Thank you, I learned so much reading this. Naive question: what if we asked for/created a non-profit streaming platform, like what SoundExchange does for administration, but for the actual listening and digital distribution? That way Spotify could all keep the AI playlists and “above 1k streams/track/year” payout criteria and we have a more equitable and accessible distribution layer that is not a for-profit company. Would that make it easier to adopt fair and transparent streaming pay policies, in your opinion?
Leading question I know, but I just find it easy to let Spotify show us who they are and who they’d like on their platform, and move on to somewhere that has more aligned incentives.
can you explain (using math) how this would work for a paid streaming services and artists? just for the US, obviously. and net, ideally, after the service's deduction (which I believe is typically around 30% of gross), and with publishing aside. I'm curious to see your calculation of how a .01 stream would work.
the royalties collected by Soundexchange (https://www.soundexchange.com/digital-performance-royalties/) are in no way tied to revenue - and they are US-only, and for non-interactive streams; as such, it has to be affordable for those businesses that stream under non-interactive DMCA regulations - they have to have enough ad revenue to offset those costs.
in the case of paid streaming services, where users are paying a flat monthly subscription fee to listen to as much music as they want, there's no analog to the legislation on the mechanical regulations/rates on the number of manufactured sheet music, CDs, albums, CDRs, or mini-disc recorders; this proposed legislation is more like if users paid a fee every time they recorded a new song on a cassette, not the current arrangement where a portion of (blank) cassette sales benefit the music industry. Or would be like imposing a fee based on the number of times a family sang along with sheet music in their own home in the 1900s.
A surcharge of $4-$10 on an individual subscription in the US would be an increase of roughly 25-50% of a user's current monthly payment to Spotify, Apple, YT, others. Price-sensitive consumers (most of whom are passive music listeners) are very likely to abandon those subscriptions, meaning a lower subscriber base and less $$.
Similarly, do you know what the actual subscription net per-stream in the US is for the major services? I'd bet you that it's very close to .01/stream, and that the fractional amounts that labels and artists receive are tied closely to the extremely-variable deals that they have with distributors and labels. The labels, not the services, are taking in the lion's share of revenue....and I would venture to guess that no music services are profitable (at least, in looking at Spotify's quarterly results). Looking at your consolidated annual accounting/reporting for G500 streams oversimplifies the number of stakeholders who take a share along the way, and grabs headlines but omits very important details.
Seems solid to me! Sure hope it gets past our current do-nothing GOP-led House.
That Rail Band album is *great*, too!
Really good article and clearly based on solid research. Fingers crossed for the success of this of this Act.
Dom
Thank you for all yer hard work and determination Damon!!!
Thank you, I learned so much reading this. Naive question: what if we asked for/created a non-profit streaming platform, like what SoundExchange does for administration, but for the actual listening and digital distribution? That way Spotify could all keep the AI playlists and “above 1k streams/track/year” payout criteria and we have a more equitable and accessible distribution layer that is not a for-profit company. Would that make it easier to adopt fair and transparent streaming pay policies, in your opinion?
Leading question I know, but I just find it easy to let Spotify show us who they are and who they’d like on their platform, and move on to somewhere that has more aligned incentives.
One can hope 🙏🏻
can you explain (using math) how this would work for a paid streaming services and artists? just for the US, obviously. and net, ideally, after the service's deduction (which I believe is typically around 30% of gross), and with publishing aside. I'm curious to see your calculation of how a .01 stream would work.
https://dima.org/news-and-resources/who-gets-paid-and-how-much/
the royalties collected by Soundexchange (https://www.soundexchange.com/digital-performance-royalties/) are in no way tied to revenue - and they are US-only, and for non-interactive streams; as such, it has to be affordable for those businesses that stream under non-interactive DMCA regulations - they have to have enough ad revenue to offset those costs.
in the case of paid streaming services, where users are paying a flat monthly subscription fee to listen to as much music as they want, there's no analog to the legislation on the mechanical regulations/rates on the number of manufactured sheet music, CDs, albums, CDRs, or mini-disc recorders; this proposed legislation is more like if users paid a fee every time they recorded a new song on a cassette, not the current arrangement where a portion of (blank) cassette sales benefit the music industry. Or would be like imposing a fee based on the number of times a family sang along with sheet music in their own home in the 1900s.
A surcharge of $4-$10 on an individual subscription in the US would be an increase of roughly 25-50% of a user's current monthly payment to Spotify, Apple, YT, others. Price-sensitive consumers (most of whom are passive music listeners) are very likely to abandon those subscriptions, meaning a lower subscriber base and less $$.
Similarly, do you know what the actual subscription net per-stream in the US is for the major services? I'd bet you that it's very close to .01/stream, and that the fractional amounts that labels and artists receive are tied closely to the extremely-variable deals that they have with distributors and labels. The labels, not the services, are taking in the lion's share of revenue....and I would venture to guess that no music services are profitable (at least, in looking at Spotify's quarterly results). Looking at your consolidated annual accounting/reporting for G500 streams oversimplifies the number of stakeholders who take a share along the way, and grabs headlines but omits very important details.