Volume 15 Spring 2019 djim.management.dal.ca |

Saviours or Burdens? The Effects of Streaming Services on the Music Industry

Robyn Nicholson

School of Information Management, Dalhousie University

Abstract

This research essay provides an overview of streaming services and their effects on the music industry, and the tensions they have created between various stakeholders. The problem of the “end” of the music industry is addressed through discussing the transition of music from analog to digital, the history of music piracy, and the value of music as a commodity. Technological, institutional, and cultural tensions are highlighted, and revenue distribution is described and analyzed, as is the interplay of algorithmic and human curation of playlists. Legal issues are also raised involving the privacy of users and intellectual property rights of artists. A middle ground is sought, and possible solutions are proposed to reconcile these tensions, with the future of the music industry in mind.

Keywords: streaming services, streaming technology, music industry,

Introduction the ways in which streaming music services Is the music industry in death throes, and have affected the way we listen to, collect, are advanced information technologies to and consume music, as well as how the blame? Online streaming media is a vibrant music industry at large has been impacted. example of information technology which This topic is rife with tensions: tensions has gained rapid momentum in recent between freedom and value, art and history. The following is an examination of business, users and creators, digital and 1 analog, humans and machines, and old and hopeful assessments, like the one offered new industries, to name a few. These by journalist Matthew Ball (2015), who tensions are explored through the lens of believes, “the decline, which began long information – particularly music as before the emergence of ad-based or information – and though resolutions may subscription streaming models, doesn’t not always be possible, I aim to mediate need to be terminal” (para. 54). False ends the tensions through balanced examination have been predicted before, and despite and offer some possible solutions. the continued threats presented by technological advance, the finale has not I begin my discussion at the end – the end yet arrived for privacy or for the music of the music industry, that is. Just as many industry (John & Peters, 2017). If we work writers in today’s information society backward, perhaps new solutions may be continue to declare the death of personal found. privacy, the death of the music industry is similarly expressed. The pattern of “endist” John and Peters (2017) offer three main rhetoric follows that once the end of causal categories of offending factors that something is declared, conditions for that have spelled the many ends of privacy: end are belaboured and condemned, and technology, institutions, and culture. These yet some softly optimistic solution is finally three perpetrators could also be applied to proposed (John & Peters, 2017). The the various ends of the music industry, demise of the music industry has been particularly in the context of streaming proclaimed repeatedly, with many services. I have chosen to focus on Spotify lamenting shuttered record stores and because of its global dominance as a reduced artist signings by major and indie streaming service and its recent entry into labels alike, among other tell-tale signs the Canadian music market. As journalist (Knapp, 2012). Most recently the conditions Liz Pelly (2017) notes, Spotify is one of the for the industry’s collapse have been world’s largest streaming music companies, blamed on streaming music, described by and “its network of paying subscribers has some as “a death knell for a dying dinosaur” risen sharply in recent years, from five (Knapp, 2012, p. 42). This sentiment is million subscribers in 2012 to more than perhaps most vividly expressed by sixty million in 2017” (para. 4). Music Radiohead’s Thom Yorke, who describes streaming services can actually be split into popular streaming service Spotify as “the three types: streaming radio, cloud or last gasp of the old industry … the last locker, and on-demand (Marshall, 2015). desperate fart of a dying corpse” (as Throughout this essay, particular attention quoted in Marshall, 2015, p. 177). However, will be paid to on-demand services, which amidst a sea of similar complaints and include Spotify as well as its major speculations about the future floats more competitors like Apple Music and Google

