B-b-but how will spotify ever get any business if streamers just play spotify songs all day long? it's literally impossible to see any kind of mutually beneficial agreement between the two.
Twitch.tv
- Thread starter Mick
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
B-b-but how will spotify ever get any business if streamers just play spotify songs all day long? it's literally impossible to see any kind of mutually beneficial agreement between the two.
Coleslaw
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 859
- 1,163
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,275
- 15,103
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
See, what you're doing here is called creating a strawman - I never claimed a mutually beneficial arrangement wasn't possible, I said that there was no upside for the record companies to keep things the way they are. If Twitch could work out a licensing agreement with the record companies (Spotify can't license music it doesn't own) then that would be ideal for all. But acting like the recording industry are evil tyrants for putting the foot down about their music being to make money that they're not cut it on is just laughable.
But there IS an upside.
it was already discussed in this thread when people said hardly anyone goes to twitch just to listen to music, but while they are there and they hear a good song being played, they then go to spotify to look it up, or buy it off itunes to listen to when they are NOT watching twitch.
exposure and advertising has a cost benefit. the record companies are getting advertising that they would normally have to pay for.
it was already discussed in this thread when people said hardly anyone goes to twitch just to listen to music, but while they are there and they hear a good song being played, they then go to spotify to look it up, or buy it off itunes to listen to when they are NOT watching twitch.
exposure and advertising has a cost benefit. the record companies are getting advertising that they would normally have to pay for.
- 7,910
- 7,732
I'm too tired to really reply to you being a retard, so this is going to be short.
It's of the benefit that people hear music they wouldn't have otherwise, and then go and listen to it and other stuff from the person on things spotify. You know, the thing that's required for them to actually get money from spotify. That discovery is very important. I have plenty of shit on my spotify that I would never have heard/listened to if not for from streams.
It's almost like radio exists, and you could go listen on the radio for free. Or listen to spotify for free with ads. No streamer is going to negotiate a contract with music labels, that's fucking stupid. Nevermind that there are many labels, and streamers will just find free alternatives. The labels are just lighting exposure on fire by enforcing DMCA strikes. No streamers are making millions from music, I don't know what world you live in.
The actual real result is a bunch of shit gets strikes that shouldn't and people are too afraid to fight it.
- 2
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
Nobody is buying individual songs in 2020, and if you are subscribed to Spotify they already have your money. If you're not, hearing a new song on Twitch isn't going to compel you to do so.
The exposure is good for the individual artists who get it but on a macro level it's not going to drive revenues for the industry. On the other hand, YouTube does a drive a decent amount of revenue for the industry given that they pay for licensed music and that it's a platform that can be used to seek out and explore new music. So from the recording industry's perspective, in the battle for screen time between YouTube and Twitch, do they want to give any incentive for the end user to spend their time on the platform that isn't paying them? Of course they don't.
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
I don't think you understand how the radio works. Radio stations pay record companies to play their licensed music and they recoup these expenses by selling ad time. Beyond that, I have no idea what point you're trying to make other than you believe that "exposure" is some sort of magical currency that record companies should be forsaking actual money for. Some real big brain stuff.
side note: I looked at your Twitch page and was amused by the video where you were able to get all of the ugliest people on the internet together for a game of Hollywood Squares or something. With content like that, you don't need licensed music. Believe that.
- 7,910
- 7,732
You can't grasp basic concepts, people can listen to music for free on the radio. They can listen to music for free on spotify. They can listen to music for free on youtube. You can in fact just listen to anything you want without paying any money at all. That means if you want people to listen to your music, people have to know it exists. Therefore exposure is a very important currency, especially on the younger generations.
You are vastly mistaken if you think record companies are forsaking money in any way.
But hey, only clueless clowns have to look for laughable retarded personal attacks to try to win a completely irrelevant on the internet. Who's alt are you and what did you get banned for?
- 2
CaughtCross
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 2,935
- 5,710
Record labels should be paying streamers to play songs. Not DMCAing them.
www.rollingstone.com
'Nobody Is Scrutinizing This': How Labels Pay to Get Songs on the Radio
Following our previous investigation, radio-industry vets report that the number of indie promoters demanding pay-for-play is growing.
www.rollingstone.com
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
You aren't actually listening to something for "free" if it's ad-supported, you're renting out your headspace. Radio, Spotify free, and YouTube are all ad supported. They also all pay royalties to record companies for the use of their music. I don't know where you get this idea that Twitch shouldn't have to pay the same royalties for music as other mediums and streaming services but it's laughable.
- 7,910
- 7,732
The consumer isn't paying it, therefore free to the user. Ads are insanely irrelevant.
Your actual point isn't that record companies are doing the right thing, it's that they should be fighting twitch for a segment of ad revenue on content that would have been muted. Which is exceedingly unrealistic.
