United States: Spotify Center Stage In Digital Music Debate

Last Updated: March 2 2015
Article by Andrew K. Gonsalves

Can a popular digital streaming service hold up under the glare of the spotlight?

When megastar Taylor Swift released her latest album, 1989, at the end of October, she also took that opportunity to announce that she was removing her entire song catalog from Spotify, a popular digital music streaming service.

Swift justified her stance by stating that artists should be paid for their art, implying that digital streaming services like Spotify do not fairly compensate the songwriters and musicians who are making the music. Swift's record label, Big Machine Records, acknowledged that the move was simply a good business decision.

After seeing Swift's new album sell a staggering and industry leading 1.29 million copies in its first week alone, it is hard to argue against the move. But the bigger question is whether Swift's abandonment of Spotify will have a greater impact on the place that digital streaming has in the music industry.

A Brief History of Digital Music Distribution

In 1999, two teenage, amateur software developers launched the Internet peer-to-peer audio file sharing service known as Napster. Within less than a year, Napster had 20 million users who were sharing MP3 files of their music to one another for free. By all accounts, Napster ushered in the age of digital music distribution.

However, within a span of two years after its launch and with about 80 million registered users, Napster was essentially shut down due to an onslaught of legal challenges by the music industry. At that time, the heavy metal band Metallica was the face of the opposition leading the charge against this new form of distributing music over the Internet.

At about the same time that Napster was forced to shut down, Apple launched its own digital music download service, iTunes. However, unlike Napster, the 2001 release of iTunes was done with the approval and proper licensing of rights from the major record labels. About a decade after its launch, iTunes overtook Wal-Mart as the top music retailer in the United States.

Digital distribution of music has come a long way since the 1999 launch of the Napster. Along with iTunes, other digital distribution services have taken there place in delivering music to both paying and non-paying customers. Some of the more widely known services or online music stores include YouTube, Pandora, Amazon, Google Play, Rhapsody, and, of course, Spotify. What seems to set Spotify apart for increased scrutiny is its mode of distribution and the lack of financial payback to the artists.

Modes of Distribution: Digital Downloads v. Streaming

There are two main forms of digital music distribution: digital downloads and streaming. Digital downloading involves the actual downloading of an audio file (e.g., MP3 file) to a customer's device, such as a computer, a mobile phone, a digital music player (e.g., iPod), or a tablet (e.g., iPad, Microsoft's Surface). By and large, the customer pays for the download and therefore owns the downloaded audio file, which is a copy of the song.

The customer is then free to listen to the audio file at anytime and on any compatible digital playback device. iTunes and Amazon are two of the primary examples of online services that sell digital downloads of music, often at about $0.99 or $1.99 per song, or at about $9.99 or $11.99 per album.

Unlike songs purchased from iTunes, some digital downloads are not permanent, in that access to a downloaded audio file can be terminated. This type of non-permanent download is known in the industry as a "tethered" download, and is typical for subscription-based services (e.g., Rhapsody), where downloads can be eliminated from a customer's device if the subscription fee is not being paid.

Streaming is the other dominant form of digital music distribution. There are two basic streaming models. The first model is the non-interactive type of streaming that is provided by Internet radio services such as Pandora. These services will allow the user the option of free streaming or subscription-based streaming. Free streaming will usually require the customer to periodically view or listen to ads in between music streaming. A subscription allows the user to enjoy the music without ads for a monthly subscription fee. This non-interactive type of streaming does not allow the user to pick a particular song to play, although it does allow for one to select a desired genre of music.

The second type of streaming model is known as streaming on demand. This type of streaming allows the user to pick any song from a service's library of songs, and to listen to that song whenever desired. These on demand streaming services typically require the user to pay a subscription, usually a monthly subscription. However, different subscription plans are available, with free subscriptions including ads and paid subscriptions being ad-free. Spotify is one of the most popular interactive, on-demand streaming services.

Why is Spotify Being Singled Out for Criticism?

While Taylor Swift is the most recent and arguably the biggest named star to speak out against Spotify, the digital streaming service was met with its fair share of detractors from the time of its launch. Big time artists such as Coldplay, Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, and the Black Keys have never allowed their song catalogs to be included in the Spotify library. And other artists, like country superstar Jason Aldean, are following Swift's lead and refusing to include their new releases on Spotify.

