Originally Posted By: JoanneCooper
Originally Posted By: jazzmammal

Do you really think a 200,300,or 500% increase in the cost of online streaming would work? Especially given the ahem, other options that would pop up. You mentioned huge artists could afford to sit out for awhile. More likely they would simply sell direct using their own websites.

Bob


I hear that the cost of streaming is going down....inevitably....to zero? So Spotify etc may be making money now (ie charging users for streaming and not passing the "fruits" onto the artists) but I think that this on its way out...artists need to find another way (aka Amanda Palmer). For most artists, the days of going into the studio and recording a song/album and actually "getting" people to pay for that song/album afterward (be that through downloads/CDS/streaming/licensing/publishing), I think, are long gone.



Not sure where you heard that, but it's highly unlikely for one basic reason....they are still obligated to pay royalties. If they give it away, where is the money to pay them going to come from? Stock options are what they've relied on up til now, but that's not a long-term solution.

Also, the notion that music will become universally "free" is a false narrative. Too much money involved. Not just record companies/artists/publishers/etc. - it's a balance of trade issue, and the Federal government isn't going to let go of a tax/trade revenue cash cow like that.

http://www.rogerbrownsongs.com
http://www.nashvillesongwriters.com/roger-brown