Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,198
38,989



Music streaming service Spotify is close to signing a deal with Warner Music Group that would see artists under the label launch albums exclusively on Spotify's $9.99/month paid subscription tier. Spotify has previously not restricted albums to its paid subscribers, but reports earlier this year said that the service would soon begin practicing in exclusives, and it now appears to be happening with Warner Music artists as the first potential exclusives for Spotify Premium users that would be unavailable to anyone on the free tier.

Spotify and Warner Music's new deal "could be signed by September," according to sources speaking with Reuters. The sources said that some of the biggest parts of the deal have been talked about, including granting Spotify "a more favorable revenue split" in return for Spotify launching Warner Music albums exclusively on its paid tier "for a defined period." However, specific monetary amounts for such a deal, and which of Warner Music's artists would be included -- Ed Sheeran and Muse are under the label's management -- were details that have yet to be ironed out.

spotify-logo.jpg

One source described the talks as being at "a crossroads," with any potential for a final deal remaining "at bay" until agreements were made on a number of points. Still, talks are said to be "taking place daily," leading other sources close to the deal hopeful for a finalized agreement to come by September. The signing of the deal is said to be Spotify's "last big music royalty deal" ahead of the company's plan to go public on the stock market by late 2017/early 2018.
The parties are positive a deal could be signed by September as major issues such as granting loss-making Spotify a more favorable revenue split in return for making some new albums accessible only to its paying subscribers for a defined period have already been agreed, the sources said.

However, the precise revenue split and the size of a potential guaranteed upfront payment to the label, home to artists including Ed Sheeran and Muse, have yet to be agreed, said two of the sources.
In terms of the revenue split, Spotify is said to be seeking an even 50-50 split with royalties of albums streamed on the service, but Warner Music is hoping to keep at least 52 percent of its albums' royalties on Spotify. Any deal is expected to see a percent of Warner Music's royalties decreased, as the company currently has a 55 percent majority on Spotify royalties. Artist royalties have been the center of negative press for Spotify in the past, leading to the company's acquisition of blockchain technology company Mediachain Labs.

In June, Spotify announced that it has over 140 million global monthly active users, 53 million of which are paid subscribers. According to MIDiA Research detailed in today's Reuters report, that represents about 40 percent of streaming music subscribers worldwide. In comparison, Apple Music is said to have 19 percent of global streaming music subscribers (about 28 million), while Amazon Prime Music accounts for 12 percent (about 16 million subscribers).

For Apple Music, the streaming music service has been repeatedly criticized for its reliance on album exclusives since its launch in the summer of 2015. Last year, Eddy Cue said that exclusives on Apple Music will continue to appear "where appropriate."

Speaking with Reuters last month, Spotify vice president Jonathan Forster said that Apple's rise in the music streaming market has helped Spotify: "It's great that Apple is in the game," Forster said. "They are definitely raising the profile of streaming. It is hard to build an industry on your own."

Article Link: Spotify and Warner Music Close to Signing Deal That Would Restrict Some Releases to Premium Users
 
Not surprising. Sometimes I just wish we could go back to the good old days: when the easiest legal option was buying the music you wanted on iTunes.
 
The free tier of Spotify isn't void of that many features compared to the paid tier. I suppose Spotify has to try and give some incentive to entice users to upgrade.
[doublepost=1500915795][/doublepost]
The sources said that some of the biggest parts of the deal have been talked about, including granting Spotify "a more favorable revenue split" in return for Spotify launching Warner Music albums exclusively on its paid tier "for a defined period."
Ah! Thankful to see that free users aren't locked out of certain music indefinitely.
 
This will only encourage people to steal it off of the internet.

Yet again the Music Industry plans to reverse itself.

They never learn.
 
This will only encourage people to steal it off of the internet.

Yet again the Music Industry plans to reverse itself.

They never learn.

In other words, if you don't give certain people music for free, they will steal it. So, please explain to me why improving paid tiers is bad for the music industry, since the "people" you are referring to are freeloaders by definition.

I do find it disturbing that you criticize the people trying to figure out how to get paid for their work, rather than thieves and freeloaders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thisisnotmyname
In other words, if you don't give certain people music for free, they will steal it. So, please explain to me why improving paid tiers is bad for the music industry, since the "people" you are referring to are freeloaders by definition.

