Hacker News Reader

There are two fundamental problems:

1) What's good for the consumer isn't necessarily good for the creators. In other words, they have an incentive to fight the future rather than embrace it.

2) The extra efficiency of distribution created by technology is hell on legacy business models. Streaming media is an example of disruption shrinking the whole pie. Craigslist wrecked the classifieds business and became wildly successful but it did so NOT by moving 90% of the industry's revenue to Craigslist; it did so by capturing 10% of the revenue and destroying the rest.

Creators != content industry

I tend to agree but this is really a separate conversation. These days, the struggling musician will give away music for extra exposure in the hopes of becoming famous so they can make money touring. That's the best they can do because nobody sells 50 million vinyl records anymore, although that's probably more likely than selling 50 million CDs (note I didn't say albums).

Still, regardless of where these dollars flow, to creators or the "industry," it's fewer dollars.

well, digital sales only (which are still less than CD and I think streaming/radio + public performance make much more now than by then) are currently worth more than total music sales in the seventies, which I don't think were a particularly bad time for music creativity. (http://publicradio2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/02/un...)

1) I don't think that graph is adjusted for inflation.

2) I haven't done it, but I'd be willing to put a few quid on the 1970s having the largest proportion of albums in the best of lists e.g. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-...

Also 1970s rockstars seemed to have a lot more money than their 2010s equivalents.

This chart is comparing dollars (CD sales) to units (digital singles, which probably avg less than $1.29 each). So at their peak CD sales were worth >10x what digital singles sales are now. It's not even close, and if this chart were inflation-adjusted the difference would be much larger.

Forgetting about the Musician's share, all the streaming/satellite radio revenue collectively wouldn't cover the shortfall (terrestrial radio doesn't pay).

I can't comment on public performance but it's certainly become the definitive way musicians make money now and their share has always been high in this category.

> These days

In the past struggling musicians were handed cash by benificent record cartels. /s

In the past the struggle was to even get any distribution or publicity, radio play was sewn up so artists accepted terrible terms from the distribution monopolies.

Musicians typically got 0-2% of revenues. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

The past sucked way more for musicians & fans.

We agree. It's more possible than ever to succeed without a label or big company behind you. That doesn't mean there's more money in selling music media.

There is more money if the 98% monopoly cut is removed.

I cite Drummond & Cauty's The Manual, how to have a number one and make a million quid * as the KLF they did just this, repeatedly & using pseudonyms. That was in the 'bad old days', Cauty & Drummond proved that without a record company bleeding them dry artists could make a lifetime's cash with a single hit.

Todays 'problem' is everyone wants to create, sample, share, remix, transcode, &c but copyright maximalism largely prevents this.

I believe that a distribution scheme could pay creatives directly, just as a little extra, they can still sell stuff - my thesis is without the 98% loss due to the cartels this is workable and everyone can play & innovate. Ireland does this in reverse, artists don't pay tax there & get tax credits (~£50 per week).

Also restore copyright back to 20-40 years putting the 20th century in the public domain where it belongs and destroying the back-catalogue leverage the monopolists abuse.

* http://freshonthenet.co.uk/the-manual-by-the-klf/

Nearly anything would be better than suing fans & killing innovation.

So your argument is that the artist's slice of the pie is larger than it once was? That may be true, I don't have an informed perspective. However, for the industry, my original points stand.

I argue that the secret deals between the big labels with Spotify and Youtube rip off the artists just as much as before. *

They are trying to reassert control over distribution by shutting down those who won't pay what they want (grooveshark) or attain censorship power even in excess of copyright- like Youtube & DRM ( trumps transcoding rights & fair use ).

There are just as bad for artists as fans, just as bad as they always were, their death grip has slipped because they were too set in their ways to comprehend the internet was the future.

They also stop or cripple technologies they don't like.

They big label cartels are a social ill supported by monopoly lobbying and governments doing their bidding.

They extended copyright for so long that they own the rights to nearly the entire 20th centuries cultural output.

It will only get worse, monopolies should be broken up they destroy free-markets and build barriers to entry.

* https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150204/07310329906/yes-m...

replace/ Youtube & DRM /with/ Youtube DCMA & DRM

The funny thing is that no one ever really sold that many copies of an album. The music industry, for all its reach and visibility, is tiny compared to a single 'blockbuster' movie.

I mean, a "gold record" which is pretty rare and often takes months or years for an album to reach is 500k sales. Compare that to movie tickets (which are now about the same price each, and are only a single viewing!), where 500k sales can be a disastrous failure.

This distinction is a lot more obvious with music and books than it is with television.

alternatively: the whole US can now post and find local classified ads at 10% of the previous cost! That's huge!

> Streaming media is an example of disruption shrinking the whole pie.

Is that really the case for movies/tv shows though?

