By Megan Burgman
Special to In Motion
Probably every student reading this now has listened to music sometime today, so how did they listen to it? Maybe through one of the streaming services? Spotify? Google Play? Youtube? Tidal? Amazon Music?
Or even Internet radio services such as iHeart Radio or Pandora? It seems a long time ago when it was necessary to save up allowance money and wait for an album to be released, then ask parents to drive you to the store. Oh how times of changed, no more listening with a girlfriend to Avril Lavigne’s 2007 “The Best Damn Thing” with a CD player on repeat.
Today, streaming services provide thousands of songs available at anyone’s fingertips every month for one low cost, but compared to purchasing music, the money paid for streaming services doesn’t fairly contribute to the artists, producers and crew members who helped create that music. Most students don’t have the slightest ideas how song royalties are distributed, how artists make an income or the many ways they can avoid streaming services through purchasing music.
My first point is that Streaming Services cut artists revenue severely and royalties are not fairly distributed.
Artists don’t get a large cut of the music they make in general, but streaming services have found a loophole that results in cutting artists’ pay even more, taking their fair share, and then giving those music royalties to the rccord label to distribute. All it accomplishes is letting the label take all the money and give the artist a minimal amount that they cannot live on.
Looking at the many graphs posted online showing compensation artists are given per stream of a song. It may seem as though Tidal and Google Play are compensating the artist a lot more than Spotify or YouTube. In reality, we’re talking fractions of a cent… A single penny.
The Guardian online newspaper in 2015 provided a break down of artist compensation for these streaming services versus purchasing their music through physical CD’s or through iTunes. Information was gathered from BBC, The Rolling Stone and Music Streaming Index. Spotify also gives insight on its website of how their royalties are broken down: 30 percent goes to the company; and the other 70 percent goes to the label to get distributed as it sees fit. Although these artists aren’t making much money on music sales in general, they are making more from purchased music than streaming services.
If these artists are barely making anything through these streaming services, then how are they even making money? They’ve had to find new ways of making money, rather than music sales which is a sad state of affairs. After dedicating their entire life to making music and art, ultimately they are not being compensated for it and must turn to other ways to make a steady income.
In their book, “Music, Money, and Success: The Insider’s Guide to the Music Industry,” Todd and Jeffrey Brabec outline various ways musicians can be successful without relying on music sales. They point out that touring and launching products, such as perfumes or clothing lines, help supplement income outside of music. This is why so many artists are branching out into the fashion and beauty scene, not to mention conducting tours well into their ‘70s.
Michael Aczon suggests in his book, “The Musician’s Legal Companion,” that advertisements and sponsorships of products can also help provide artists a much larger percentage of compensation. A better idea might be for consumers to ethically contribute to the artists financial well-being.
There are many ways to purchase music, giving the artist more of the pay they deserve. Jamie Lendino argues in PC Magazine that music should not be free, writing that, “People generally understand that it takes months of work to make things and artists and authors should somehow be compensated for that. So why do so many think that doesn’t apply to music?”
It’s a shocking statement that rings all too true. According to a recent New York Times article, under the current system of compensation, “No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that’s very few.”
Many people are in agreement that this is a growing problem that does not bode well for the quality of future music. Unless the amount of users on these streaming services balance the number of streams per day, these artists will continue to suffer. And while streaming services are very appealing at first, it is important to note that they also result in consequences for the third parties we love most, musicians.
At present, as reported in Rolling Stone. Billboard and other music magazines, suing streaming services is the only option, if a musician can afford to or if an attorney takes up their case on a contingency basis. A current $150 million copyright infringement lawsuit by Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven frontman David Lowery against Spotify might be tied up in court for many years, if not a decade or more.
Musicians have another weapon in their arsenal, however. As reported, Jeff Price — the founder of Audiam, who works with Bob Dylan, Metallica and many others to recover unpaid publishing royalties from streaming services — championed the issue in 2006 with his first company, TuneCore.
Now there is Audium, as outlined on its website: “Audium is an interactive streaming mechanical royalty collection agency. It gets its music publishing members accurately paid from YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, Google Play, Rhapsody, Beats, Amazon Prime, Mood Music, TouchTunes and other interactive streaming services. We license, police, research, audit, collect and distribute interactive streaming mechanical royalties.”
Any publishing administrator (either self published or a larger publishing entity) can join Audiam as long as they represent the administrative rights to their songs/compositions. There is no charge for the service, although Audium charges an administrative fee for finding additional people using music illegally on YouTube and other entities. For more information, go to http://www.audiam.com/faq/