if we want the product to continue to exist
how you can simultaneously say that Spotify shouldn’t exist what do you actually want them to do? [to continue to exist, presumably]
In the very short and absolutely present term, all of your arguments regarding the existence of Spotify are quite sound. But that’s just it. This is just the where the largest musical spigot for the average music consumer is located today, and that alone does not make it viable, or even lend authenticity to your claimed innate right for Spotify to exist.
An uncounted number of us here on Lemmy enjoyed music lonnnnng before Spotify, and remember it well, in a way that was arguably fairer to artists, where musicians and producers and labels and radio stations and promoters all got their cut, and creativity at all levels of the process was supported FAR more than it is today.
There were the same problems then, with predatory labels and managers and shitty contracts, but it was all limited by the fact that unless you bought the physical recording or listened via radio or bought a concert ticket, you did not get access, period. So the labels were forced to use those big profits toward A&R, marketing, publicity, actively looking for and signing new artists, etc. They don’t really do that anymore. There are no A&R guys like there used to be, studio producers, in-house marketing except for the biggest acts.
It’s ALL profit now.
And I’m pretty sure you already know all this, so don’t be offended that I am restating the past. And it IS the past: physical limitations on the dissemination of copyrighted materials are long gone, and enforcing fairness via those limitations is long gone with them.
People still want music. People are still VERY willing to pay for music. But in an age where there are so many digital outlets to choose from, Spotify wants to be the Ticketmaster of streaming music, forcing a monopoly without the actual ability to do so. Many folks are happy with that, even in this thread, and pay Spotify because that is just fine by them. And I recognize that the labels have Spotify over a barrel in this, that if the labels were less predatory with the rights, everyone would be better off. But they’re not. It is what it is.
Yet none of this means that Spotify has a right to exist, or that the music industry cannot be managed in completely different ways, or that a non-profitable company should be subsidized by people that hate it and want nothing to do with it.
So from where I’m sitting, Spotify does not even remotely need to exist for people to continue to make, promote, sell, and enjoy music. It just doesn’t. The music business is literally as old as music. Even Mozart didn’t work for free; it was just a different business model. The only thing Spotify EVER had going for it was instant access, a decent interface and a good algorithm, but the music itself is not theirs and never was.
And when Spotify is done, another provider and a newer streaming business model will take its place.
Spotify is just for today. Not yesterday, not tomorrow. And it looks like it’s already on the way out.
In the very short and absolutely present term, all of your arguments regarding the existence of Spotify are quite sound. But that’s just it. This is just the where the largest musical spigot for the average music consumer is located today, and that alone does not make it viable, or even lend authenticity to your claimed innate right for Spotify to exist.
An uncounted number of us here on Lemmy enjoyed music lonnnnng before Spotify, and remember it well, in a way that was arguably fairer to artists, where musicians and producers and labels and radio stations and promoters all got their cut, and creativity at all levels of the process was supported FAR more than it is today.
There were the same problems then, with predatory labels and managers and shitty contracts, but it was all limited by the fact that unless you bought the physical recording or listened via radio or bought a concert ticket, you did not get access, period. So the labels were forced to use those big profits toward A&R, marketing, publicity, actively looking for and signing new artists, etc. They don’t really do that anymore. There are no A&R guys like there used to be, studio producers, in-house marketing except for the biggest acts.
It’s ALL profit now.
And I’m pretty sure you already know all this, so don’t be offended that I am restating the past. And it IS the past: physical limitations on the dissemination of copyrighted materials are long gone, and enforcing fairness via those limitations is long gone with them.
People still want music. People are still VERY willing to pay for music. But in an age where there are so many digital outlets to choose from, Spotify wants to be the Ticketmaster of streaming music, forcing a monopoly without the actual ability to do so. Many folks are happy with that, even in this thread, and pay Spotify because that is just fine by them. And I recognize that the labels have Spotify over a barrel in this, that if the labels were less predatory with the rights, everyone would be better off. But they’re not. It is what it is.
Yet none of this means that Spotify has a right to exist, or that the music industry cannot be managed in completely different ways, or that a non-profitable company should be subsidized by people that hate it and want nothing to do with it.
So from where I’m sitting, Spotify does not even remotely need to exist for people to continue to make, promote, sell, and enjoy music. It just doesn’t. The music business is literally as old as music. Even Mozart didn’t work for free; it was just a different business model. The only thing Spotify EVER had going for it was instant access, a decent interface and a good algorithm, but the music itself is not theirs and never was.
And when Spotify is done, another provider and a newer streaming business model will take its place.
Spotify is just for today. Not yesterday, not tomorrow. And it looks like it’s already on the way out.