digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120604youtube

that is 140 to one

Fascinating and disturbing but it was inevitable after Fanning started all this...

Actually, I thought 140 to 1 is probably about the right ratio. If you buy the download, that's it. no further revenue likely from that consumer. But streaming, revenue continues everytime the track is accessed.

On saying that, this could be an interesting one to get other peoples views.

I often wondered if anybody has ever researched how often a purchased track is played in, say, it's firts month, year and lifetime. Both for physical and download.

What I don't understand is the great difference between the money paid by Zune / Napster / Rhapsody ($0,013-0,028) and Spotify ($0,005).

Do all labels have similar deals with these services or could it be that the three majors have a very special relationship with Spotify (get more money per play and/or as part-owners)?

I think there should be a level playing field: a compulsory license for sound recordings (every on-demand-streaming-service has to pay the same amount to every label / sound recording owner).

As always those with vested interest spread misinformation, lies and paranoia about streaming services in order to perpetuate
the status quo. The fact of the matter is the CD model is dead as is the download model. We are flying on fumes here and if
you cannot see why then I will spell it for you.

ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS!

As long as the internet lives, downloading will kill all digital products. There is a reason why the majors are backing Spotify
even though short term it is hurting them (artists more than the labels). The reason is wrest control from iTunes and file sharing
and is the first steps towards a blanket subscription system. Get ready for it as it is coming very soon.

Now for the maths.

First of all 140:1 is a completely wrong way of looking at it. You are assuming that people who stream were going to download the music
they here on a 1:1 ratio. This is ludicrous. No one buys every track they listen nor do they buy a download after one play (with the sole
exception of the TV driven talent shows like The Voice, where you are compelled emotionally to help your favourite artist).

A fairer comparison is for every 1000 listens you will get ONE sale (if you are lucky). With Spotify paying only 0.0005c per play well
that's thanks to the majors eating both sides of the pie. They don't want to pay more than they have to to THEMSELVES but will screw
Rhapsody and others to pay more. For this reason we really need blanket licensing full stop.

Now for some interesting stats. I have used Spotify for 13 days and have listened to 1,032 songs, an average of 79 songs a day. Now before
that I would be playing my CDs or mp3 I downloaded in the past. I rarely buy new music. Unless I have a strong emotional attachment to the
artist or just to help their cause (Alex Day) I would not bother buying anything new. The reason why? WHY SHOULD I.

I have a lot of music so I would normally play them. BUT since I installed Spotify I have been listening to a lot of stuff I hadn't listened
to before including Ellie Goulding, Duran Duran (Red Carpet Massacre) and a heap of Lovers Rock albums which I stumbled on.

At this rate I would be listening to 28835 songs over the year. Using the Spotify ratio posted by De-Caf that is suggesting I would buy 205
downloads in the year or the equivalent of 20 albums (I certainly did not buy that number of albums last year or any other year for that matter).

Using my more conservative calculation that would equate to 28.8 downloads or about 3 albums. The average person buys ONE album a year or the
equivalent of 10 tracks but guess how many times they would have listened to music over the year?

Streaming is the only model that makes sense in the digital world. So if it is convenient, fast and stored in the cloud where I don't have to
worry about hard drives, SD cards or the like then I am happy and so should you.

Spotify's streaming royalty is similar to Youtube's which comes to 0.003c per listen. Now I have not been a fan of Spotify for a long time but
I am a realist and I have worked out one very important stat. If music is on Youtube, then I along with everyone else will use a Download program
to rip the audio from the video so I will watch the video once or twice on Youtube and a billion times offline using my ripped version. However
with Spotify, if I listen to a track once, I will add it to my playlist and will listen to it a lot more and each time I listen to it, money
is paid to the artist.

We can play games with the figures but for heaven's sake let's be realistic. Music cannot be owned by the consumer and technically apart from the
plastic, you don't actually own anything else when you buy a record, not the music, artwork or intellectual property contained therein. That is why
you can't rent, hire or publicly perform it without permission. So arguably that stash of mp3s you may have amassed do not belong to you and you
would have to delete them if the label requested you to do so. Streaming services can and will make a lot of money for artists as long as they stop
being fooled by the "old model" dinosaurs who moan and complain about the new format.

I do think we need to be creative in creating lasting memories for those who are emotionally connected to our music. This could be in the form of
a physical product such as a USB bracelet or other physical product bundled with the music.

It is a bright future ahead for us and a bleak one for those stuck in the past. And by the way thank God someone is listening to you on Spotify,
because they would not be otherwise.

DJKZ wrote:
So arguably that stash of mp3s you may have amassed do not belong to you and you
would have to delete them if the label requested you to do so.

What you said made some sense up to this point. You say "arguably", so I'll argue. There is no way a record company can ask you to delete a track you have bought legally. You own it, (with limited rights) for ever.

Interestingly, physical copies come with significantly more rights than digital. E.g. You can trade it, lend it (without fee), or give it away. If you don't like it, (e.g. you were given the CD as a Christmas present), you can even exchange it with most retailers. You can't do any of those things with downloads.

dixie wrote:
Interestingly, physical copies come with significantly more rights than digital. E.g. You can trade it, lend it (without fee), or give it away. If you don't like it, (e.g. you were given the CD as a Christmas present), you can even exchange it with most retailers. You can't do any of those things with downloads.
Lest we forget, the record industry did actually try and stop second-hand sales of CDs, albeit somewhat half-heartedly... it's what led to the legal definition of "fair use" in the US. The video games industry tried to do the same thing, threatening to boycott retailers en masse who had second-hand sections in their stores, and it even worked for a while, until the then-mighty Game group refused to comply. A corollary in the early video business saw an attempt to not include fast-forward facility in tape machines, so viewers couldn't skip the adverts!

and the fast forward is being challenged by the anti hard-drive campaigners so you cant skip adverts

only in america