, which is what Taylor Swift and the like can do. Honestly, I'm surprised that Taylor's beef is with the free, ad-supported version of Spotify, because that is clearly NOT what is draining "album sales". It's the other version that does that, but as I showed in the other thread, that paid model actually has the potential to pay artists BETTER than what they might have made on traditional album sales. That, of course depends on them having a loyal fan base that regularly streams their albums, and the streaming service having a good pay out rate. The Google service that I use has a great payout rate. They are the ones close to 4 cents a stream, so by streaming music the way I do, I end up "buying the cd" several times over for an artist. It's all a matter of how one uses the services, and how the services set up their business models. It's not an intractable situation, just a NEW one. Think about it. Streaming is the first NEW way to disseminate music since the very very beginning of recorded music. You've always had albums (records, then cassets, then CDs, and now digital albums), and Radio (broadcast, and then net-radio). And now you have ON-DEMAND streaming to add to that. It's no wonder everyone is so shook up by this. It's never been done before, and there is no precedent! But that's no reason to run and hide our heads in the sand. Like it or not, streaming is the future (as said in the article Nate linked), and we are still figuring out how it works. A reactionary stance by artists can only hurt them in the end, because they will be fully left out of the processes that end up setting the rules of streaming economics. ----------   YouTube! Soundcloud!
|
kudzurunner
5138 posts
Nov 13, 2014
9:33 AM
|
"Actually, the 'free' users of Spotify (and other related streaming services) CAN'T play a song whenever they like. They have to subscribe (and pay a monthly fee) to be able to do that."
Isaac, I don't know where you read that, or who told you that, but it's dead wrong. I've had the Spotify app for several months. I am not a paid subscriber. I went just now, put "James Cotton" into the search engine, found 100 PERCENT COTTON, and played "Creeper Creeps Again."
Then I searched "Jason Ricci" and quickly made my way to "The Blow Zone layer." Gotta love Spotify. No need to buy! Just play all this great blues harmonica music whenever you want--and for free!
I just checked my Spotify royalties at CD Baby. The royalty rate seems to vary a fair bit. On successive pages I had the following:
30 plays / 6 cents royalties 19 plays / 10.8 cents 27 plays / 14 cents 35 plays / 20 cents 49 plays / 23 cents
That averages out to about .45 cents per play: just under half a cent. I'll have to check what I wrote in the other thread. Whatever I wrote there was based on what I actually saw in my account.
I've just checked. I was indeed paid $0.0005 for some streams by Spotify, but for other streams I was paid more--up to 1.3 cents, in one case, but more typically 4 to 8 tenths of a cent. The 5 hundredths of a cent rate was not uncommon, though. I was paid $0.0004 for one stream and $0.0008 for another.
In one case I was paid $0.0008 per stream for 4 streams and $0.0088 (more than ten times as much) per stream for 14 streams.
Anybody would be confused. But it's clear that I need to revise my OP in the other thread. It's still a rip off--I get half a cent per stream vs. 67 cents per download--but it's not quite as obscene a ripoff as I made it out to be.
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Nov 13, 2014 9:56 AM
|
isaacullah
2880 posts
Nov 13, 2014
9:59 AM
|
@Kudzu: According to Spotify themselves, you shouldn't be able to to search like that in the free mobile app. Perhaps you got some sort of "trial" version for the premium service? I dunno, because I don't (and never have) used Spotify. In terms of artist payouts, they aren't the best, but, honestly, half a cent per play isn't that bad, in the grand scheme of things. I think the thing that scares artists the most is that the new streaming model pays them based on their actual popularity, in the sense that they get paid exactly as much as their music is played. This is different from the olden days when people just bought albums, and the artist got paid for that in one lump sum (and, consequently, it didn't actually matter how much and for how long the actual albums got played). The crux here is that if this model works out, then the artist stands to get paid every time a fan streams their track, for the entire listening lifetime of that fan. This means, if an artist can maintain even a modest fanship over the long-term, then they can keep up a revenue stream that would have long dried up under the old model. What it requires is artists to take a longue duree view of revenue from their recorded works, rather than just the evenment of selling a physical album one time. Most people are really bad at thinking and acting to their benefit over the long term (and I know this because it's what I study as an archaeologist). The short term gains almost always outweigh the long-term benefits in human decision making, and this is no different. ----------   YouTube! Soundcloud!
