Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The ethics and debate of streaming music online

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Stuck on the Border WalshFan88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11,237

    Default The ethics and debate of streaming music online

    https://www.billboard.com/articles/b...ists-coalition
    This doesn't surprise me. Don Henley and Irving Azoff want more money. What you are going to tell me next - that water is wet?!

    In all seriousness, the issue of streaming music, uploading YouTube videos of concerts, doing livestreams of concerts, etc is about as inflammatory of a topic as taking photos with your smartphones in concerts and smartphone usage in general. I was going to post this there but started this thread as while it's still concerning tech and are both polarizing, it's not exactly the same issue and I think it's worthy of it's own thread.

    Everyone knows my stance on taking photos in concert and using your phone whenever you please. But on this issue, I'm torn. I'm not so sold on either side of the fence. I definitely have a more balanced viewpoint on this issue. I have 3 distinct lenses I view this from. The lens of a technology enthusiast and supporter of the smartphone revolution, social media, and tech companies. There is also the lens of being a musician. While I'm not a songwriter, I'm a guitarist and musician myself and that affects my vision on this some. And there is the music lover lens, someone who listens to music maybe more than the average person who wants good music to still be made and impetus for great artists to continue to do so. Each one makes me think about it slightly differently. And there is definitely some conflict of interest between them.

    I've said many times that I use a plethora of sources for listening to my music. From vinyl/tape/CD, to purchased digital music from the iTunes store, to yes - streaming with Spotify and YouTube Premium. About the only option I don't have is 8-track but if I found a player that worked with my stereo, I'd buy it and start collecting those. I use it all and I fit in all in, and I'd say I use 2/3s of those methods every single day. When it comes to albums, in some cases I own the same album on 3 or more different sources and I still stream them for convenience. In those cases, I definitely have no guilt about streaming those songs.

    So as I said I'm torn. Although I get tired of Henley's antics and his and Irving's constant need for more $, artists and songwriters in general have a valid point here. Without them, there would be no music. They deserve to be paid fairly for their work. You pay someone who cuts your hair, you don't expect that to be free. I think when it comes to content consumption and entertainment - especially online - there is this viewpoint that it should be free and that it's public fair use, etc. When it's not. There's an almost sense of entitlement. Be it to movies or music or even journalistic sites or content creators like on YouTube. It's kind of astonishing really. I think because it's entertainment, it's seen as not something that is a product or service to some people. Artists have the right to stand up for fair pay and royalties. As a musician myself - if I was writing songs you'd bet I'd want to be rewarded for it. There will always be those who see those in the arts and entertainment industry as undeserving of pay and that they need to get a real job but it IS a legitimate living. It's just that not everyone can be a successful artist or actor, and because of that people will be jealous and feel like they shouldn't get paid because of it when deep down they wish they could do what they love for a career. With YouTube and Twitch, content creators get paid one of three ways. Through ad revenue, direct donations, or a third party service like Patreon which offers perks and special benefits in exchange for a monthly donation. They rely on donations and Patreon members because everyone uses adblockers these days so their ad revenue is nonexistent. Then you can get ads removed from your channel if you are a controversial figure in the YouTube community with demonetization and age restriction algorithms. As I said, as a music lover and someone who can't go even one day without music - I would be devastated if the music I've loved couldn't be found anymore and no more music like it would ever be made ever again. To play devil's advocate, there's the techie in me. The one who thinks that Google, Apple, Spotify, Amazon, etc aren't evil companies who hate artists or songwriters or feel they are undeserving of pay. They want to pay the artists, but not be gouged simply because they have a successful business model and the artist thinks they can use that to their advantage. Both parties need to be reasonable and held responsible and accountable.

    It's a fine line though. If the streaming services make too much and not give enough to artists and writers, it's a problem. And in reverse, if the artists insist on really high royalties or try to pull their music - then the service suffers because some artist/writer/label thought they would be greedy. Then a company who offers a service that puts your music in more listeners ears goes away and that might come back to bite the artist/writer/label on the butt. Without the artist, the company (be it online purchase or streaming subscription) has nothing to sell and they have no business. Without the company selling the songs or offering them to subscribers, the artist doesn't get their music heard, or at least heard by paying listeners. They then have to do it for free, which isn't sustainable. And without the subscription buyer or music purchaser - both cease to exist. The tech company can't gouge the customer or they won't buy any songs/albums or sign up for their streaming service - which means the companies will go out of business, which in turn means the artists music doesn't get sold or streamed at all, so they don't make any money - which means goodbye music, or at least quality music. All three parties have to be happy and satisfied for two of the three to survive. The customer can't feel like they are getting ripped off, either. So add that into an already complicated delicate balance. If one party pulls out from the mix - it's over. It's a classic symbiotic system.

    So I can see it from both sides. At the end of the day - I'm probably honestly more inclined to side with the artists and songwriters - provided that they don't go overboard with their demands. You should be paid fairly, but don't go too extreme with the money you ask for or it could spell trouble. Don't abuse the legislation and board's decisions so you can be greedy just because you think those companies need you more than you need them and you want to take advantage of their success and need for your music on their platform. It might hurt you and your contemporaries. Ultimatums and threats of pulling music may only hurt you, especially if you aren't a huge name in music. Similarly, these streaming companies DO need to pay their fair share to the artists and writers because without them, they wouldn't be making anywhere near the money, and in the case of a company like Spotify who only does one thing - you could go out of business. I don't see Apple, Google, Amazon, or Microsoft going out of business because the artists don't allow streaming of their music on their respective services. However the only thing Spotify offers is a music streaming service. If the artists back out - there goes your entire business model and you find yourself bankrupt because either you lost all the artists (or the ones your customers care about), or you charge exorbitant prices to make up for what you have to pay the few artists who choose to go overboard with what they ask for so you can keep them on your service (usually the really big names and legends who are greedy) and no one will pay them. And then it goes back to hurting the artists themselves. If you are going to shoot into the dark, make sure it's not your foot.

