Digital Music Streaming Services On The Copyright Rights And Interests Within The Music Industry

I’m not quite sure who it was that decided that music was supposed to be an insanely profitable business. Mick Jagger has pointed out that it really only made serious money from the start of the ’70s to the end of the ’90s, but somebody’s written in to the NME the week complaining about Spotify and how it doesn’t pay artists enough for song plays. Compared to what? Album sales? While it’s true that an artist is unlikely to earn anywhere near as much money from streaming as they are from album sales, this isn’t really a comparison that works.

The world of free streaming music was dealt a great blow when country/pop mega-starlet Taylor Swift pulled her entire catalog from streaming giant Spotify two days ago. Clearly heartbroken and beside itself with grief, Spotify responded on their blog: “We love Taylor Swift, and our more than 40 million users love her even more – nearly 16 million of them have played her songs in the last 30 days, and she’s on over 19 million playlists. We hope she’ll change her mind and join us in building a new music economy that works for everyone. We believe fans should be able to listen to music wherever and whenever they want, and that artists have an absolute right to be paid for their work and protected from piracy. That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community. PS – Taylor, we were both young when we first saw you, but now there’s more than 40 million of us who want you to stay, stay, stay. It’s a love

The argument that Galdston clearly states is that “Online music sharing and other illegal forms of copying music harm artists because they circumvent the intellectual property system through which artists get paid.”(Galdston par. 1) Galdston’s thesis is very effective in making a very clear argument. In this same paper Galdston even proposes a solution to end this

Artists such as Metallica have suffered from this problem. They sued Napster for copyright infringement and were on their way to shut Napster from its services. Napster was facing legal charges from both the artists and the music industry and that made it hard for them to fight the battle. They thought it was easy, but the judge ruled against Napster.

It days many days of stress but you have to stay determined while doing so. It is not right to do that to the hard working artist who is most cases deserve the correct payment.Music brings people joy. It can connect them to their feelings, represent a culture or religious beliefs based on the genre you listen to. Let's face it music is important to the world. It would be nice to have access to all the music we take interest in for free or at the tip of our fingers, but unfortunately that is not right to the artist. According to source 1 it states that "Taylor Swift pulled her entire music catalog from Spotify, a popular streaming app, claiming that their business model suggests that music does not hold much

Christopher Jones’ article “Metallica Rips Napster” is in an early summary of the 2000, Metallica v. Napster, Inc., California lawsuit. The lawsuit included the peer-to-peer file sharing website, Napster, and University of Southern California, Indiana University, and Yale University. Most people don’t even think about file sharing, in this day and age it is generally an everyday behavior. It is very simple for a document or file to be shared between friends or even strangers over the internet. However, in April of the year 2000 the heavy metal band Metallica and the peer-to-peer audio file sharing website Napster were in the center of a lawsuit that would change how online file sharing works forever.

Though it doesn 't receive as much attention in terms of media attention and public discourse as it earlier in the 2000s, the issue of copyrighted music and its illegal consumption over the internet still continues to be a major issue. With the advent of the internet, digital music, and mp3 players, one of the drawbacks for many of those in the music industry was the subsequent increase in pirated music that occurred. As illegal torrent sites appeared, such as Napster and Limewire, people were discovering that they could now download for free what they once paid for. Of course, as a direct result, music companies and artists both saw a significant decrease in sales in terms of the physical medium, with CD sales beginning to show sharp declines. In fact, this had a carryover effects of also closing down many of the mom and pop record stores that existed, since they did not have the financial means to withstand a restructuring process. Major chain stores were also not immune to the decline sales, as some once-prominent stores, such as the Virgin Megastore and the Wall, had to close down. Once Apple Inc. released its iPod and created the iTunes Store, the music industry was finally beginning to adapt itself to the digital realm, as Apple began signing agreements with most of the major music labels to release their songs on a digital platform as well. With songs being available individually for just $0.99 cents and whole albums able to be purchased, people now had a legal

In the next couple of years, it’s looking like smartphones are moving towards replacing computers as the most used device for music consumption, especially in developing countries. Users of paid audio streaming services are particularly likely to listen to music on a smartphone.

