|
On February 13 2012 08:06 Ghad wrote: Music shouldn't be free, the artists should be paid for their work. Best regards, paying spotify customer since day 1.
Most artists get nothing from singles and shit like that.....all that money goes straight into simon cowels back pocket im afraid
Artists get money from the record label, but make most money from live shows and appearances
|
The only reason I use Spotify instead of Grooveshark is so that I can have spotify on my iphone. I guess this justifies my choice even more.
|
On February 13 2012 06:23 SilverLeagueElite wrote: I'm still not exactly sure what Grooveshark is even after wiki. So you can search, upload and stream your music? Kinda like Limewire 2.0 I guess? It sound like their financial problems could be a result of them being sued to hell.
They are being sued to hell by the big four, but I thought it was mostly in the US. It is interesting that the charge in different countries are like they are and especially that it has not yet been DNS-blocked in Denmark. KODA, the RIAA of Denmark, is far more influencial than RIAA!
|
Same message appeared to me today, i paid 2$ for a month and i live in Greece.
|
Can't say I know anyone who has even heard of this service. That being said, most people I know get all their music through non-commercial copying.
|
On February 13 2012 09:24 OptimusYale wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 08:06 Ghad wrote: Music shouldn't be free, the artists should be paid for their work. Best regards, paying spotify customer since day 1. Most artists get nothing from singles and shit like that.....all that money goes straight into simon cowels back pocket im afraid Artists get money from the record label, but make most money from live shows and appearances Do you have research to back this up or is it just convenient to say? I'm not so sure what you're saying is true. There is a saying in business that goes something like "I'd rather have one slice out of giant pie than keep a tiny one to myself." Well, maybe that's not the exact phrase, but the meaning is that a band simply can't sell stuff completely by themselves, not just because of a lack of infrastructure but because of marketing as well. These are professional skills worth giving up the tiny pie for. Sell 100 albums and get 100% of the profits, or sell 10,000 and get 10% of the profits, you're still doing better.
Artists make their main money from shows/tshirts/etc: I don't know. Some people say it used to be that the tour promoted the album, and now it's the other way around.
Well, I'm certainly not against services like GrooveShark. If it can't be free, I still think the subscription based access to a giant library of music is a good business model (like Netflix) for our age. The only thing I don't like is that since you can't use the music and movies however you like (on your PMP or whatever), it encourages a kind of disposability of music and movies, which is not good motivation for actual art and you can sort of already see that with American movies and TV shows where the quality of work has dropped way down. If you aren't getting a customer to at least commit to saying 'this is good enough to own' but rather saying 'this was worth my time when I was totally bored,' you are going to get lower quality content. I happened with xbox indie games as well. All you have to do is say 'this is worth a dollar.' There will always be exceptions and people with something to really say, or a real creative force, but they will be drowned in content which only needs to meet a very low bar.
|
I wish i had the option to pay for it. Always used to listen to some great playlists i found there (big thx to minigun!)... Our GEMA is such a huge bullshit!
|
napster used to be free
then it died, like grooveshark will
sorry grooveshark
|
That's a really random list of countries.
|
On February 13 2012 11:34 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 09:24 OptimusYale wrote:On February 13 2012 08:06 Ghad wrote: Music shouldn't be free, the artists should be paid for their work. Best regards, paying spotify customer since day 1. Most artists get nothing from singles and shit like that.....all that money goes straight into simon cowels back pocket im afraid Artists get money from the record label, but make most money from live shows and appearances Do you have research to back this up or is it just convenient to say? I'm not so sure what you're saying is true. There is a saying in business that goes something like "I'd rather have one slice out of giant pie than keep a tiny one to myself." Well, maybe that's not the exact phrase, but the meaning is that a band simply can't sell stuff completely by themselves, not just because of a lack of infrastructure but because of marketing as well. These are professional skills worth giving up the tiny pie for. Sell 100 albums and get 100% of the profits, or sell 10,000 and get 10% of the profits, you're still doing better. Artists make their main money from shows/tshirts/etc: I don't know. Some people say it used to be that the tour promoted the album, and now it's the other way around. Well, I'm certainly not against services like GrooveShark. If it can't be free, I still think the subscription based access to a giant library of music is a good business model (like Netflix) for our age. The only thing I don't like is that since you can't use the music and movies however you like (on your PMP or whatever), it encourages a kind of disposability of music and movies, which is not good motivation for actual art and you can sort of already see that with American movies and TV shows where the quality of work has dropped way down. If you aren't getting a customer to at least commit to saying 'this is good enough to own' but rather saying 'this was worth my time when I was totally bored,' you are going to get lower quality content. I happened with xbox indie games as well. All you have to do is say 'this is worth a dollar.' There will always be exceptions and people with something to really say, or a real creative force, but they will be drowned in content which only needs to meet a very low bar.
