Spotify says that its services allow a legal, free way for users to stream music, which may stop people who would otherwise download it illegally. Artists that support streaming sites, such as U2 singer Bono and British Artist Ed Sheeran say that streaming sites increase their exposure, which leads to more CD and concert ticket sales. Critics of streaming sites, such as Aloe Blacc, take issue with the paltry royalty payments, which can be pennies for relatively unknown bands.
Spotify's equation for royalty payments (Source)
Swift's reasons are more complex than other critics. She argues that because users do not have to pay to use Spotify (in exchange for viewing ads), there is no real monetary value being placed on her music, which may cause listeners to devalue her music and lead to decreased iTunes downloads, CD sales, and concert ticket sales.
Clearly, this is a multi-faceted issue, calling into question the value of music and the various ways of listening to it. As for me, I greatly prefer when I can listen to a song in full before purchasing it, so when artists make their music accessible, I end up buying more of their music. However, making music accessible also makes it conducive to pirating. There are many websites to turn Youtube videos into MP3s, making it extremely easy to obtain music without paying.
So what do you think? Is it worth it for artists to pull music off of streaming sites, risking a smaller audience? Or is it more worthwhile to keep music accessible, risking illegal downloads?
Written by Jenna M, Homework Assistant