|
Honkin On Bobo
1292 posts
Nov 13, 2014
10:24 AM
|
OK, if what kudzu says in his last post is true, then I'll cop to be being thoroughly confused. If you can, in a free account, access the entire library of any streaming service and play whatever song you want anytime you want, how would the streaming services acquire any customers for the pay service? Put another way, why would I pay anything, if I can get all of what the pay service offers in the free service?
I'm scratching my head about that one.
For the record, I don't use spoitfy, I use pandora. I don't pay anything, hence I suffer the ocassional (very ocassional compared to radio) commercial messages and I can't pick specific songs. I've set up a number of "channels" by genre or artist name and pandora's algorithm does a fairly decent job of giving me continuous music that I enjoy. You can skip a song but not too many in a row, or you get a message telling you that's not allowed under pandora's agreement with its music publishers.
Now, I always thought, I could pay a monthly fee either to be able to access specific songs and/or avoid the commercials, but I chose not to do that. Am I missing something? Is that not how this streaming thing works?
OK, so I went to the pandora site (duh), the pay service is about $5 monthly and only buys you ad -free and additional skips, no song search/choice capabiltiy, at least that's the way I read it.
Last Edited by Honkin On Bobo on Nov 13, 2014 10:51 AM
|
mr_so&so
894 posts
Nov 13, 2014
12:24 PM
|
I am not a user of music streaming services. I do find music on YouTube and Soundcloud. I don't use those as my sole source of music, and I know that most of it in those places is not there with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't feel good about getting that stuff for free. If I sample something and like it a lot, I try to purchase it. But the world is changing. What's a guy to do?
There is, and always has been, so much wrong with the music industry, from copyright laws on up through the big business aspects. Everybody wants a cut of the profits, forever.
Here is how I look at this streaming business, from my point of view as an IT guy. All streaming does is move the digital file to the "cloud". You don't need to bother with storing a copy any more because you can always stream it again. Keep in mind that when you stream a music file or video, you are actually downloading a copy to your local device. If you wanted to, you could access that again from a local cache in most cases and listen/watch as many times as you like.
Doesn't iTunes keep track of songs that you purchase and let you download it as many times as you like if you lose it or want to use a different device? That's just a slower, more manual version of streaming.
What's the big deal? Why can't you purchase songs or albums from Spotify and then stream them as often as you like. I own many CDs. Most I have only listened to a few times, some often. Surely these companies can figure out from stats how many times a single person listens to a specific song on average through streaming and set a reasonable price per stream based on that that is equivalent to paying a fair price for a song or album.
When I was purchasing a lot of CDs, I was happy if I was paying ~$1 per song. That was back when, presumably, artists were making a living from their CDs. In the digital world there are much smaller materials costs. Surely $1/song should give a better return now than it did then. The streaming company replaces the bricks and mortar store, and it can also get cash from advertising that stores didn't get.
It seems that there are fewer costs now over all. So I'd like to see where the money really goes, if not enough is getting back to the artists. Spotify does not tell us that. ----------
Last Edited by mr_so&so on Nov 13, 2014 12:27 PM
|
kudzurunner
5140 posts
Nov 13, 2014
2:50 PM
|
Isaac: I clicked the link that you provided above ("According to Spotify themselves") and it got me to the following:
"The desktop and tablet free tier allows users to play any song in our catalog on-demand but users must view and listen to advertisements that interrupt their listening. "
The operative phrase is "any song in our catalog on-demand." That's what I did: play Cotton and Ricci on demand. I didn't listen to the entire song in either case. If I had, and if I'd listened to several songs in succession, I suspect that an ad would have showed up--although none showed up during my relatively brief listening. But I got to hear exactly the music I wanted, for free, when I wanted it.
