Century Media suing BitTorrent users... Opinions???

[skyrefuge]

Just to be clear, we're talking $0.005 per streamed song? So someone would need to listen to the entire album 40x? Assuming that's how the math works out, than the whole thing is somewhat ironic. Someone who has access to all the music Spotify offers, is far less likely to listen to a CD 40x, than a person who listens to their music via purchased CDs.

Yes, $0.005 per streamed song. And yes, it's perhaps likely that an individual listener would do less repeat-listening on Spotify than they would in a CD-only world. But an individual listener's habits aren't really relevant to the payout a rights-holder gets. In the CD world, Ann buys 'Alice in Hell' and listens to it 40 times, while Bob buys 'Butchered at Birth' and listens to it 40 times. In the Spotify world, where variety is more accessible, both Ann and Bob give 20 listens each to 'Alice in Hell' and 'Butchered at Birth'. Each album still gets 40 listens in both cases, they're just distributed differently. As long as listening-time-per-person doesn't change, and overall artist popularity doesn't change, the cumulative listens to an artist's work should be the same in the Spotify world as in the CD world.

And in fact I've found myself doing at least as much repeat listening via Spotify as via other sources, just because the Spotify player doesn't have a very good "listen to this random thing next" capability, so instead I just have a list of albums I like on the side and most of the time I end up clicking on one of those. (incidentally, I'm listening to Tad Morose right now, for the first time ever, generating revenue for the rights-holder that never would have been generated without Spotify)

What Spotify *does* change is that payouts are based on actual listening over time, rather than instantaneous purchase-decisions (which may or may not lead to actual listening). I think this is totally awesome, and something I'd been dreaming about for a decade. In the CD world, the artist (or label) can get rewarded with piles of money even if they release a crappy album, just because their previous album was really good, and they "trick" people into buying the new one. Or people could buy a CD just because other people like it, and then never really enjoy it themselves; the artist still gets the money. With Spotify, there is finally a direct connection between listener-enjoyment and artist revenue, which is a totally beautiful thing.

Well, they're certainly not listening the way they once did. For instance, I know my favorite discs of 2012, will not get played anywhere near as much as my favorite discs of 2002, and certainly no where near as much as my favorite discs of 1985.

I think the fact that you've gotten old, while shocking news, is not relevant to this discussion.

 

[General Zod]

In the Spotify world, where variety is more accessible, both Ann and Bob give 20 listens each to 'Alice in Hell' and 'Butchered at Birth'. Each album still gets 40 listens in both cases, they're just distributed differently. As long as listening-time-per-person doesn't change, and overall artist popularity doesn't change, the cumulative listens to an artist's work should be the same in the Spotify world as in the CD world.

I've considered this... and hopefully as the service grows, this scenario will play out.

What Spotify *does* change is that payouts are based on actual listening over time, rather than instantaneous purchase-decisions (which may or may not lead to actual listening). I think this is totally awesome, and something I'd been dreaming about for a decade. In the CD world, the artist (or label) can get rewarded with piles of money even if they release a crappy album, just because their previous album was really good, and they "trick" people into buying the new one. Or people could buy a CD just because other people like it, and then never really enjoy it themselves; the artist still gets the money. With Spotify, there is finally a direct connection between listener-enjoyment and artist revenue, which is a totally beautiful thing.

Yep... we're on the same page with this.

I think the fact that you've gotten old, while shocking news, is not relevant to this discussion.

LMAO. That was awesome.

 

[MetalNations]

They should get their music off of Youtube then. So much software out there that grabs the youtube videos and puts them into mp3 format.

 

[Rezz]

Does anyone have any idea is Spotify pays artists only for streamed songs or is there also a pay-out for playing local files? Am I doing a disservice to artists by allowing Spotify to play my locally stored mp3s verses streaming those same songs?

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Interesting. Not sure how accurate this is....

It's rather inaccurate. Here's why:

* It doesn't understand the difference between profit and revenue. When I sell a CD for 9.00 and it says I get back 8.00 in "revenue," that's not really true. Selling a CD for 9 bucks means I get 9 bucks back in revenue. Revenue is nothing more or less than the changing hands of money. When money moves, that's revenue. So already, it's a really stupid diagram made by someone with no finance or economics knowledge.

* This distinction is super important because at the end of the day, what really matters is profit, NOT revenue. When I sell a CD on iTunes, my revenue margin is smaller than when I sell a CD physically, but my PROFIT margin is MUCH higher. The profit margin for a CD is generally $3 per CD sold. It costs around $6 to manufacture a CD and when you sell it for $9.99, that's about a $3 profit deal.

* iTunes takes a 30% cut on sales, and then with the small cut from the distribution end, you're left with about $5-6 per digital CD sold. Spotify is almost incalculable in terms of profit because they haven't disclosed how much of a % they take, and we have reason to believe the % Spotify takes on streams differs from artist to artist

* Therefore, this is a super inaccurate chart and I cry every time someone posts it.

 

[Urban breed]

Ah, so to be clear then, you're talking about your record label(s) making your music available on Spotify, and you don't really have an issue with Spotify itself?

Not really the case. It is never that easy and I am way too lazy to fully explain myself. (I also don't think anyone ever really gets it anyway. This, of course, only aggravates the "problem" and thus I get lazier and lazier.)
I don't expect anyone to really get what I am saying because my thinking is not exactly that of a conformist.
But to sort of actually make an effort anyway:
Every single party involved here has a stance that makes sense given their individual perspective. Except the musician.
So if I have a problem, that's who I have a problem with.
Do I want anything to do with Spotify? Nope. Never.
Do I think the only way to go is the way Marillion does it. Yes.
Am I free to do it that way? Sure.
But as it turns out I would have to play everything myself because I work with people that think it is better to give all your hard work away for free so that one can go out and do even more work for free so that someone else can get paid.
So for the love of music I am (reluctantly but undeniably) part of the f***ing problem.
I don't want to kick myself in the balls so allow me to kick those dying to exploit my stupidity instead.

 

[miel]

Judge Rejects Nearly One Thousand Subpoenas In CENTURY MEDIA Lawsuit Case

"Quite a development recently. To backtrack, Century Media has filed a lawsuit in the state of New Jersey seeking damages over illegal downloads of Lacuna Coil's Dark Adrenaline and Iced Earth's Dystopia (without the band's consent).

Last week, 944 subpoenas were presented to Judge Faith S. Hochberg and all but one "John Doe" were rejected by the judge, for these reasons:

Hochberg, in her October 10 ruling, said that the case appeared to be a misjoinder, finding that "there must be a connection between defendants beyond the copyrighted work and method of distribution, namely that defendants were involved in the same transaction with the same downloader at the same time."

In the case, Hochberg said that she would sever all Doe defendants except the first Doe of the suit "without prejudice," permitting the plaintiff to bring the claim again in conformity with the rules set forth by the judge.

That was pulled from a report Blabbermouth filed. It seems those 943 sparred defendants are not in the clear yet, as the Century Media lawyers can still pull together evidence proving their guilt. But it won't be an easy process for Century Media.

This case is far from over, as over 7,000 downloaders were initially claimed as being filed suit against, but it's clearly not going to be an easy battle for Century Media, leaving the question: is this even worth it?"


~Jen