"Back in the day" I used to get Netflix to ship me DVDs for around the same cost per month that I now pay for streaming. And they had all the latest titles available.

Surely at least as much money is going back to the content creators as it was then?

I thought that the content creators got their money when Netflix bought the DVDs. After that, Netflix kept the rental profits.

Yes. Netflix is causing a similar shrinking to the RENTAL market that Craigslist did to classifieds, albeit less severe. However, the SALES of Physical Media (DVDs/Blu-Rays) are down huge over the last ten years and there hasn't been anything to replace that revenue. Essentially selling 30 DVDs to you and all your friends was replaced by selling 1 DVD to Netflix.

One more piece of history that you may already know: in the prime days of the rental market companies like Blockbuster paid ~$100 per movie and had access to the titles before a consumer could purchase them. Netflix didn't play ball, rather than pay those prices they'd wait until the DVDs were generally available and buy at consumer/bulk prices.

I wouldn't shed any tears for the industry though, they'll survive. Besides, just to be clear, I love Netflix, they're great.

More info: http://press.ihs.com/press-release/technology/spending-movie...

As others already indicated I'm not sure if music in general, or Spotify in particular, should be a role model for other industries. Sure, it's convenient for the user but artists and labels (I'm not talking majors, but small, caring labels) can't survive with these rates. What the movie / TV industry could learn from music is how to sell their content conveniently and without DRM in a digital, high quality format. I'm not interested in physical discs, yet have no option to legally buy a digital 1080p copy of [insert almost any movie here] and play it in Kodi or wherever I want. Meanwhile I've been buying at least 10 lossless albums monthly for years - so it's not aas if I'm not willing to pay for my content.

But you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I suspect you're in a minority buying lossless albums. Most of the 'youth' I know don't buy at all. They do pay for Spotify, or at worst use it ad supported. I used to buy lots and lots of CDs. I had a few years of iPod, but now I'm pretty much exclusively Spotify. I might buy a vinyl if I go watch a band. It goes straight on the shelf and never gets played.

Spotify may not be the ideal, but it's better than Napster or Limewire. If you grew up getting music for free, it's a logical stepping stone. It's easier than stealing it, and it's legal. Giving addicts methadone may not be a cure, but it's better than the heroin trade and all the risks attached. Until we can find a cure, or in this case, a better(/fairer?) way for the artists and industry, that's where we're at.

As per my parent post, unless the 'cure' is as least as good as the substitute (or you can fundamentally change how people think), the user will go back to what they had before.

It's a funny old world, isn't it?

I understand that I'm a minority but the point remains: Why would the movie industry follow the streaming model when Spotify shows that nobody's earninng a living with that solution?

Because we're not going to go back to DVDs. And eventually, something like popcorntime will just become the ubiquitous, go to solution that ultimately hurts them further, because it'll do what can't be done legally.

I still don't see how this makes streaming an unavoidable development, or a desirable one from the creator's perspective.

Nobody wants to bring back DVDs - I haven't bought a CD in years, but that doesn't stop me from buying a lot of music as digital, lossless download. I can't do the same with movies. That's the problem I'm facing with the movie industry and the solution is easy: Allow me to buy DRM-free, high quality video files and we're good - that is a very legal and easy solution.

Just because streaming is popular with users, it doesn't have to make financial sense - in fact it doesn't. Just ask most people working in music.

DRM free, high quality videos will get bought once, shared with friends, etc. And I'd suspect a whole load of people will just go back to torrenting (or whatever is popular at the time) because they know they'll find a perfect copy straight away. If you give them the model to buy and play immediately (the convenience of a streaming service), you're just iTunes. Or you may as well stream. You can't argue that for John Everyman, Netflix/Spotify/etc. are super convenient. I make one payment a month, of a set fee for which I have budgeted. I open the app, I choose, I press play. Or I don't. I can do it once a month, or all day long.

I understand your point regarding financial sense and artists, but times change. Just ask most people driving taxis. They'll tell you Uber is destroying an industry. It may be. But we're all using it. I don't know the answer. But clinging on to something that's slipping away, rather than letting go and channeling your energy elsewhere usually hurts more in the long run.

Spotify isn't competing with other industry distribution methods. Distribution is a solved problem: there's no technical reason why anyone can't listen to any recorded music ever whenever they want for near-zero distribution cost, through torrents.

"Only allowing distribution methods that get paid" is the problem. The content industries are now in the business of preventing distribution, which turns into an eternal war on the open internet. The streaming model de-escalates this and provides a way of paying for convenience.

> provides a way of paying for convenience

That's the problem: 10 bucks a month, ad supported or simply torrenting...it hardly matters unless people keep buying (not renting) content. You're not going to save any artist who depends on it, no matter how good you feel about your legally flawless Spotify subscription.