The fact is they are gaining revenue by people playing games and playing their music, because people are then listening to that music on their own in the places where the record company is getting money. So by shutting that down not only are they spending money forcing the shut down, they are shutting down that income generation from people who aren't going to discover that music and listen to themselves.
This is a very basic concept you can't grasp. There is a huge reason so many companies do things like partner with things like instagram podcasts, it's because it works. New Amsterdam Pink Whitney sold like crazy simply from partnering with Barstool Sports and getting the name out there. We live in a different world, but the Music industry still thinks it's 1950.
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
My point is that record companies should be getting paid for the use of their copyrighted music in broadcasts, you know, like they are in literally every other medium, and since they're not, they have every right to tell Twitch and streamers to fuck off. I have no idea why this is a controversial opinion in the slightest. Are you really that much of a stan for a platform that hires a deer tranny to moderate what's appropriate content? It's unclear what's going on in negotiations between the recording industry and Amazon behind the scenes but I'm guessing the revenue recognition piece of this is difficult given that streamer revenue comes from a lot of different places. Twitch's ad revenue is a small fraction of what big streamers are actually bringing in.
Yes, well-executed marketing promotions can work to drive sales. This isn't breaking news. Do you have any evidence that some random Twitch thot playing Cardi B in the background while rambling on about insane bullshit increased Cardi's streaming rotations or ticket sales to her shows? Of course you don't. You are pulling this shit out of your ass. But know who actually does have data regarding where kids are finding new music? The record companies, who spend millions doing market research every year. In other words, they're in a much better position than you are to decide what's driving their revenue, so how about leaving them to decide what's best for their business instead of white knighting for the manchildren and thots of Twitch? Great, thanks.
Zindan
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 7,001
- 4,664
Hm, I think they understand what you're saying, but it seems you do not want to agree with what they are saying. In every instance you mentioned the record companies are getting paid by someone to have their music played, except for Twitch Streams. None of the money generated by the ads shown on a Twitch stream or a donation or a sub is going to the record company even if that stream is playing copyrighted music 24/7. Radio, YouTube, Spotify, whatever.... all pay a fee for the music they play. You cannot argue that that doesn't happen. Saying that a record should be grateful for a streamer that is playing music doesn't change that all other media pay those record companies for the right to use their music... except Twitch streamers. If record companies want to try and get some piece of that money from Twitch streams, they have every right to do so.
Saying record companies shouldn't go after Twitch streamers because its good exposure is silly, even if true. Other forms of broadcast media pay a fee for the same or far more exposure, so to should streamers / streaming platforms (that is how they think).
- 7,910
- 7,732
The "other forms of broadcast media" are literally making money exclusively from the music, twitch streamers money is not at all related to the music.
Zindan
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 7,001
- 4,664
That simply does not matter... at all. A movie that has music in it is not exclusively about that music, but they pay a fee. A commercial using music isn't exclusively about that music, but they pay a fee. This a really simply concept, does it suck for streamers, sure. That doesn't change the fact that they are broadcasting copyrighted music while earning money for the broadcast themselves or for Twitch. I understand your pov of here, but there is nothing at all that Twitch or a streamer can do if a record company says "Pay to play, fucker".
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
Then they don't need the music, right? So why are you here melting down about the evil record industry pulling the plug?
- 7,910
- 7,732
Which is the whole point. The labels are never going to get money out of this, ever. So it's just opportunity cost and they can't adapt. There isn't actually an opportunity for them to make money here, so they aren't losing money but letting streamers listen to music. They are definitely losing the opportunity for someone to discover their music here.
It's the same argument on piracy in most circumstances. People who pirate things wouldn't have paid for in the first place, so you aren't actually losing money. By shutting down music on twitch you aren't somehow increasing your revenue.
- 2
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 17,089
- 13,611
Right, the biggest difference is usually the music is just playing in the background. Radio, Youtube, Spotify...you're listening to the music primarily and for the non-radio, you can keep listening to it all day. For a stream, they're playing it in the background while talking or playing a game. You arent watching the stream for the music, it's basically just window dressing. The music (usually) isn't the focus.
So while there is a point about using copyrighted music, it's more of a fair use type situation in the majority of cases or at bare minimum, it isn't owed anywhere near the same level of compensation as content delivery where music IS the content.
So while there is a point about using copyrighted music, it's more of a fair use type situation in the majority of cases or at bare minimum, it isn't owed anywhere near the same level of compensation as content delivery where music IS the content.
- 2
kegkilla
The Big Mod
- 11,320
- 14,739
This is some absolutely brilliant logic. "Company A should let Company B use it's product for free because Company B isn't going to pay them for it." Just.... wow.