UK to Investigate Apple Music and Spotify Over Fair Pay for Artists

[matrix07]

But perhaps if they studied hard, and learned a serious profession

What’s that got to do with anything. They have their talents, you have yours. They’re not the one complaining. It’s you.
if anything you should stop learning your “serious profession” so have no reason to complain.

You want the world without music? Imagine that.

 

[ctrlzone]

What’s that got to do with anything. They have their talents, you have yours. They’re not the one complaining. It’s you.
if anything you should stop learning your “serious profession” so have no reason to complain.

You want the world without music? Imagine that.

this person sees no value in music, has no clue about anything in this sector, but a big opinion.
a classic these days.
why do we even bother.. it won't lead anywhere
/sigh

 

[Piggie]

this person sees no value in music, has no clue about anything in this sector, but a big opinion.
a classic these days.
why do we even bother.. it won't lead anywhere
/sigh

No, I'm not saying that, I'm simply questioning the money model, expecting to still be paid for something you did in your 20's when you are 60.
I'm more than happy for people to be entertainers and get a fair income.

If you think back, we are basically speaking of the courtroom Jester who's skill was to be able to try and entertain the king etc.
It's odd how the jester has become worth more than almost anyone else in our current world.

 

[gregohb]

I've got an Apple Music subscription but I still buy albums regularly (lossless digital format normally, although I do also buy Vinyl and the occasional CD).

I use Apple Music for the convenience and music discovery: If I find an album I really enjoy, then I'll buy it but if it's one I only listen to occasionally, I just use my subscription

There are 2 reasons for this: Firstly, I prefer the quality of lossless music (and I can absolutely tell a difference with a decent amp and headphones), and secondly I like to support artists who create quality content

I took some MP3's and converted them to AIFF and burned them to a CD and played them in the car - and it was quite noticeable. They sounded thin and hallowed out and lifeless. It makes sense that if you compress something to 10% of its original size, something must give.

 

[amartinez1660]

The problem is, artists and labels should never have signed the contracts the streaming services offered, long before Apple got into the streaming market. It was a way to dilute the value of their songs and albums. It was always a horrible model. The problem is, now that ship has sailed, people have come to expect being able to stream anything and everything from the artists for $10 a month, and the artists are not going to get the album sales back.

If someone came to you and said, “I know you’re making thousands of dollars a month with album/song sales, but with our new streaming service, you can be making tens of dollars a month, just sign here!”, why jump on it?

I seem to recall the excuse given early on by Spotify and others was, “well, but if we pay the artists more the service won’t be profitable.” Well, that’s a sign that your service isn’t charging what it needs to. Somehow convincing your suppliers to sell to you at well below their cost, so your business model can be profitable to you, is a pretty neat trick. If your other argument is, “well, but the customers won’t pay more that $10 for our service, so you have to sell to us at below cost”, then maybe that’s a sign that you don’t have a viable business model in the first place. And rather than saying, “GTFO”, the artists/labels figured, what, they’d “make it up on volume?” By treating Spotify as a charity?

Very fair take. Definitely the labels and right holders leaving 13% on average should be seriously looked into also, that 13% will still be 13% whether the per stream pay is $1 or $100.

Good to know that Spotify and YouTube are paying a third or even a full order of magnitude less than Apple Music, reminder to don’t switch there and to also point it out when the suggestions to switch to Spotify inevitably happen.

Makes me also wonder about all the noise about unfair competition (even thought there are tons of millions more androids than iPhones with Spotify instead of Music) while paying so much less per stream.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Spotify pays less than Apple: seems that Spotify has better contract negotiating skills than Apple 🤔

 

[McScooby]

I see this as nothing other than a DCMS vanity project. These guys are toothless compared to OFCOM and they in themselves are weak when it comes to prosecutions. I expect the outcome after several years w/TaxPayer monies abundantly chucked at it, is to find maybe some wrongdoings and a recommendation to be made with no fines. Seriously nothing to see here.

 

[gnasher729]

No, I'm not saying that, I'm simply questioning the money model, expecting to still be paid for something you did in your 20's when you are 60.

So this musician wrote some music when he was twenty, and now he is sixty.

When he was 20, there was some expectation about payment. It was expected that you would get money for your music as long as there are people willing to pay money for it. So there would be payments a long time in the future. That affected the price 40 years ago. People 40 years ago were charged less with the expectation that more money would come in later. You want to change that expectation. Sure, but then the musician should demand that anyone buying the music back then pay them some extra because the terms were changed.

The reality is, the musician expects to be paid by people who like the music and want to listen to it. There's lots of music written in 1980 that I don't care about. Guess what: I don't have to pay for it. I'm also not able to listen to it. You listen to it, you pay. You don't pay, you don't listen. Easy as that.