Furthermore I don't see how the availability through torrents is of any importance - with the same argument we might as well stop paying for any digital goods...including software, apps, you name it.

People do stop paying. Moral heckling doesn't work. Trying to guilt people about artists doesn't work. Prosecution looks absurdly heavy-handed and costs more than it brings in. How are you going to get people to pay?

And how are you going to compete with the ever-increasing amount of free content out there, using up people's finite leisure time?

> Giving addicts methadone may not be a cure, but it's better than the heroin trade and all the risks attached.

A nitpick - actually, it may well be the only reasonable cure we have, and it beats all "traditional" methods.

C.f. http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/02/practically-a-book-revi...

> Almost all clinical trials have found treatment with methadone or suboxone to be more effective than traditional rehab. Even Cochrane Review, which is notorious for never giving a straight answer to anything besides “more evidence is needed”, agrees that methadone and suboxone are effective treatments.

> Society is fixed, biology is mutable. People have tried everything to fix drug abuse. Being harsh and sending drug users to jail. Being nice and sending them to nice treatment centers that focus on rehabilitation. Old timey religion where fire-and-brimstone preachers talk about how Jesus wants them to stay off drugs. Flaky New Age religion where counselors tell you about how drug abuse is keeping you from your true self. Government programs. University programs. Private programs. Giving people money. Fining people money. Being unusually nice. Being unusually mean. More social support. Less social support. This school of therapy. That school of therapy. What works is just giving people a chemical to saturate the brain receptor directly. We know it works. The studies show it works. And we’re still collectively beating our heads against the wall of finding a social solution.

Nitpick noted :-) It wasn't the best analogy!

Nah, the analogy was good and got your point across. I just can't stop myself from sharing tangential bits of information ;).

I think the way forward is something like the Distributed Library of Alexandria. The artists distribute their own content for micropayments, p2p networks provide the CDNs. Done properly there's still room for real value-add services in the middle to provide different interfaces and curation.

I wanted to watch "Wild" (2014) the other day. My only option is to pay $13 to buy it, from either Amazon or iTunes or one of the other online legal video sites.

I find this very frustrating.. I'd like to pay 3 or 4 bucks to rent it for a single viewing, but even though it is from 2014 none of the sites offer to rent it. I'm probably going to torrent it.

Or wait 2 days for Netflix to mail you a Plastic Circle.

I have 3 different boxes hooked up to my tv that can stream video from multiple sources. I do not have a BluRay or DVD player hooked up.

Plus at this point DVDs seem like a hassle[1], they have previews, government warnings, and a lot of other crap before you even get to the movie.

[1] I'm probably not the best judge of this though, I have an Echo so I can voice control my lights instead of getting up and flipping a switch...

Your choice not to have a dic player is what is limiting your options then. That's not the future coming to fast, that's you cutting off the present too fast for your own interests. For that, only one person is to blame.

> it'll be to their own detriment

Yes, I think we see this happening now as the streaming part of the industry (Netflix, Amazon, etc) start producing their own content. They will slowly supersede the old industry. It seems to take longer than for the music industry, though.

>The fact is, most people are prepared to pay for a VOD and/or music service. We just don't want to pay for 3 of them. Money aside, it just isn't convenient.

Sounds like an opportunity for a Dogpile-type[1] service to come in and build an app that sits on top of your Netflix, Hulu and HBOGo subscriptions and allows you to discover/search/launch from one place.

It would probably be hacked up and functionality could be broken by one of the VODs at will, but if it lasts long enough to get some traction it would have done its job as a proof of concept to the media dinosaurs and you could make an exit.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogpile

You can already do that with several streaming devices: roku, wii u, and I'm pretty sure many others.

www.canistream.it does some of this data aggregation. I believe the problem you would encounter if you put all of this into one slick interface and it became popular is that the VOD services would fight you.

They don't want you discovering what they don't offer. They want you to user their service. Otherwise you may find yourself using the other service more than theirs and cancel.

Plus this doesn't ultimately deal with the pain of dealing with multiple bills and, essentially, paying for the same thing multiple times where there is overlap.

I doubt anyone in entertainment thinks that avoiding the fate of the music industry would be a shame. Spotify is great for us users but there's no money in music anymore (not that that is specifically Spotify's fault).

I wonder how much of that is simply due to an explosion of supply driving prices down. It's so much cheaper to record and distribute music that there's no scarcity at all.

I'm inclined to agree with this - I've got a backlog of albums to listen to, either recommended by friends, new releases by artists I already know I like, or from monthly playlists like BIRP. According to Banshee, it would take me about a month of 24/7 listening to hear all of it once. By the time I polish off that backlog, I'm sure that I will have found another couple hundred albums to replace it.

So, right now my biggest problem is search and categorization by mood, rather than supply or even discovery.