Good post. Artists may deserve more for their efforts, but that is neither here nor there. Record companies provide a valuable service and they deserve compensation too. Just because you know how to make great music, doesn't mean you can promote and organize events.
I love grooveshark but IDK if I would pay. Too similar to Pandora on PC. If the fee includes mobile services that might be worth it (you have to pay for grooveshark mobile already).
|
Still free in america... woot woot <3 grooveshark
|
On February 13 2012 11:34 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 09:24 OptimusYale wrote:On February 13 2012 08:06 Ghad wrote: Music shouldn't be free, the artists should be paid for their work. Best regards, paying spotify customer since day 1. Most artists get nothing from singles and shit like that.....all that money goes straight into simon cowels back pocket im afraid Artists get money from the record label, but make most money from live shows and appearances Do you have research to back this up or is it just convenient to say? I'm not so sure what you're saying is true. There is a saying in business that goes something like "I'd rather have one slice out of giant pie than keep a tiny one to myself." Well, maybe that's not the exact phrase, but the meaning is that a band simply can't sell stuff completely by themselves, not just because of a lack of infrastructure but because of marketing as well. These are professional skills worth giving up the tiny pie for. Sell 100 albums and get 100% of the profits, or sell 10,000 and get 10% of the profits, you're still doing better. Artists make their main money from shows/tshirts/etc: I don't know. Some people say it used to be that the tour promoted the album, and now it's the other way around. Well, I'm certainly not against services like GrooveShark. If it can't be free, I still think the subscription based access to a giant library of music is a good business model (like Netflix) for our age. The only thing I don't like is that since you can't use the music and movies however you like (on your PMP or whatever), it encourages a kind of disposability of music and movies, which is not good motivation for actual art and you can sort of already see that with American movies and TV shows where the quality of work has dropped way down. If you aren't getting a customer to at least commit to saying 'this is good enough to own' but rather saying 'this was worth my time when I was totally bored,' you are going to get lower quality content. I happened with xbox indie games as well. All you have to do is say 'this is worth a dollar.' There will always be exceptions and people with something to really say, or a real creative force, but they will be drowned in content which only needs to meet a very low bar.
there's also distributor fees (Itunes takes 30%) recoupment fees and manager fees (manager fee standard is 20% I think) recoupment fees are the fees the artist has to pay for music video recording studio time etc then that money gets split
for example off a 99c song 29 goes to Itunes the label takes in your scenario 90% of the remaining (plus recoupment fees) 70 the artist would then pay approx 20% to a manager depending on the contract lets say 15% or 1c so on a 99c sale the artist makes 6c (less recoupment fees) then the money would get split among all members if they are in a band. so to be worthwhile the record company would have to be able to increase sales by approx 1166%.
|
Works in New Zealand, happy me :D
|
On February 13 2012 06:06 Spiffeh wrote: Oh, this isn't worldwide. Phew.
Yeah, scared me too :/
|
It will probably have a fee for every country soon :[
|
On February 13 2012 06:14 agtemd wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 06:12 MaverickSC wrote: thank god its still free in Canada ^^ +1 idk what I would do if I wouldn't be able to listen to my favourite players playlists
Any suggestions for grooveshark public playlists? I just started on it as a result of this thread.
|
Grooveshark is nice and all, but whats wrong with youtube playlists? If they force users to pay to listen to music you can find for free, then everyone will just go to youtube.
|
|
hmm maybe if it was $1 and everyone who is already using it pays that, they would be fine, instead of having some pay $4? (i'm sure people would be ok paying $1 per month, but then again, it's still different than being free)
|
On February 13 2012 07:09 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 06:16 wBsKillian wrote: still free in Germany
oh wait! (yes I know I still can access it :D ) WTF? you kidding me? it has been locked/blocked in germany since about 2 weeks. i'm using a proxy to access grooveshark since then. but it's not free anymore. you don't even have an option to pay. it's just locked. ps: when ACTA is passed, using grooveshark will maybe be an actual crime........... omfg........................... internet, why you not cool anymore?
This is what I read: + Show Spoiler +They raised the prices at my local grocery store. So I'm like "fuck that shit! I'll break in through the back door and grab all the stuff I want! You can't stop me!". When the police arrive, this may actually be seen as a crime. What is this world coming to?
Ungrateful brats... </old man>
|
|
|
|