If that's the case, why--as a listener--would I ever want to spend my money to buy music?
Spotify is giving a whole lot of music away for free.
I'm still uninterested in participating in it, and I'm greatly cheered by Taylor Swift's example--not just her opt-out, but the fact that she's had incredibly good sales that corresponded with that opt-out. I didn't say it was a cause-effect relationship, mind you. But it's a correlation, and that's enough for me right now.
|
isaacullah
2881 posts
Nov 13, 2014
3:42 PM
|
@kudzu: You said you were doing it with an "app", so I assumed you were doing it on your iPhone, not your tablet or PC. According to my link, you can't choose on demand songs with spotify on the ad-supported version of their mobile app, which is what I was referring to. And, in any case, until recently, you couldn't find a "free" streaming service that let you listen on demand (they were all more akin to personalized radio playlists). You could put artists into the search box, and get some of their stuff in the results, but you couldn't get a full album or a specific song "on demand". Here's the salient text from my link:
"This new free tier does not have the unlimited, on-demand and offline functionality of our Premium plan, but instead allows users to listen to their playlists and discover new artists in “Shuffle Mode”."
Now, to your other point:
"If that's the case, why--as a listener--would I ever want to spend my money to buy music?"
That's exactly the problem with most rebuttals to the ad-supported streaming model. Your assumption is that it's "free" because you, as the consumer, didn't pay any MONEY. That's a fallacy. The issue is that the medium of exchange between consumer and streamer in ad-supported business models isn't money, it's TIME. More specifically, it is time that you as the consumer are REQUIRED to listen to (or watch) a paid product placement (i.e., an advertisement). Also, your INFORMATION is also being sold (what songs you like, what genre's, etc.), and that all translates to MONEY for the streamer, and ultimately, hopefully the artist too. In this day and age, information is gold. Literally. That's where the money is, and so that's where they go to. So, it's not free, not at all. It's just a different form of money.
Now, as to your question, why, with this new option would I pay for my music with MONEY rather than TIME and/or INFORMATION? Well, there are PLENTY of people who hate advertisements, and who also don't want to give away their personal info. Some of these folks will continue to buy albums the traditional way, and some will switch to the "Premium" streaming tiers. ALL of these streaming services have premium versions that allow the user to pay a recurring fee, bypassing ads, and (sometimes) ensuring privacy. That's a huge incentive, and that's why I PAY for streaming service. And the thing that you, and the other detractors are refusing to acknowledge is that it is perfectly possible that artists will make MORE MONEY from my continual streaming of their songs than they would if I had just BOUGHT THE ALBUM.
It's a new model, and it's okay to be scared of it. But there's no logic in simply ignoring it and hoping it will go away. It won't, so you, and others who hope to make money from recorded music, better be figuring out how to work it, rather than be worked by it.
EDIT: added quote from spotify link ----------   YouTube! Soundcloud!
Last Edited by isaacullah on Nov 13, 2014 3:48 PM
|
Komuso
453 posts
Nov 13, 2014
4:11 PM
|
This is from yesterday. The labels really hate the free music option.
Era of Free Digital Music Wanes Artists and Labels Prod Music Services to Convert Listeners to Subscribers Pro tip: It will show you have to register or log in to read but if you copy the title and google it you will get a direct link that bypasses the paywall. See...information just wants to be...free! #Irony+
---------- Paul Cohen aka Komuso Tokugawa HarpNinja - Your harmonica Mojo Dojo Bringing the Boogie to the Bitstream
Last Edited by Komuso on Nov 13, 2014 4:43 PM
|
isaacullah
2882 posts
Nov 13, 2014
5:26 PM
|
Didn't know you don't have a smart phone. In that case, I probably wouldn't have used the term "app". An app is a specific product, and often quite different than the web service from the same provider.