The issues that will be slugged out in federal district court in San Francisco sound a little too pop culture to be all that serious. How many music CDs are people buying these days in record stores throughout the nation because of Napster? Is the technology that Napster uses legal? Napster is, of course, the wildly popular file-sharing service whose 20 million users have downloaded some half a billion songs--most copyrighted for free. The technology that Napster has brought to music listeners across the globe has allowed the freedom of obtaining music for free and should not be shut down by the entertainment industry's argument in federal court.

The music industry has generally given consumers two methods for accessing their favourite music, download the songs manually from the internet yourself, or pay a fee per song to have it purchased and placed in your library. The first option is usually unappealing as it can be a tedious process and cheats the artist of their well-deserved revenue. The latter, only allows users to access songs that they have paid for. All of this changed when online streaming platforms began emerging into the market. These platforms allow users to pay a fixed rate per month in order to access the organization’s repository of millions of different tracks, online as well as offline. Spotify, the industry leader, offers its users a premium service that is far superior

“Before the days of YouTube and the Internet, a band 's chances of striking it big depended on record companies. If a band was lucky enough to get a record deal, it gained access to a label 's vast resources and connections. The company paid for the band 's studio time, … and got its music played on the radio, reaching millions of record buying Americans” (Majerol, 1). Now, anyone with talent can post a video of themselves and become an internet sensation, only to then receive a deal with a label to continue growing their career. The issue is, with the Internet came digital downloading, and with the growing popularity of digital downloading came illegal downloading, known as Digital Piracy, which has affected the music industry greatly. This issue affects everyone involved in the Music Industry. From the small CD store owner to the Artist on stage, everyone has and continues to be affected by the growing popularity of digital downloading services. Artists, producers, and songwriters lose an estimated 12.5 Billion USD every year to illegal digital music services. Further, the economic impact from [digital downloading] is an estimated loss of 2+ Billion USD (Storrs, 1). This money affects the “little guys” in the industry and the average worker within the industry.

When speaking economically, the digital music sector of the international music industry is undoubtably the most important sector in the industry. Within the last decade, music has seen cardinal changes in the way both major and independent labels distribute their products. An industry that once relied on Payola 's and mass distribution of physical records and CD 's now relies heavily on the power of the internet. The first instance of mass distribution of music through the internet was by the service Ritmoteca.com in 1998 [1]. Ritmoteca had a library of over 300,000 songs, offering individual songs for 99 cents each and albums for $9.99. After signing distribution deals with many major music labels such as Warner

Spotify’s mission is to connect millions of people with their favorite songs and create a service that people love to use. They believe that music should be easily accessible for everyone, as listening to music may enrich peoples lives. They want to make a win-win solution for both the people who are creating the music and the people who wish to listen to the music.

In the midst of the United States’ “dot com bubble” (years 1997-2000), there was a surge in technology that brought about file sharing and digital downloads. Threatening the survival of the music industry and introducing a unique set of challenges for the industry to overcome. To remain relevant in the new global market of digital music online, the music industry would have to evolve and change with the introduction of each new facet technology had to offer. The introduction of digitally compressed music files, so easily attainable for a small fee or downloaded legally (pirated) for free, made the music industry reevaluate how to make a profit and protect copyrights. Social media created a visible opportunity for both consumers and artists to maintain digital relationships while providing a platform for consumers to follow and discover new musicians and bands, naturally, making the internet a promotional medium for artists. As the corner record shops closed to make way for virtual storefronts and instant downloads; the internet, digital downloading, and social media made an enormous impact on the music industry that has changed the way consumers purchase, source, listen to, and produce music today.

The evolution of the music industry follows the familiar pattern of digitization. Innovation began with the introduction of the vinyl record, transitioned from the cassette tape to the compact disc and landed us in an era of digital downloads. The emergence of music streaming services like Spotify has progressed the industry even further, giving consumers the ability to access music on demand using download-free online platforms. Spotify faces criticism from artists as a result of the overlap of creativity and commerce. They argue that business activities corrupt creativity, transforming it into a tool for profitability rather than an outlet for expression. Artists insist that Spotify deters album sales, favors established artists and fails to support them financially. However, Spotify was created for consumers. It delivers an accessible alternative to purchasing and downloading music. The interplay between creativity and commerce is changing the nature of the music industry. Spotify has adapted to this change, providing a platform that supports both artists and consumers. Through analysis of the market, artist’s revenue, record labels and consumers, I will argue that artists should accept the evolution of the industry and support Spotify.