I do find it disturbing that you criticize the people trying to figure out how to get paid for their work, rather than thieves and freeloaders.

If you don't give people music for free - they will steal it. In todays day and age where you can strip audio from even a YouTube video and have it on your computer in seconds, people will find a way to steal it rather then pay for the service, thus drive users and listeners away entirely.

I am not saying that I endorse "freeloaders" by any means. I actually work in the Music Business - I have worked at a music agency for 4 years and now work in the Music and Entertainment department at a large TV Network. Believe me when I tell you - if this were to help (which I do not think it will) it would help people that directly work in this field such as myself.

Music needs to be like water - it needs to flow to all users no matter where they are, service they use, or device they have - this is taken from the book "The Future of Music" which you can and should read on Amazon if you are intrerested in this topic.

People will find ways to get what they want when an album drops. By making it only available to a select few, it will not encourage people to sign up. It will drive them away and have consumers revert back to pirating right when the industry has came up with a good format to combat it.

And by the way - these services such as Spotify and Apple Music do NOT help artists at all. Streaming royalties and deals are poison to an artist. The old business model still holds the most value to an artist - CD's, Vinyl, Band Merch, Publishing, Liscensing, Touring. Streaming only hurts the bands more, and if consumers revert to stealing becuase it is not offered by a service or it's not "exclusive" to whatever service they have, it's hurting the artist even more.

Bottom line is if you really want to help the artists through these services - it's not the services that needs fixing, its the laws that affect the money flow to an artist.

Unfortunatly tech companies have a lot more money to lobby congress with than the Music Industry does - so these laws probably will not be updated anytime soon.
 
I do find it disturbing that you criticize the people trying to figure out how to get paid for their work, rather than thieves and freeloaders.

I am not criticizing the people that are trying to figure out how to get paid for their work. This isn't the people that make music negotiating this deal and you're a total fool if you think that. This is big tech companies making you sign up to listen to something that was previously free for music discovery. The tech companies themselves are the freeloaders freeloading off of all of the content the artist has given them - because they pay out seriously less than pennies per stream.
 
I hope Spotify will be smart enough to make the exclusive artists' catalogs visible to everybody but accessible to premium customers only. That way, the company may entice non-payers to go premium if they see artists they're wild about. If they're not visible, the users' assumption will be that Spotify doesn't have the rights to these artists' stuff.
 
Last edited:
Or better buy the CD and rip it into any current or future format out there.

I do have some on CD still. I don't really bother out of convenience. I don't have to store them somewhere and I don't have to go somewhere to get them. Other than that, I do agree with you.

/steals gixxer's hard drive
/makes sandwich while passing though kitchen

clean getaway

/listens to music on gixxer's hard drive
/brings hard drive back. un-stealing it
/makes another sandwich

I would bypass the kitchen. The sandwich options are pretty disappointing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 69Mustang
Google music is the best........
I use both Google Music and Amazon Music. I basically just pay for Amazon Music for my Echos since they don't support Google. I've considered switching to Spotify because then I'd need only one service, but then I'd lose YouTube Red and I'd have to rebuild my Library, which would suck.
 
How do you use YouTube red if you don't pay for it?
I use both Google Music and Amazon Music. I basically just pay for Amazon Music for my Echos since they don't support Google. I've considered switching to Spotify because then I'd need only one service, but then I'd lose YouTube Red and I'd have to rebuild my Library, which would suck.
 
Youtube Red is included in Google Music.
Google Play Music sounds like mud to me like a 64kbps file. Really and I gave it so many chances, yes I always have it set to high but low and high sound the same to me. Apple Music has the best sound quality next to Spotify but Spotify is missing too many essential albums I love.
 
Thanks to everyone who answered, I definitely misunderstood what slu was saying, and didn't know google music included red. I still have a hard time justifying the added expense for myself, since I have a good collection that I don't expect to ever fully explore plus the iTunes Match service ($25 a year). It streams free on my $20 per month T-Mobile plan (data only 2gb). Yes I'm that cheap, and yes T-Mobile actually works for me in my area and surrounding.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.