At first glance, such animosity does not seem fair, particularly given that Spotify has secured the rights to its song library from the four major record labels, namely, Sony, Universal, EMI, and Warner. In order to partner with these labels, it has been reported that Spotify paid something in the neighborhood of $500 million to these record companies, and also gave them nearly 20% equity in the company.

While it remains a topic of debate, Spotify's cozy partnership with the major labels may be one of the driving forces behind the backlash it is receiving from the artists. As stated earlier, Spotify seems to be receiving greater scrutiny due to its mode of distribution and the apparent meager financial payback to the artists. Because Spotify uses the streaming model of digital distribution, the songs are not actually being sold, which allows for a lack of transperancy in the streaming statistics and royalties flowing back to the artists.

Without going into the maze of how copyrights and licenses are administered and governed in the music industry, digital streaming via Spotify (as opposed to digital downloads or actual physical sales such as compact discs) tends to disfavor the artists, particularly those not covered by the large record labels. This is borne out by candid reports from artists on their royalty payments.

Follow the Royalty Checks, or Lack Thereof

Spotify has found an ally in at least one high profile artist, Bono of the mega rock band U2. Bono points out that Spotify pays out 70% of its revenues to record labels. However, while Spotify claims to have paid out $2 billion to labels and publishers since it European launch in 2008, the royalties that the artists are receiving from Spotify have been low to non-existent according to reports by many musicians and songwriters.

Zoe Keating, a cellist and recording artist, has been a prominent voice in the debate on digital music distribution, providing royalty numbers from her Spotify streams. In 2013, Keating reported having 403,035 plays of her songs on Spotify, which earned her a mere $1,764. Another artist, Galaxie 500, reported that one of its songs, "Tugboat," was played on Spotify 5,960 times, but the three songwriters only collectively received $1.05, which amounted to 35 cents for each songwriter. Some artists signed to independent record lablels have reported receiving only $0.0005 per stream of a song.

Even best selling artists like Taylor Swift lament the relatively low royalties received from digital streaming services like Spotify, as compared to physical sales of CDs. For example, in the most recent tussle with Spotify, the CEO of Swift's record label stated that less than $500,000 was received from Spotify in Swift-related royalties.

Spotify countered by stating that it paid out $2 million on Swift's music over the same period. While Swift's numbers are high compared to other artists, the disparity between what Spotify is reporting to have paid out is starkly higher than what Swift's label is reporting to have received.

The Future of Spotify and Digital Streaming

There is no disputing that the physical sales of albums (e.g., CDs, vinyl records) have been declining for at least the last decade, while digital downloads and streaming of songs has grown exponentially over that same period. While this would seem like a positive in favor of digital streaming, artists have reported a significant decline in pay from streaming services. This seems to be true for both prominent and unknown artists.

Further, there appears to be a gathering chorus of outcry from artists against Spotify. Whether that leads to a change in favor of more compensation to the artists from streaming services remains to be seen. It also is still up in the air as to whether Spotify and other similar streaming services have a viable long term business model. For example, the numbers do not look good: Spotify reportedly lost $56 million in 2011, and Pandora had a net loss of more than $20 million in the first quarter of 2012.

Conclusion

Unlike Napster, Spotify has thus far managed to steer clear of any serious legal challenges from the heavy hitters of the music industry, namely, the major record labels. However, since Spotify's United States launch in 2011, there has been a growing chorus of criticism from the artists who create the music being streamed by Spotify, mostly because of the meager royalties the songwriters and musicians receive from the service.

So, the question is whether digital music streaming services like Spotify can withstand the highly public criticism of elite artists like Taylor Swift and the increasing numbers of lesser known artists who are following Swift's lead.

The music industry and how royalties are paid out is complex. It does not appear that copyright legislation to cure the ills of digital music streaming is the near term. Therefore, it could be a matter of time before Spotify either pivots to a more viable model or crashes under its own weight. Perhaps there will be room for a new, more transperant and fair model for digital music distribution on the horizon.

This article was originally published in The Daily Record on November 18, 2014.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions