The Straight Robbery of Music Revenue from Creators by AI Bots and their Human Bosses.
By James A. Goins
In an era where digital music consumption has become the norm, it might seem counterintuitive for a musician to remove their work from streaming platforms. However, recent developments in the industry have highlighted significant issues that necessitate a re-evaluation of where and how artists distribute their music. This article delves into the critical problems with streaming revenue, the exploitation of artists through AI music sampling, and the resurgence of the "Direct to Consumer" (DTC) model as a viable alternative for genuine music lovers and creators.
The Problem with Streaming Revenue
The Spotify Dilemma
Spotify, the leading music streaming platform, has been at the center of controversy regarding its payment structure for artists. The platform pays artists between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream, translating to approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per million streams. While this might sound substantial, it pales in comparison to the revenue generated by the platform itself. Most artists find sustaining income from such low payouts challenging, especially considering the costs of producing high-quality music.
For instance, a Union of Musicians and Allied Workers survey found that 82% of musicians earn less than $200 from Spotify annually. This stark disparity between the platform's earnings and the artists' revenue has led to widespread dissatisfaction and calls for reform.
Other Major Platforms
The issue is not exclusive to Spotify. Other major platforms, such as Apple Music, Amazon Music, and YouTube Music, offer low per-stream payouts. Apple Music pays about $0.01 per stream, while Amazon Music's payouts are roughly the same as Spotify's. YouTube Music, which operates on a different model, pays even less—about $0.00069 per stream.
These figures highlight a systemic problem in the streaming industry, where the revenue generated from advertisements and subscriptions does not adequately trickle down to the artists who create the content. This situation is exacerbated by the delay in payments, with artists often waiting months to receive their earnings.
The Rise of AI Music Sampling
Unauthorized Use of Music
Artificial intelligence has brought about revolutionary changes in various fields, including music. AI music sampling, in particular, has become a contentious issue. Companies developing AI music generators often train their algorithms with vast datasets of existing music. However, much of this music is used without the permission of the original creators, leading to ethical and legal concerns.
For example, OpenAI's MuseNet and Jukedeck (acquired by ByteDance) have been known to use music datasets that include copyrighted material. These AI systems analyze and replicate existing music's patterns, styles, and nuances, effectively "learning" from the work of countless musicians who have not consented to this usage.
Problems with AI Music Sampling
The unauthorized use of music for AI training presents several problems:
1. Intellectual Property Infringement: Using copyrighted music without permission infringes on the intellectual property rights of the original creators. This deprives artists of potential revenue and diminishes the value of their work.
2. Loss of Creative Control: Artists lose control over how their music is used and transformed. AI-generated music can potentially flood the market with derivative works, diluting the originality and authenticity of the original compositions.
3. Economic Disparity: While AI companies profit from using these datasets, the original creators do not receive compensation. This creates a further economic divide in an industry plagued by unfair revenue distribution.
The Direct-to-Consumer Model
A Return to Roots
Given the challenges of streaming platforms and AI music sampling, many artists are reconsidering the direct-to-consumer (DTC) model. This approach, which involves selling music directly to fans without intermediaries, harkens back to when musicians had more control over their work and revenue.
Advantages of the DTC Model
1. Increased Revenue: By cutting out the middlemen, artists can retain a larger share of their earnings. Selling music directly through personal websites, Bandcamp, or physical formats like vinyl and CDs can be more lucrative than streaming revenue.
2. Greater Control: Artists control entirely their distribution, pricing, and marketing strategies. This autonomy allows for a more personalized and authentic connection with fans.
3. Building a Loyal Fanbase: Engaging directly with fans fosters a sense of community and loyalty. Exclusive content, merchandise, and direct communication can enhance the fan experience and support long-term sustainability for artists.
Examples of Successful DTC Models
Several artists have successfully implemented the DTC model. For instance, Radiohead's "In Rainbows" album was initially released as a pay-what-you-want download directly from their website, bypassing traditional distribution channels. This innovative approach generated significant revenue and strengthened the band's relationship with its fans.
Similarly, an independent artist, Amanda Palmer, has leveraged platforms like Patreon to connect with her audience and fund her projects. She has cultivated a dedicated fanbase willing to support her financially by offering exclusive content and direct interaction.
Conclusion
The decision to remove my music from streaming platforms is not taken lightly, but it is a necessary step in reclaiming the value and integrity of my artistic work. The current streaming revenue model is unsustainable for most artists, and the rise of AI music sampling presents additional threats to the livelihood and creative control of all real musicians.
Revitalizing the Direct-to-Consumer model offers a promising alternative, allowing artists to connect more intimately with their audience and retain greater control over their work and earnings. As music lovers, it is essential to recognize and support the value of real music created by humans, ensuring that artists can thrive in a fair and equitable industry.
No one should be able to exploit your creative energy forever without you getting a return on that creativity. The equation must be balanced. Those gifted to create must also make a living to continue the cycle of creation. [ Check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZHqepMHD4I&list=WL&index=2 ]
Stay tuned for my next article: Music is like Bitcoin - Digital Energy.
Comments