Technology

60109 readers

3275 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

1087

Music Piracy Is Back, Baby (gizmodo.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by flintheart_glomgold to c/technology

338 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Muso, a research firm that studies piracy, concluded that the high prices of streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music are pushing people back towards illegal downloads. Spotify raised its prices by one dollar last year to $10.99 a month, the same price as Apple Music. Instead of coughing up $132 a year, more consumers are using websites that rip audio straight out of YouTube videos, and convert them into downloadable MP3 or .wav files.

Roughly 40% of the music piracy Muso tracked was from these “YouTube-to-MP3” sites. The original YouTube-to-MP3 site died from a record label lawsuit, but other copycats do the same thing. A simple Google search yields dozens of blue links to these sites, and they’re, by far, the largest form of audio piracy on the internet."

The problem isn't price. People just don't want to pay for a bad experience. What Apple Music and Spotify have in common is that their software is bloated with useless shit and endlessly annoying user-hostile design. Plus Steve Jobs himself said it back in 2007: "people want to own their music." Having it, organizing it, curating it is half the fun. Not fun is pressing play one day and finding a big chunk of your carefully constructed playlist is "no longer in your library." Screw that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] grue 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Have you ever seen cable TV abbreviated "CATV?" That's because the original original pitch for it was as "Community Antenna TV," wherein it would receive local over-the-air broadcasts and then send them over a wire to folks who couldn't receive them properly because they lived behind a mountain or whatever.

The second pitch was getting original content on cable-only channels, but because your subscription was helping pay to license it (unlike the over-the-air channels, which they -- at least initially -- got for free), they would be ad-free.

Of course, nowadays cable companies have been made to pay retransmission fees to broadcast TV networks and cable-only channels are showing ads too, so both content sources are double-dipping revenue streams.

(Side note: that link is to a site trying to sell some kind of service, so ignore the last part of the page -- the explanations at the beginning of it are quite good, though.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Wow TIL. The double-dipping is pretty sketchy, but not at all surprising. It seems hubristic for Netflix to court the same concepts... I guess cable/network TV probably thought they were untouchable so they could squeeze the consumer, then Netflix happens... Now Netflix thinks it's untouchable and it can squeeze the consumer. Hmm, seems familiar.