Spotify Is Eating the Entire Music Business?

[dayjob]

regarding used cds/vinyl.. i think the 30 yer old CD i buy or the 40 year old record.. is not taking money away from the artist..

Someone owns the rights to that music and you are not supporting the rights holders of whatever music you buy when you buy used.

I see zero problems in this. It's still the same record. I'm not sending money to Ikea, if I'll find a used table form my relatives.

Edit. Fixed quotes

Nor do most of us but dayjob couldn't resist admonishing those using Spotify that the artist isn't getting anything from our streams. So, I pointed out his hypocrisy in justifying his own self-serving music consumption habits while having the audacity to criticize those of us spending actual cash money to subscribe to a platform that has helped to democratize music.

In other words, if you argue that others shouldn't be using Spotify because it doesn't pay the artist enough then you have absolutely zero business justifying the purchase of used CDs because it helps you keep your music costs low.

jfc dude. let it go. i didn't admonish anyone.. just stated my preference and some facts/info about streaming. if you took that as being admonished then that's your problem. wtf.

praise satan let me be done w/this bullshit thread.

[glokraw]

It would make sense for Spotify and others to only pay once some threshold is reached, $20 for example. But often, when there are billions of dollars on hand, common sense is de-valued, and maybe not even cost-effective to implement. They could still have computers calculate the incremental data leading up to that threshold, so artists can see how things are progressing or flailing. The man-hours that make that possible are already paid for.
Cheers

[ghettosynth]

regarding used cds/vinyl.. i think the 30 yer old CD i buy or the 40 year old record.. is not taking money away from the artist..

Someone owns the rights to that music and you are not supporting the rights holders of whatever music you buy when you buy used.

I see zero problems in this. It's still the same record. I'm not sending money to Ikea, if I'll find a used table form my relatives.

Edit. Fixed quotes

Nor do most of us but dayjob couldn't resist admonishing those using Spotify that the artist isn't getting anything from our streams. So, I pointed out his hypocrisy in justifying his own self-serving music consumption habits while having the audacity to criticize those of us spending actual cash money to subscribe to a platform that has helped to democratize music.

In other words, if you argue that others shouldn't be using Spotify because it doesn't pay the artist enough then you have absolutely zero business justifying the purchase of used CDs because it helps you keep your music costs low.

jfc dude. let it go. i didn't admonish anyone.. just stated my preference and some facts/info about streaming. if you took that as being admonished then that's your problem. wtf.

praise satan let me be done w/this bullshit thread.

Take your own advice, I wasn't talking to you. BTW: This thread has actually become interesting, you only think that it's bullshit because it isn't going your way. It's not going your way because your arguments are naïve and out of touch.

admonish /ăd-mŏn′ĭsh/ transitive verb

To counsel (another) against something to be avoided or warn (that something is dangerous).
To urge or exhort (someone to do something).
To remind (someone) of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Admonishing while perched up on your self-serving high horse is all that you've been doing in this thread. You even suggested that instead of paying a legal service the contracted sum of money for which the service sets the price and consumers have no input beyond their binary choice, that we should resort to piracy and illegal sharing of works on a file-sharing site known to host porn, or, that we should buy used CDs. Neither of your out of date and self-serving solutions, of course, pays any money to the artist.

It's the height of naivete to argue that artists who go out of their way to put their music on a streaming service don't want consumers to pay for that service and also stream their work. That's exactly what they want. Even Mary the terrible bass player in a terrible "punk" band wants you to pay and stream, she just thinks that her "art" is worth more. What can I say, delusion and entitlement go hand in hand.

[ghettosynth]

It would make sense for Spotify and others to only pay once some threshold is reached, $20 for example. But often, when there are billions of dollars on hand, common sense is de-valued, and maybe not even cost-effective to implement. They could still have computers calculate the incremental data leading up to that threshold, so artists can see how things are progressing or flailing. The man-hours that make that possible are already paid for.
Cheers

Indeed, in fact, many distributors do this. I've heard of thresholds as high as $150. You're right though, people hear about billions and they think that there must be more money for them without thinking about the arithmetic of the thing.

[harryupbabble]

well, as marie antionette said,
"let them eat spotify"

[harryupbabble]

or was it sponge cake?

[vurt]

well, as marie antionette said,
"let them eat spotify"

she also stated "for those of you about to rock, we salute you!"

[ghettosynth]

well, as marie antionette said,
"let them eat spotify"

she also stated "for those of you about to rock, we salute you!"

Also, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, you don't get fooled again!