When did you go to school? I mean you expect to get a job and get paid due to the things you learned at school. But at 25 or 30, why do you still expect to be paid because you can read and write?

 

[gnasher729]

YouTube is mostly ad-funded. So of course it pays less than a paid service.

Why would ad funding affect how much a musician gets paid?

 

[Carnegie]

Why would ad funding affect how much a musician gets paid?

Because, generally speaking, the rights-holders don't get paid a set amount per stream. They collectively get paid a set (though, based on negotiations, perhaps somewhat variable) portion of the revenue generated.

I don't want to get lost in various aspects of music licensing; it can be complicated. But a simplified model might be something like this:

Apple agrees to pay the rights-holders for the sound recordings 55% of the revenue generated (and maybe something extra during free or reduced-price trial periods). The amount that rights-holders for the music works (i.e. the writers or publishers) get is determined by law. It's currently something like 13%. The licensing revenue goes into a pool and is divided between rights-holders based on how much their music was streamed. If half of all streams were songs which Taylor Swift owns the rights to, she gets half of the licensing revenue collected.

When we say that Spotify pays less per stream, that doesn't mean that Spotify has negotiated lower per-stream rates. It means (1) that Spotify users stream more relative to what they pay for the service or (2) Spotify collects less (per user) for its service, in part because it offers ad-supported service (for which the model is somewhat different), and/or (3) Spotify has negotiated slightly better rights-holders shares - e.g., 50%, under the right circumstances, instead of 55%.

The revenue pool for ad-supported streaming service is much smaller than that for paid streaming service, so there's less to split with and among rights-holders.

 

[R3k]

If you don't like the pay, don't use the service...

If you use it because other means will earn less money, you agree the service is worth the price

these services have a monopoly. We have no choice. Either get heard, but not paid anything, or not get heard at all.

 

[R3k]

Perhaps make use new, cheaper technology and make your music without a major record label funding you but taking a massive cut of your royalties.

This how most people produce nowadays. You can do quality work with just a laptop, headphones, ableton and a mic if you have the skill or the right vibe.

still can’t live off your work though unless you’re playing live.

 

[T-R-S]

Daniel Ek is a billionaire - made off the backs of artists - 99.6% for Spotify 0.4% for the artists. Does anyone think that a fair split?
When it was download sales Apple paid me 70% and kept 30% - that's fair

 

[Poisednoise]

If I may, there are a lot of people in here who really don't seem to understand the market, or what goes into becoming a musician. I particularly have issues with those who seem to feel that the production of a recording or song is something that you should get paid for once, whether or not the argument has validity, it's simply not how the music market operates at present.

Let's start with the amount of work that goes into it. I started learning the piano when I was 4. By the time I was 7 I was putting in 2 hours a day practising, and by the time I was in my teens I was practising 3-4 hours per day on three different instruments. In my late teens that was up to 6 hours or more a day, on top of schoolwork etc. Not only was I not being paid for any of that, but it's not just the time - a good violin will set you back a minimum of 8-10k US, and a decent grand piano starts at about 45-50k. Yes of course some people get away with less work, but for most it's a hard grind.

Next let's look at the creation of the music itself - sure some people do get paid in a flat fee - the session musicians for instance: they get paid on the day, and that's it. No royalties. But if you're the artist/composer you're expected to get royalties instead of a flat fee (indeed, in most cases all you get on the day is a hefty bill for studio time). And those royalties used to be pretty poor, but something at least. No longer. The way most musicians make money now is either through touring or teaching. Those are your options. Except that of course at the moment they aren't options, because of Covid-19.

Personally, I still buy CDs, not so much because I really prefer them over streaming, but because I know the artist gets a bit more money from their sale.

I just don't think a lot of people really understand what goes into becoming a musician. One of my ex-pupils spent years desperately trying to get noticed, and spent some time homeless and living on the street in her late 20s becuase she refused to give up on her music. She was finally signed in her mid-30s, and in her first year after that was nominated for three Emmys. I don't think she's particularly well off even now, despite being a regular on the late night shows in the US.

You might ask, well, why the hell do it then? And of course many have given up. But for others, if like me it's been your entire life from such an early age, it's who you are. You cannot imagine doing anything else. It's the true meaning of vocation.

I applaud the UK's move here. It's too late of course - I know a lot of superb musicians who have left the industry altogether, and the world is a poorer place for it - but if there can be some redress for the next generation that will be a step in the right direction.

 

[Plutonius]

I wonder how Spotify will respond ?

 

[scaramoosh]

If you don't like what they're paying, don't put your music on the platforms.

 

[panjandrum]

Worth mentioning that whilst I use and prefer Spotify, friends "in the know" tell me that they get roughly 3x the revenue per listen from Apple Music than they would from Spotify.

