Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrweasel | Hacker News Reader

But is that reasonable? Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

What if you can’t put on concerts, like it’s the case right now, do your work then become worthless?

Honestly I think the issue is the record labels. The need to seriously reduce their cut and let the musicians keep the bulk of the royalties.

It’s a little concerning that a Youtube channel with maybe 500 - 1000 Patreon supports and few ads can be a living, but musicians need to tour, to make a profit. That seems to indicate, to me at least, that Youtube may not be the problem.

View on HN

I don't think the OC implied that musicians (or their agents) shouldn't have pricing authority, just that the market won't bear the prices they seem to want.

The moment a digital file exists, your competing price point is free. People can still pirate, and don't because of youtube and streaming sites. You don't have to think that's right or fair (I don't), but it's absolutely the reality.

Piracy doesn’t that viable anymore, it’s a lot more in convinient, especially for spontanious listing on a mobile device. Sure the price still need to be low enough, but not zero anymore.

Interestingly enough Youtube Music is the most expensive streaming service, that least in Denmark.

It's inconvenient because no one has needed to make it convenient. Why would you, when YouTube is doing it for free?

If all music were wiped off of YouTube, you can bet it would become convenient. I believe there's already an app somewhere that lets you stream music using BitTorrent, throw in some onion networking for privacy, a better means of content discovery, and get more people uploading music, and you'll be off to the races.

We all remember the time before Youtube, and how 15 years before Youtube Napster was vastly more convenient than anything that was offered. Not very convenient compared to Youtube, but still.

Neither Napster nor their end resulted in decent streaming options. Why would Youtube changes be any different ?

I find it very inconvenient to purchase a song from Google on my Android device. Google prefers to push me towards buying their subscription service. I have to go through a few awkward menus to find and purchase a song.

> Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

You mean release on https://bandcamp.com ?

Exactly this. Bandcamp's straightforward, egalitarian deal is exactly what any artist below the superstar level needs.

Put your stuff out, set your price, handle your own publicity, Bandcamp takes their cut. That's it.

Except that generally labels fork out the cost (invest) in their artists releases, good labels do anyway. I'm not convinced a Silicon Valley company with a turnover of $$$Million should be the most recommended option for labels and artists who aren't at superstar status. BC's investment in any artist releasing there is negligible, yet they cream off 15% from everyone for basically that zero investment (servers aside), a killer business plan. If it wasn't for labels searching, investing, risking actually, a hell of a lot of musicians would not be exposed or have the chance to be heard thus far. This shift to a generic form, or marketplace, also helps removes any choice of personal curation, of which good labels and shops build their reputation on, and in my experience is invaluable. Though as a listener if you prefer being spoon fed by an algorithm, and as an artist being lost on a supermarket shelf, then go for it. Though BC very kindly offer the odd days off from their %, because most of us lowly non-superstar artists have just lost our main source of income with CVD-19 dismantling the infrastructure. The odd day off, yeah thanks. Egalitarian? maybe, zero investment and pure profit? Definitely. That smacks of other online monopolies to me.

> It’s a little concerning that a Youtube channel with maybe 500 - 1000 Patreon supports and few ads can be a living, but musicians need to tour, to make a profit.

I’m not sure what you mean. The musician can be a YouTuber making a living from Patreon and ads.

> Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

Sounds good. What if Google looks at that cost, and the revenue they make, and realizes they would lose money?

Isn't Google's next logic move to decide to not lose money? To not host that content?

| Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

They can decide how much they want. Not how much they get. Isn't it the same as with any service or product?

The problem is too complex to be solved by just reducing the labels cut. The price of records is driven down by a combination of piracy, overwhelming offer and the existence of streaming platforms.

> Isn't it the same as with any service or product?

Except government :)

Sure. But in this case musicians have 0 input on how much to charge or how much they get paid.

Politicians decide for them and pass laws to enforce this structure.

> Shouldn’t the musicians be the ones how decide how much they want for their music?

Then break up Koda to start with, they're the state created monopoly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com