Music Producers Guild - Blog - Music file streaming

Music file streaming - is this legitimate?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are submitted by individuals and in no way represent the official position of the Music Producers Guild (UK), which cannot accept responsibility thereof.

Posted on July 19, 2010 @ 01:11 PM

Why should music fans buy music when they can stream it for free? - at any of these music streaming sites:

http://www.unifiedmanufacturing.com/blog/2010/07/independent-music-10-ways-to-share-music-on-twitter/

- and they're all intergrating with Twitter to make it even easier to freely share music with friends.

Since artists, and their producers, seem to receive next to no payment for the streaming of their recorded songs, there doesn't seem to be much difference between this and Pirate Bay.....

Comments (11)

posted about 1 month ago by gonzolagonda

Another tale of producers and artists being at the mercy of the greedy labels and the rather disorganised and ineffective agencies like PPL and PRS...! But I'm not sure that streaming is a whole lot different than hearing stuff on the radio - there are still those who will pay to own stuff if it's good and worth owning...

posted about 1 month ago by HuwJorgann

If it applies, and if streaming is effectively broadcasting, then the sites should pay the license for broadcasting the material shouldn't, they?

posted about 1 month ago by teepee

I think this is the main point - to me streaming is no different from radio and as such should be generating revenue in the same way. If access to music is going to be increasingly from streaming then we need to get on board and make it a viable concept.

posted about 1 month ago by Ian Curnow

As far as I can see, streaming is theft, as it is currently implemented, IMHO. It should be equitable with radio play, except each play is ostensibly to one person, rather than to a whole listening audience. There's an interesting thread on Spotify at: http://getsatisfaction.com/spotify/topics/does_the_artists_i_listen_to_get_paid And some more here: http://getsatisfaction.com/spotify/searches?query=does+the+artists+i+listen+to+get+paid&x=15&y=11&style=topics Some of it makes quite scary reading.... I have heard that Spotify have recently increased their payments for plays just in Sweden (not sure why just there)... by 800%. Which would seem a far more equitable remuneration (I've not done the maths but it needs to be of this magnitude or more to make it workable) Also look here: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ For more scary figures. I do hope we can work this out somehow before we all have to become plumbers to earn a living.

posted about 1 month ago by mickglossop

This is why we're not receiving our producer royalties - read this article in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jul/22/click-download-mercury-prize-nominees

I'm not against streaming services (I pay £9.99 per month for the premium Spotify service) but record producers and recording artists should be adequately paid for streamed music.

posted 28 days ago by edhombre

Ok..... Lot of reading here! There's some maths on how Spotify works here (some of it conjecture) but the conclusion made by (the most interesting) Steve Lawson is that it actually is a much more artist friendly payment model than traditional radio. http://www.stevelawson.net/2009/11/if-spotify-is-the-new-radio-the-artists-are-winning/ It's a very interesting article. Lots of good stuff in the comments as well... Whether or not you agree depends very much on how you define radio/streaming services/listening habits etc It should be noted that in the main the streaming services we're discussing are not unlicensed services. They obey the regulations just like everyone else. You can read details of the PRS online music licenses here http://prsformusic.com/users/broadcastandonline/onlinemobile/MusicServices/oml/Pages/onlinemusiclicences.aspx Everyone should realise that the genie is very much out of the bottle on this. Recorded music is essentially free to those that want it be nowadays and no matter what laws are put in place it will remain so. Bemoaning this will not change the fact.... THE OLD MODEL IS BROKEN. IT'S GONE. Here's how the old model worked for artists btw http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml You know that filesharers buy substantially more music yeah? Because they're music fans. They will go to more gigs, they will buy t-shirts, they will tell other people about new bands and new music. They will give much more money to the music industry every year than someone who legally downloads just 1 Lady Gaga single and the X-factor at Christmas and goes to see Take That at Christmas. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87196/uk-poll-file-sharers-buy-more-music/ Sooo.... In answer to the question "Why should music fans buy music when they can stream it for free?" there is of course no reason why they SHOULD but they continue to. IF they see value in the transaction. IF they are given good reasons to actually engage in that transaction. IF they "want to" essentially. The trick is making them want to (by producing amazing music, by connecting with them, by providing things that they can't get anywhere else) and then giving them ways to make that transaction with you.

posted 28 days ago by edhombre

DAMMIT! Filesharers stole my line breaks.... I look stupid now.

posted 28 days ago by teepee

Nothing particularly new in what you say Ed - I think we have known this for a long while.

The more pressing problem though is how to facilitate a fairer "money go round" for the evolving business. Whether or not people pay for the finished product is irrelevant if there is no money to help the creation of the music in the first place. The development of artists and the support of artists takes time and patience and those of us involved cannot do it for free forever.

My desire is to find simpler and fairer ways to flow the revenue more easily and fairly back to the creative people involved so this really requires an even more drastic re-modelling than gigs, tee shirts and Spotify.

posted 27 days ago by mark rose

Obviously legit AND agreed streaming would be better than illegal sites should they have proper accounting procedueres in place (most do not) however a vast majority are playing a game with their payout systems using music to line their own pockets at best..whilst the ugly end of streaming services online are simply streaming pirated and low quality unpaid pirated copy. Sky streaming music services have done much to correct this into true broadcasting payouts and all at higher quality than most..well done them! However sky have also taken advantage of the fact they can stream music at bootsale prices, based on whats going on out there. IMHO to up the anti here ...BPI/AIM/PRS/PPL should set up and run their own streaming services, that way its direct payment and all legit files with all credit details included and payments directly back to their artists/writers members. The Public would then migrate to these better services (most able to provide exclusive mixes and versions) and make redundant the weaker streaming going on and only currently available to the public. Its that simple to make a better playing field for streaming services whilst having content controlled by artist member services with acutely good admin procedures already in place.

posted 26 days ago by mickglossop

Steve Lawson's blog is full of "maybe's" and conjecture. Also, Spotify, although it's "like radio", is not the same as radio. As Steve points out, its "radio-on-demand" - not the same thing. His arithmetic is dubious - he assumes that PRS payments can be divided equally among artists,. This is not the case.

posted 7 days ago by costis

I agree with Mark here. To take it a step further, I think that the artist member services should impose a unified model for streaming songs and that the payment should be the same regardless the platform.
The problem is not the streaming itself but PRS and the like because it takes them forever to respond to the phenomena. At the end of the day, what I care is for the artists to get more money.

Add a comment about this post

Music file streaming - is this legitimate?

Credit Where Credit Is Due