But in regard to your assertion that I didn't answer your question, I beg to differ. I think I answered it perfectly well. Just because there's a non-monetary option doesn't mean that everyone is going to take it. The main group of people that take that route will not be the kind of people who really love music, but rather just those who consume it as "filler" while doing other things. However, these folks are not a big component of the people who currently buy "niche" music like the blues, or indie. I'd wager that MOST fans of niche music are still going to pay for music. Either by subscribing to a paid streaming service, or, at the very least by going to shows. Streaming cannot replace live music, and there is always a market for that. And for folks who like having artifacts of the experience too (t-shirts, vinyl, etc.). Its already clear that that's the new economics if indie music. All the indie rock bands are already doing it that way. You old blues guys are just a bit behind the trend! :) ----------   YouTube! Soundcloud!
|
isaacullah
2883 posts
Nov 13, 2014
5:31 PM
|
And, to be extra clear, the WHY of it is that real music lovers want the premium experience. Highest bitrates for the streams, no commercial interruptions, on demand access, ability to save bands and albums in a playlist, ability to share with friends on the same service, etc. And they will STILL pay to go see shows if they really love a band. So really, the only job if the band is to make the fans really love them. If they do, then they will pay, same as they always have. ----------   YouTube! Soundcloud!
Last Edited by isaacullah on Nov 13, 2014 5:32 PM
|
nacoran
8123 posts
Nov 13, 2014
8:47 PM
|
Looking at the varying royalties per stream it seems like they are playing a shell game. That's always been the problem with royalties. I don't know as that's a flaw with streaming or if it's a flaw with the ethics of the business. It makes a big difference, because if it's a flaw with the streaming model, then the solution is to get out of streaming. If it's a flaw with the ethics of the business, then it's just time to find a different business partner.
I don't know if this would be possible from the technological end, but maybe what is needed is an open source app. Musicians could host their own music and just give a link to the search engines and run their own ads. (You could still have companies that could sell ads for your space, but you'd be in control of the metrics side). You could drop ads in as you saw fit and the app would let people search the database of submitted music. You'd negotiate how much you'd get paid per ad you run. (You could already do this on your own website, but the app would let people navigate the music of more than just one site in one handy format.)
Instead of a company saying, 'We'll pay you this much per time your song is played' they'd say, 'We'll pay you this much each time you play this ad' at a fixed rate. There would need to be some security protocols in place to prevent fraud, but that's no different than what we have now. ---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
First Post- May 8, 2009
|
Komuso
454 posts
Nov 14, 2014
12:42 AM
|
"I don't know if this would be possible from the technological end, but maybe what is needed is an open source app. Musicians could host their own music and just give a link to the search engines and run their own ads. "
I was going to say you could easily run your own shoutcast/icecast server in the cloud but a quick search turned up: Shoutcast relaunches with new hosted streaming service so they are already on the case.
So certainly possible to run your own station, with ads even. You can also do live streaming gigs as you are already running the stream.
Discovery is then the issue, but this is wide open to collaborate with like minded artists on.
---------- Paul Cohen aka Komuso Tokugawa HarpNinja - Your harmonica Mojo Dojo Bringing the Boogie to the Bitstream
|
Komuso
455 posts
Nov 14, 2014
5:39 AM
|
Pushback time...
42 Major Artists Threaten to Boycott YouTube…
or a dying gasp?