This. Spotify vastly underpays by any rational and ethical standard, but if you want your music to be widely heard you basically DO have to put your music on their service. My daughter has a done a couple covers of older popular songs (full album coming very late 2020 or early 2021). As an example on one day in July Spotify streamed one of her songs 466 times. That got her $0.86. Yes, 86 cents. Between the two songs she's had up for several years she gets a deposit of $10 or $12 every month or two. So there are clearly some benefits to this modern music production and distribution model: For a reasonable sum (but only because we are family friends of a professional singer-songwriter who could get her studio access) she was able to produce and distribute her work. And people actually get to hear it. People also get to explore and experience a vastly greater array of music than they easily could in the "all radio-hits-all-the-time" generation of **** music I grew up in. It's wonderful in that regard, and the popularity of a variety of different music, genre-bending music, genre-defying music; I think this is a great time for so much. (On the other hand I also very much decry the loss of the well-constructed album and have always and still do purchase the albums I want on either CD or Vinyl - I've always liked Vinyl better, always had a turntable. Also have a restored functional Sonora crank-phonograph that I actually use. So not a newbie vinyl hipster here folks.) But there is also a clear downside; if you are doing this to try to make money instead of just for fun or personal edification you are likely to be incredibly disappointed because almost none of the money goes to the artist. It almost all goes elsewhere. It just needs to be a bit more equitable. When we look at the amount paid per stream from other services it's definitely higher than Spotify, but what always makes the most difference is when someone buys one of her tracks, usually on iTunes but occasionally through other services.

A stump for musicians: I know several prolific, professional, but also struggling musicians. If you LIKE IT, then please, please BUY it people. Don't just stream it. Stream it to find it, yes. But then buy what you truly love. ( JoeDai Warriors, Michael Kelsey, Hush Lane )

 

[hot-gril]

No, I'm not saying that, I'm simply questioning the money model, expecting to still be paid for something you did in your 20's when you are 60.

Because that's what they agree to in the contract. You're essentially saying all contracts should be royalty-free. How would they be paid, all the $ upfront for royalty-free rights? The producer doesn't know how well it'll sell.

If you think back, we are basically speaking of the courtroom Jester who's skill was to be able to try and entertain the king etc.
It's odd how the jester has become worth more than almost anyone else in our current world.

That's untrue. Only the top artists are worth millions. The top businessmen are worth billions. A typical musician makes less from music than typical people do from "normal" jobs, and many of them have side jobs to support themselves.

 

[hot-gril]

I took some MP3's and converted them to AIFF and burned them to a CD and played them in the car - and it was quite noticeable. They sounded thin and hallowed out and lifeless. It makes sense that if you compress something to 10% of its original size, something must give.

To be fair, it sounds like you selected a very low bitrate, and MP3 is an inefficient encoding compared to the AAC used in modern times. Very few people can tell the difference between the lossy compressed music Apple sells and the lossless.

 

[Cartaphilus]

And just where were the Lords, the MPs, and all the relevant committees when an artist had to find a label willing to produce a song or 12 songs, actually manufacturer a 45 rpm or 33.3 rpm album, ship it to a warehouse which would deliver the media to a record store, and hope that somebody cares to promote the music, and somebody cares to buy it. The cost (in static currency) of all this overhead is significant. The artist may have to rent studio time, hire backup musicians, pay a producer, and likely hire an agent to deal with all the contracted contributors. Is the value of the artist's contribution of value as a percentage of all the expenses of getting the music to be bought by consumers any more than it is today when that value chain has been replaced by digital music distributed on the Internet? It would be surprising if the actual money (again in static value) going into the artist's pocket when sold through iTunes were less than the money earned when music was sold in the form of records.

The real money, both today and during most of the past 50 years, comes from live concerts.

 

[damphoose]

This is why we can’t have nice things.
Why create a marketplace if the people who grew large because of you, become ungrateful.

“You knew me before records, you never disrespected me. Now that I’m successful you pull this bleep”.
Jay Z, Heart of the City.

 

[kyjaotkb]

Why would ad funding affect how much a musician gets paid?

Because you get more money if you charge your customers than if you don't? Record labels and musicians are free to keep their records off YouTube if they want.

 

[Poisednoise]

It would be surprising if the actual money (again in static value) going into the artist's pocket when sold through iTunes were less than the money earned when music was sold in the form of records.

The real money, both today and during most of the past 50 years, comes from live concerts.

Surprising to you perhaps, but the amount an artist would receive from the sale of a CD was significant (and sill is) even after the label etc took their cut. By significant, I mean several percent. An artist with several best-selling albums could choose if they wished not to tour. Now they make virtually nothing from streaming.