Music Streaming to Overtake Downloads 254
Barence writes "Streaming will overtake download services to become the dominant force in the online music industry, according to industry insiders. The claim comes in the wake of the PRS cutting the amount of royalties streaming services have to pay songwriters to about a third. Sites will now pay the PRS 0.085p per track, compared to the 0.22p they paid previously. On-demand streaming services still have to pay the record labels about 1p for every track streamed, however. Steve Purdham, CEO of music service We7, says the move will accelerate the growing trend towards online streaming which has seen newcomers such as his site and Spotify attract millions of users in less than a year. 'Over the next 12-24 months you'll see a move towards listening [online],' Purdham told PC Pro. 'Why do you actually need to have something downloaded on your PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'"
Spotify is a valid option. (Score:5, Interesting)
Spotify will not replace downloading, but I do believe that it will significantly reduce it.
Probably yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I like my CD collection, I have to admit that Spotify is really really handy for casual listening. I have a jukebox of ridiculous proportions at my disposal, for the relatively cheap price of a few audio ads a day. (Which I could also get rid of with the subscription option.)
Streaming has the additional benefit of making it impossible to lose / delete what you don't story anyway.
I don't really think a lot of people will find the buying option very attractive once 3G cell phones acquire this ability... I'm waiting for Spotify for my phone, (they already hired an S60 developer,) but then again I live in Finland. ;)
the future, and royalties, and lackthereof (Score:3, Interesting)
The future of "radio" is on the Internet, period. Although we'll probably never be fully free of the copyright cartel's grasp when it comes to music, the Internet levels the playing field and gives independent artists and stations equal footing and gives the listener a potentially unlimited amount of choice. And really, it's already happening. You can find sites and streams playing really good music by independent artists that meets or exceeds the quality of any professionally-produced stuff, just like open source software tends to best proprietary offerings because the creators are focused first on quality and their own idea of what's "good" instead of rushing to meet deadlines or achieve monetary gain.
After all the crap that the RIAA has pulled over the last decade, I try very to find music and streams that don't fund them or their artists every time I listen to or buy a song. On of my favorite "stations" is scenesat.com [scenesat.com]. They play music only from demoscene artists who give their work away freely. If you're into electronica, you'd do well to give them a listen. It's not all chiptunes and rehashed trance, some of it beats the pants off the offerings of similar commercial artists. I'd like to see more stations like this around. If the RIAA and PRS aren't careful, they could start to see some real competition in the near future from musicians who do what they do not because they want a phat paycheck someday, but because they love what they do and want to share their art with anyone who cares to listen.
If you know of more stations that stream independent royalty-free music, please share with the rest of us.
Re:+1 troll (Score:2, Interesting)
Web 2.0 (Score:1, Interesting)
think of the desk jockeys... (Score:3, Interesting)
I also listen to music when I'm travelling around town, etc. but I actually spend more time at work listening to internet radio. If this article, which is undoubtedly astroturf, defines satellite radio as streaming, then that will also draw millions of more people into the streaming category. Like everyone at 24 hour Fitness is listening to the satellite radio service piped through the speakers...
Trying to get people to pay for internet radio is an unrealistic fantasy, though. When I look at sites like cbsradio.com [cbsradio.com], I wonder if they're planning to switch to a subscription model or try to build revenue through ads..
Seth
Re:think of the desk jockeys... (Score:2, Interesting)
The BBC looked at the business reality of spotify the other week on Radio 4. They came to the conclusion that it could never be profitable and was burning through its cash very fast indeed.
Its a great service, it works brilliantly but the advertising won't cover the costs and users won't pay subscriptions.
Why not both? (Score:2, Interesting)
I still prefer physical media, like CDs, but I'm warming up to the idea of downloads (legal)..
Now, why not have streaming AND downloading? They both serve a purpose..
Take Spotify; I like having a lot of music at my fingertips, being able to try new stuff, find new stuff by pure coincidence, etc..
The only black cloud on the music-sky is really the labels.. They insist on regions for music. Wait a minute.. regions? I can buy a CD from whichever country I want (unless there's some embargo-crap going on), but once it's online distribution, they want to tell me what I can and cannot listen to? Hell no!
I remember having various odd tracks in my playlists.. I had the theme from Psycho Soldier, The Bottlerockets - Nancy Sinatra, Kim Chi - Octopus Song, and a remix from some DJ-mixalbum of Hyo-ri's Dark Angel.. All those were removed from my view..
Here's a novel idea; let anyone who wants to pay, stream and/or download, no matter where they are.
*joking* I guess culture really IS the new munitions! */joking*
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:1, Interesting)
Applications like Spotify lets you choose whether you want to cache the songs you're listening to or not.
No it doesn't, at least not my installation of Spotify. The only options regarding cache I can see are:
- Location of the cache
Cache Size:
- Option 1: Automatic - use no more than 10% of free disk space
- Option 2: Use at most x GB (x >= 1)
It's one of those choises, you can't disable cache.
For this reason I had to make a RAM disk in which I directed Spotify to save the cache, so that it doesn't wear out my tiny sdd. The interesting thing is, in Windows you apparently can't do that. Spotify detects that the user is trying to direct cache into RAM disk, and refuses to go there. Spotify wants you to cache the songs, so that you can distribute them to other users over the p2p-network Spotify so heavily relies on.
Re:You know... (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Syracuse, NY to Boston, MA.
Plane 1.5 hours
Car 5 hours
Train 11.5 hours
>>>
I'd take the car for two reasons: (1) A plane is 1.5 hours but you can add another 1.5 for wait times, going through security, and finding a rental car. So figure 3 hours total. (2) My employer reimburses me around 50 cents/mile, so I get to pocket the additional money. In essence I'm getting paid to drive which is a sweet deal.
When I had to make a trip from Oklahoma City to Minnesota I chose to drive. My coworkers thought I was nuts, but we both left at the same time (7 a.m.) and even though they flew, I still arrived at the hotel just one hour after they did (6 p.m. and 7 p.m.). My employer gave me $800 reimbursement for my car mileage, plus being paid 8 hours wages to just sit in my car and listen to music.
Sweet! :-)
Re:You know... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the results of this post surprised me a bit, I posted to my journal a more detailed analysis of the prius vs. conventional gasoline car. Very interesting results. I figured when I found out that the top hybrid is less expensive than I thought that the hybrid would come out on top, but not a chance. Gas would have to hit $7.8/gal for the cost of ownership to be the same.