---------- Paul Cohen aka Komuso Tokugawa HarpNinja - Your harmonica Mojo Dojo Bringing the Boogie to the Bitstream
Last Edited by Komuso on Nov 14, 2014 5:40 AM
|
ted burke
16 posts
Nov 14, 2014
7:16 AM
|
what is happening is that artists are trying to make it known that what they do is WORK, no less than anything else people do in order to make a living. the general public doesn't consider, over all, that what musicians have to do in order to make a living, whether it's years learning the instrument, buying the right equipment, becoming familiar with a variety of styles, forming bands, rehearsals, recording, playing live gigs, booking gigs, book keeping. it's a full time job, it's hard work, and it is not surprising that musicians who've spent years developing a set of marketable skill and use those skills to create original music would like to be paid what they are actually worth, which is a damn sight more than the skewed payment system now in place. we should support music and musicians by buying their music, not shop lifting it off the internet. if it brings joy to you as a listener and if it makes money for you as a vendor, spread the joy and pay the folks who make the music that makes your quality of life and bottom line healthier. ---------- Ted Burke __________________ ted-burke.com tburke4@san.rr.com
|
isaacullah
2884 posts
Nov 14, 2014
9:37 AM
|
I think it's particularly interesting that, so far, in two threads, no one has brought up the parallel issue of video streaming. It seems that that issue, once quite contentious, got cleared up pretty fast. Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Google Play, Redbox. Those are your major players, and clearly, the streaming model works REALLY well for TV and movies, not that all the rules have been worked out.
The issue that Ted brings up is important: artists deserve to be paid for their art. But -- and this is an important caveat -- they only deserve to be paid IF their art is consumed by the audience. That's the reality of the art world. If no one likes what you are doing, then, well, you don't make any money. I think streaming has the ability to get your art consumed by many many more people. To go back to the issue of video streaming: I used to torrent everything. Totally pirated, but it was the only way I could watch what I wanted without paying the ridiculous over-price of cable or satellite, which forced me to pay for a ton of stuff I didn't want to see, in order to get the couple of shows or movies I did want. As soon as Netflix went streaming, I (and all of my friends) stopped torrenting, and went legal. It was easier, safer, and we felt better about it. And, despite the rocky beginnings and initial push back from the studios, the pricing model for streaming video has stabilized, and everyone sees how they can profit from it. In fact, I's wager that there are MORE cool TV shows than there were before streaming, and that "fringe" shows that would have died on network TV have found a niche that lets them survive. I know a couple of indie film-makers, and they have told me that Netflix has totally changed the game for them. Before, their only outlet was the indie festival circuit, and, if you did well there, the art house theaters. And then, maybe you'd sell a couple DVDs from your website. Now, with Netflix, etc., there's an instant audience for them. They can still do the indie festival stuff, and arthouse theaters if they want to, but they don't HAVE to do that to make money.
I think that's what audio streaming will do for indie bands. It will let them get out there, direct to audiences, and cut out many middle men. Whether or not it's Spotify, or Google, or the Shoutcast model that does (likely it will be a combo), it's going to happen. It's just that were currently in that rocky "middle ground" right now where things are being negotiated, and emotions are running high. ----------   YouTube! Soundcloud!
|
Komuso
456 posts
Nov 17, 2014
6:27 AM
|
This is a bit of a must read...
Will SoundCloud Take Advantage Of Artists, Or Save Them?
---------- Paul Cohen aka Komuso Tokugawa HarpNinja - Your harmonica Mojo Dojo Bringing the Boogie to the Bitstream
|
Komuso
457 posts
Nov 18, 2014
4:39 AM
|
Spotify Says Per-Play Royalties Will ‘Likely Never Go Up’
Why should the content creators get paid anyway, the investors need more cars and houses first. ---------- Paul Cohen aka Komuso Tokugawa HarpNinja - Your harmonica Mojo Dojo Bringing the Boogie to the Bitstream
|
A440
247 posts
Nov 19, 2014
10:43 AM
|
Spotify is doing to musicians what Uber is doing to taxi drivers. Exactly what Amazon did to booksellers and MacDonalds did to restaurant workers. This is unregulated capitalism. It is shifting wealth from the middle-class workers to the capitalists. Techology is an accelerator.
|
Post a Message
|