|
Lady Gaga earned $167 from 1 million plays via Spotify
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 21 November, 2009
According to a report today from Expressen.se and translated by TorrentFreak, blockbuster star Lady Gaga made a measly $167 USD (SEK 1150) from the STIM (Swedish Performing Rights Society) after her song "Poker Face" was played one million times via Spotify over a 5-month period.
Spotify, the digital music service seen by some as the best chance the labels have to slow down piracy, appears ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
scum101
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. November 2009 @ 10:23 |
Link to this message
|
I guess you still stick to the false premise that every download is a lost sale?
come back some other time.. my last cd sold MORE because it was available as a free download.. (as many people went and commented on my download site.. and some even drove miles to get a physical copy as there were no outlets in their region) people who liked it wanted to have the real full quality printed product. I don't class every download as a lost sale, in fact I class them as totally irrelevant in the scheme of things, apart from being a nice bit of advertising that doesn't cost me anything.
No big record company involved (just a little local label dragged out of 10 years retirement to actually press and distribute the items.. they have been printing disks of bloody photoshop tutorials and crap like that for the last 10 years.. They released all my bands things over the years and were well pleased to finally get to complete the set of 4)..
The big cartel conglomerates simply aren't required these days, and the artists should bloody well work it out. Wankers like Arctic Monkeys personify the shitty attitude these shills have.. they get big by being free download and live.. soon as they get a bit of success they turn their backs on the people who made them.. and where are they now.. forgotten by the wayside, that's where..
Dinosaurs who have milked us and treated us like sheep for far too long. their days are numbered.. stick iTuners in there as well.. it's all BS .. people have always sourced music for free.. right back to the days of the bloke sitting in an upstairs room punching copies of fairground organ cards by hand, or copying music manuscripts...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. November 2009 @ 16:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
So anyway,
The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion.
The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenaon all happening at the smae time, true megastars will become fewere and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We''l all be less better off as a result.
You imply that it's ridicuous to say that file sharer's buy more. Well, it's also ridiculous to say that most don't buy anything. You're assuming, and your opinion is just as invalid as the opposing one. I'm not going to pretend that I believe either. There's no way to tell. I realize you've been dealing with this for years. I'm just sorry you're head has been in a fog all this time, because apparantley you don't understand how people enjoy music. I'm glad you buy music legally. Good for you, after all, you get paid to play it. I read most of your rant, but it's the same as all industry propoganda. Mindless drivel aimed at criminalizing music sharing. People have been sharing music for decades. Instead of monetizing every instance of a song, the artist needs to focus on their true fans. Those are the people who will buy their music, go to their shows, buy their merchandise, etc. Anyone else shouldn't be a factor in the profit equation. In the end, the artist will make what the artist truly deserves. Once the song hits the airwaves, all IP rights should be null and void.
Art and capitalism are like oil and water. I wonder how much longer the industry is going to try to stir the two together before they believe they've convinced us that they belong.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. November 2009 @ 16:22
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
23. November 2009 @ 17:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
the art of music was always about public performance, it wasn't until music was industrialized that all this mess came about.
you can't put a price on art.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. November 2009 @ 20:55 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Oh Burn
What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~
Quote:
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
So anyway,
The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion.
The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenaon all happening at the smae time, true megastars will become fewere and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We''l all be less better off as a result.
You imply that it's ridicuous to say that file sharer's buy more. Well, it's also ridiculous to say that most don't buy anything. You're assuming, and your opinion is just as invalid as the opposing one. I'm not going to pretend that I believe either. There's no way to tell. I realize you've been dealing with this for years. I'm just sorry you're head has been in a fog all this time, because apparantley you don't understand how people enjoy music. I'm glad you buy music legally. Good for you, after all, you get paid to play it. I read most of your rant, but it's the same as all industry propoganda. Mindless drivel aimed at criminalizing music sharing. People have been sharing music for decades. Instead of monetizing every instance of a song, the artist needs to focus on their true fans. Those are the people who will buy their music, go to their shows, buy their merchandise, etc. Anyone else shouldn't be a factor in the profit equation. In the end, the artist will make what the artist truly deserves. Once the song hits the airwaves, all IP rights should be null and void.
Art and capitalism are like oil and water. I wonder how much longer the industry is going to try to stir the two together before they believe they've convinced us that they belong.
IMO I look at CP and "monopolized art" and came to this conclusion that CP/IP is meant to give exclusive right of profit to the owner since time after time mere distribution is shot down via and's,if's,or's and butt's. So distribution is a red haring something to distract you from the truth, and that truth is people still consume and consume en mass thus what needs to be protected is licensed profit streams, if its not licensed it can not make money for any reason and can not be touched until so.
Its that cut and dry.
|
Moderator
|
24. November 2009 @ 17:55 |
Link to this message
|
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules *** |
|
scum101
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. November 2009 @ 18:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
*gasp* .. the LABELS?? .. rip people off??.. never !!
As John Lydon said "ever get the feeling you have been cheated??
|
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 20:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Oh Burn
What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~
Quote:
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
Nothing that was a nice burn
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. November 2009 @ 20:24
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. November 2009 @ 20:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bam431:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Oh Burn
What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~
Quote:
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
Nothing that was a nice burn
Well someone had to say it :P
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 20:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Originally posted by bam431:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Well...at least she made some money while standing up....
Oh Burn
What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~
Quote:
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
Nothing that was a nice burn
Well someone had to say it :P
Glad you did I lol'd
|
Senior Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 20:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
How many super star artists are there right now without major record label backing?
None!
Without huge so called "SUPER GREEDY MUSIC, MOVIE AND MEDIA, WALL-STREET OR EVEN INCLUDING THE GOVERMENTS MAFIA CARTELS" record companies AND OTHER CORPORATIONS ALIKE.........
So shut up about things you have not authority to comment on.
You're pathetically ACCIDENTALLY suicidal.
With out us......you are no body.....remember: "WE, THE PEOPLE"
Why is not in this so called "Artis-Industry Contract" do not espesify on "Gold Numbers" the cuantity of Copies this Company is aloud to produce and sale.....and after the number is rich.....the Artis Creator of his Music or Wherever; It became the Absolute Owner of his Creation !!!!
Why the Company or Corporation is STILING somebody else creation forever......
Who is the real "Bad Guy" here ?
|
Senior Member
|
24. November 2009 @ 21:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
No, I am a 48 year old mobile DJ that works in Bars and Private functions and have been doing that for 30 years.
If I sound like an industry shill or a little like a lawyer it is only because I've been dealing with this for years.
I am 43 years old and I am a DJ and VJ since high School....and I own the real stuff like you (Promo Only) and others.....
Not because you feel the competition around you......you just want to grab a gun a shot at everybody the way you try to do it here.......
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. November 2009 @ 21:22 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
How many super star artists are there right now without major record label backing?
None!
Without huge so called "SUPER GREEDY MUSIC, MOVIE AND MEDIA, WALL-STREET OR EVEN INCLUDING THE GOVERMENTS MAFIA CARTELS" record companies AND OTHER CORPORATIONS ALIKE.........
So shut up about things you have not authority to comment on.
You're pathetically ACCIDENTALLY suicidal.
With out us......you are no body.....remember: "WE, THE PEOPLE"
Why is not in this so called "Artis-Industry Contract" do not espesify on "Gold Numbers" the cuantity of Copies this Company is aloud to produce and sale.....and after the number is rich.....the Artis Creator of his Music or Wherever; It became the Absolute Owner of his Creation !!!!
Why the Company or Corporation is STILING somebody else creation forever......
Who is the real "Bad Guy" here ?
That's another thing I do not get the system works like this by luck or chance you get signed and they take most of the money and own most of the rights, all the "small" people involved in production,ect have already been paid so the only entity in the process "losing out" on anything is the media origination that bought the rights or the owns most of the rights, and why do they lose money because they spend to much on mismanagement,cocaine and honing trends instead of just selling stuff.
No one not even the creators are losing out on any "real* money here as the process burns tons of it to keep functioning.
|
|
dpilarz
Newbie
|
27. November 2009 @ 15:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Music is a performance art. It's at it's best when performed live in front of an audience. Recordings are second-hand music: sometimes reaching heights of excellence but really missing the point of how music works. Music is greatest when fresh and responsive to the moment. Listening to a carbon copy of an interpretation is a bit artificial because it avoids one of the finest things about music its communicative, immediate effect: live performer and audience are in syntony and together create the music. So the whole concept of selling recorded music is only a whiff of what music is really about. Therefore recordings shouldn't cost or be worth much. Musicians should make their living performing in front of an audience and constantly reinventing their music. Recordings can, at best, serve the same end as radio did in the '50s & 60's: to attract people to the concerts. And file sharing should serve that same purpose. Why make such a fuss about something of such little value. As the so-called music industry winds down in profitability and usefulness I hope it will be replaced by a renewed enthusiasm for real music MAKING.
|
|
Chroma45
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. November 2009 @ 18:15 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Music....film.. media in general is stuck in the mud.....
Always have been and always will be. These are same companies that fought VHS/Beta and Audio Cassettes.
|
|
six60six
Junior Member
|
28. November 2009 @ 23:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mikecUSA:
The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion.
The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenon all happening at the same time, true megastars will become fewer and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We'll all be less better off as a result.
top 40 pop music has caused way more harm than good. it has drowned out many, many musicians that will never be heard because they weren't profitable or didn't fit the mold. we don't need hit performers with 'critical mass'. we need less marketing and less a&r jokers and less target market research. we need less charts. we need people to find out what they like by offering them everything not just the next fad.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
