Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I've read this a couple of times and it seems to me to ignore the way royalties worked with broadcast in the past. Artists, if that's the word, were paid per performance when broadcast. They still are and the various rights societies collect royalties for their members. Certainly hard product was a component, but big acts collect continuing royalty payments year after year because of this. I read somewhere Paul McCartney collects millions a year just from Yesterday, which hasn't been connected with a physical product in over fifty years.

Traditionally radio stations account for their playlists in much the same way as Spotify and other streaming services, which is of course why it's a fundamental expense to them.

What has changed for one thing is the change in profitability for the myriad of smaller organisations, like diverse radio, each having an income stream from sometimes equally diverse, even regional, advertisers, from which they payed these dues. And of course, demand for music was met from these lines of supply. It wasn't legislated, just the normal supply demand scenario.

This model, where media outlets competed for listeners to maximise advertising dollars meant that consumers were implicitly engaging in wealth creation for these artists. While consumers behaviours haven't changed that much, after all most would simply listen and not buy product, their position as a factor in this has.

This is more or less what Thom Yorke is saying I think. The economics have changed, and overall capital had migrated to the cartel like few.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: