It is about fair compensation to artist, especially if Streaming becomes a real substitute for buying music. And given the tiny compensation that artist get now, it would not hurt them in the least to simply withhold their music from streaming services and force their hand.
I don't remember the details by some black rap artist got millions of plays on Spotify and walk away with the princely sum of about $4000. That's pocket change. It would not hurt them in the least to withhold their music from Steaming. They can force the hand of the industry.
If Streaming really is going to become a replacement for purchasing music, then the price structure
IS going to have to change.
As far as I'm concerned, if you Playlist music, you have bought it, you just haven't paid for it.
However, there is one other aspect that is not being considered. Every year the publish a Digital Music Report (can't remember the actual title). From the 2012 report we see an inconsistency.
Digital Music Report 2012 - who gets what?
Summarized and Generalized -
Using a $10 album as the base, with vinyl, the Record Label got $1 and the Artist got $1. With CDs, the Label got about $1.25 and the Artist got about $0.75. With digital downloads of the same $10 album, the Record Label got $5, and the Artist got $0.75. And Record Labels claim they can't make money.
The cost of non-tangible digital music is extremely low. Vinyl had a considerable preparation process in cutting the Master and making Stampers. Then the vinyl had to be stamped, and ship all over the country, and sold in stores. That is tremendous overhead cost. But with digital you simply make essentially free copies with virtually zero distribution costs. True you have to maintain servers at iTune, but compared to literally shipping vinyl albums or CD around the world. A few serves and the people to run them is not that much.
So, non-tangible digital music should be considerably cheaper. A typical $10 album should sell for about $3 or $4, and in doing so, everyone should still make the same amount of money.
Transferring that to Streaming services, they should be equally cheap, and in being cheap, artist and label and publishers should still make fair compensation.
If they did this, if non-tangible digital media was sold at a price that reflected its true cost and a fair profit, it would be so cheap as to essentially eliminate physical media. If you can buy vinly for $30 for a given album or alternatively buy the download of the same album for $3 which do you think most people would pick?
Or if you can buy access to a quality Streaming service for what amount to pennies per album, which do you choose. But note those
'pennies per album' are still more than Streaming costs now.
The new prices have to reflect the very very considerably less overhead and distribution costs of modern non-tangible digital music. I think when that is done, the price, while likely more, can be very reasonable.
As to Pirating of music, that is something of a myth. It has been proven that those who download the most free music, are the very people who purchase the most paid-for music.
If Streaming cost twice as much as it does, it still represent an extreme bargain when you consider I used to spend $300 to $500 per year
($25 to $42/month), and that bought me roughly 20 to 30 albums per year. Yet, Streaming Services, for all intend and purpose, give me unlimited access to just about every song or album ever made, and it is universally available anywhere in the world that has a Internet access.
No, no one wants to pay more. But, if the current Streaming model is going to replace the purchasing of music, then its price structure and operating model will have to change. Like it or not, it is going to have to change.
The more you pay, the more quality, convenience, and features you get.
Steve/bluewizard
PS. All prices in Dollar because the original Digital Music Report was in Dollars.