    As far as the free streaming option that both Pandora and Spotify offer - personally I'm ok with the free tier of Pandora because it's essentially an online radio service. You don't pick the songs, you pick the station/genre much like you'd do with an FM/AM radio in your car. There are ads. You only get 3 or 4 song skips per a set time period - which is the only thing you can do that you can't with a traditional over the air radio station. IMO Spotify needs to tighten down their free tier to make it less likely to be overused and make it less desirable than the paid Premium tier. The free listens mean Spotify isn't going to pay the artists much for those spins. They need to make it more like Pandora. Ads, low skip limit, and station/genre based and not cherry picking songs and artists. I realize they don't want to do away with it as it does eventually encourage people to switch to the paid service, but I'd wager to bet there are a LOT of people who abuse the free tier who have no intent on ever paying for music - at least a streaming subscription.

    As far as YouTube - there are two issues here. There is the concert videos and livestreaming issue (which also applies to social networks like Facebook and Instagram) and there is the music streaming for free issue. Let's start with the music for free issue. It is SUPER easy to listen to any song ever made on YouTube. If YouTube or VEVO themselves don't upload the songs, there are random people uploading every song known to man at differing levels of quality. People can then use online services that convert those 'videos' with lyrics to MP3 files they can put into iTunes or the like, and they have essentially the same thing as Napster. It might be slightly less sketchy to some, but it's the same exact thing when getting to the meat of the issue. If you use a computer, you can put on adblocker and essentially you can listen to anything without any ads or limitations. YouTube/Google do need to start removing music that wasn't uploaded by themselves or the label or VEVO. They need to remove all of the lyric videos that have the full songs posted. They need to remove the "full album" videos uploaded by people where they play an album in it's entirety. If it wasn't authorized or uploaded by the recording artist or label - it needs to be GONE. Only allow music that was uploaded by official channels and/or YouTube themselves. Some of these uploads are such poor quality audio anyway. Then you have the issue that YouTube DOES upload songs in high quality themselves or a company like VEVO does. Those songs should only be available to people who pay for YouTube's premium service tier. And they should pay the artists just like Spotify, Apple, etc for every play. The only recorded music that should be on YouTube is from YouTube themselves or the labels. And on those songs, they should only be listenable by YouTube Premium subscribers. Or at least heavily limit how you can play them. On a phone/tablet you can't block ads in the YouTube app if you don't subscribe to Premium. And that's how most people listen. But the problem is on a computer - you can listen without ads free.

    And as far as the concert videos and livestreaming of concerts on YouTube or social media. I'm personally guilty of watching them. A lot. I'm torn. I can see why artists don't like it. I'm of the opinion it might encourage someone to see a show if they like what they see and hear. I can also understand those who are afraid a bad video might discourage people from coming when it may just be a bad recording or an off night. I also understand those who feel once they see it on the video, they won't feel the need to go see it because they can do it from the comfort of their home. I personally disagree on that. I think if anything it might encourage someone to go - because it's not the same thing at all. I do see the concern for a bad recording turning someone off of seeing an artist or band live - and yes that is a legitimate worry and is a problem. Whether it's a video of a single song from a concert, or the entire full concert in one or multiple videos by the same person or old bootlegs that get posted on YouTube - it's definitely something that is not going to be ok with some, maybe even most artists or bands. I'm guilty, so I can't preach against it too much but I do see their point and I probably should try not to watch them. I never really record video myself at a concert or go live on social. I take lots of pics as I'm sure you know if you've seen my posts in the phone cameras at concerts thread or have seen my posts on my own social accounts. I think it's a whole other ball of wax than taking photos. It's not the same IMO. So while I watch them, I don't contribute to the problem by uploading them myself. So, I guess maybe I'm not quite as bad, but I do admit that I watch them.

    I'm not even going to touch on "free" (illegal) downloading and the piracy problem - because that's completely different, and that I'm very much against and am firm on. I did it as a teen, when I wasn't even a music fan - because all of my friends and classmates were doing it. Napster was the "in" thing. There is no excuse IMO that someone could give that makes piracy or stealing of works be it movies or music, etc ok. It's not even worthy of discussion IMO. It's not something I'm open to changing my mind on. In comparison, companies like Spotify seem like an artist's best friend. It's just not something that can be defended.

    Lastly, when it comes to streaming music services - there are a lot of choices. Spotify is the top dog but Apple Music is quickly gaining traction. There is also Amazon Music Unlimited, YouTube Premium/Google Play Music, Pandora Premium, Tidal, etc. I've always heard that when it came to paying the fair share of the $, Spotify was the worst and Apple Music was the best with the others squarely in the middle. I'm personally a big Spotify user, even though I use nothing but Apple phones, tablets, and computers. Maybe at some point I'll consider switching to Apple Music. Especially now that the Amazon Echo speakers support it.

    I'm curious to read other's viewpoints. I know there are at least a couple other Spotify users here. And other than illegal downloading, I'm guilty of a lot of this stuff too if there is in fact something wrong with any of it, I'm not preaching to the consumers but rather the artists/writers or the tech companies here. I feel like I'm just as guilty as anyone and maybe even more so. But I still try to be mindful of the issues at hand.
    Last edited by WalshFan88; 07-30-2019 at 07:53 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •