Rare things are typically valuable because they are rare, but music that can be copied to every hard drive on the planet at no cost? The polar opposite of rare. Water, for example, is critically important and valuable? but also far from rare. It’s my opinion that music should not be free.” Of course, Swift’s fallacy is equating importance & value with rarity. Taylor Swift even invoked this argument when she recently pulled her songs from Spotify: “music is art, and art is important and rare. It’s always some iteration of the following (choose one from each line):īootlegging / piracy / free access / abundance We’ve heard this argument before, and too many times. Labels believe the free tier, which pays lower royalties per stream, can serve to cannibalise other audiences, hitting album sales and lowering the incentive to upgrade to premium. But it’s the record labels that pushed this one through: With this new setup - which Spotify loudly resisted for years - Spotify benefits by paying fewer royalty fees to record labels, though those fees from free streaming were lower per stream than paid streams anyway. They’ve long demanded that some music only be available to paying subscribers because the royalties shared there are much higher. This has been a major sticking point with some artists and labels for many years. Meanwhile, Spotify’s other 50 million free users have their access suddenly restricted. Currently, Spotify’s 50 million paid users fork over £10/month to play their music offline without ads, but now they’re also getting exclusive access to artists’ biggest new releases. Spotify is pulling the plug on free access to some artists’ newest releases, according to The Guardian.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |