kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 24, 2014 11:12:21 GMT -5
If you're arguing in favor of music streaming services, Netflix is not the example you want to provide. It only provides you access to a limited library of content (and, recently, the more buzzworthy emphasis has been on TV - which uses Netflix to build fanbases for shows and thus cares less about lost revenue - than on movies) and doesn't put movies up right when they first release. It also regularly rotates content on and off the platform. It's definitely not "all-you-can-eat." It's "we very curate a very limited array of content, almost none of it new, that we're allowing you to eat." If you want to see a movie when it's fresh, you either have to see it in theaters, buy the DVD or illegally download it. If you want to see a particular old movie at a given point, you might have to buy it as well. Spotify makes all that instantly available to everyone. Yes, the rise of Netflix proves that content creators *DO* have to get on board with a shift in the marketplace, but it does not provide any reason to believe that they have to agree to an "all or nothing" Spotify model. If anything, it tells them that they can support streaming *AND* remain very selective about which content they distribute via that mechanism. If you were tell Taylor Swift she could adhere to a Netflix model -- receive a F-ton of money to put Fearless up this year, Speak Now up next year and Red up the year after -- I'm sure she'd be more on board. All You Can Eat doesn't mean that you have access to everything ever made. It means that you can have as much of what is available for one price. I never said that Netflix had everything available for streaming, but for what is available, I'm not paying for individual content. I'm not saying that the labels have to make everything available to stream immediately, but this type of subscription consumption is where the entertainment industry in general is headed. I'm fine with that explanation for the industry at large. But like I said, the streaming music status quo is very close to an "all or nothing" model with the ultimate goal of giving you access to every song ever. That changes the valuation of music in a way that offering a very limited selection of albums and singles (many of which carry clear promotional value and do little to cannibalize on existing revenue sources), a la Netflix, doesn't. So if Netflix is our best, most refined example of streaming content in today's pop culture landscape (and it is), then it's not wrong for artists and labels to complain that Spotify is overreaching.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,937
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Feb 6, 2015 8:54:07 GMT -5
I don't think this is a wise move at all. While I obviously sit on the side that artists should be paid fairly for their work, I think now that streaming has become as popular and widespread as it is, to attempt to undo it won't make people suddenly go back to buying music digitally again. Streaming has convenience and ease and people had a taste of that. They're not going to be pleased in giving that up. If anything, I think this is a place for the artists to actually act and stop signing with major labels. I don't necessarily think streaming HAS to be bad but it seems like the common factor in most problems artists and musicians face comes down to the actions of the label in how they respond, or fail to respond to trends. I keep waiting for somebody HUGE, like Bey or Jay or Rih or Nicki, to leave the major labels behind.
|
|