2 Streaming Services and the Music Industry Play. On-demand services differ from their apparent in global markets and particularly radio and locker counterparts because they in Canada, where “in the first six months of are interactive (i.e., the user chooses what 2016, Canadians streamed 18.6 billion to listen to), and not limited to an songs through on-demand platforms, up individual’s personally-owned collection. from 10.5 billion a year earlier” (McConnell, The listener can instead choose from 2016, para. 3). For some, the staggering millions of songs contained in massive success of streaming services is seen as the online catalogues, making on-demand an potential saviour of an industry in a impressive and lucrative revolution in downspin, while others within the industry streaming technology and the music remain sceptical. industry at large (Marshall, 2015). Recent history has seen the overall shift of Technological Tension music from analog to digital, and even The vast new capabilities of on-demand digital music itself has since shifted from streaming music services present a static server storage to living in the “cloud.” technological threat to the “old industry.” These shifts in location and format have As Marshall (2015) observes, “one thing had a significant impact not only on the that the history of popular music tells us is way we access music but on how we define that the introduction of significant new it. If we conceptualize music as a form of technologies is rarely uncontroversial” (p. information, we might define it as “a 177). From the invention of the microphone, unique social object, which unlike material to the installation of eight-track tape decks objects, is non-rivalrous, reproducible, into cars, to Sony’s Walkman and Apple’s spreadable,” and observe how “digital iPod, “it’s the same search for convenience technology supercharges the propensity of and portability that continues to fuel information to spread” (Fisher, 2018, p. 40). innovations in the delivery and While music’s migration to the cloud may consumption of music” (Knapp, 2012, p. 42). create new allowances for accessibility, Each new technology is initially challenged storage, and dissemination, it also presents then subsequently adapted into the particular challenges and limitations. As industry and into the everyday lives of Knapp (2012) points out: music consumers. We are now witnessing music subscription services allow users to that tension with streaming services. Wang stream and download music from the (2017) notes that “streaming took off when metaphorical cloud, but that music can’t be cheap processing power, storage and copied, ripped, or burned to an external bandwidth became widely available,” and source. Should your subscription run out, “has rapidly grown into an oligopoly anything you downloaded will magically dominated by a handful of major players” disappear from your phone. Instead of (p. 274; 278). This rapid growth is readily owning music you merely rent it. (p. 44).

Streaming Services and the Music Industry 3 The transformation of music from analog to mission of monetising an audience, “the digital has been mirrored in the large majority of whom were downloading transformation of its related information illegally … before Spotify was available,” by behaviours from ownership to access. presenting a familiar but legitimised form Musical recordings, as information objects, of the same information transaction “moved from tangible, high-priced albums (Marshall, 2015, p. 184). An optimistic to intangible, variably valued streams,” and observer might interpret this platform many consumers changed their habits and makeover as a new and improved model preferences accordingly (Ball, 2015). These for music consumption with the potential movements of value and behaviour have for solving many problems facing the music been felt across several media formats and industry today. That being said, it is also can be traced back to the advent of the important to remember that the minds Internet and subsequently of online piracy. behind Spotify and other “reborn” Wang (2017) identifies piracy as “integral to streaming services are also the same ones the shift in digital economy from an behind the file-sharing piracy networks that acquisition- and ownership-based toppled the record industry in the first consumption model ... to one that is place (Knapp, 2012). In essence, these access-based” (p. 278). The era where networks were able to “compete with piracy ran rampant resulted in the legitimate businesses, serving the distinctive “behaviour of a generation consumers’ demand for immediate low- which had grown up with music being free cost access to on-demand content,” and it and accessible” (Marshall, 2015, p. 184). The is how they still compete, just at a slight music industry has had to adjust to cost (Wang, 2017, p. 279). As a result, accommodate this dominant consumer streaming services have redefined the value behaviour, and as such, physical vendors of music. have struggled while streaming services Music as Information with Value have thrived. Spotify in particular has Stewart Brand describes a tension between “consistently presented itself as offering a “what is and what ought to be,” in that platform which monetises existing information wants to be expensive because consumer behaviour” (Marshall, 2015, p. it is valuable, but also free, because its cost 184). decreases as it becomes more widely Spotify’s success in a marketplace formerly accessible (as quoted in Fisher, 2018, p. 40). occupied by piracy sites may not be simply Music suffers the same tension as it strategy or luck. Coincidentally, Spotify struggles to retain economic value while founder Daniel Ek was formerly the CEO of simultaneously becoming universally the peer-to-peer sharing platform uTorrent, available. Knapp (2012) succinctly and his new venture was built with the summarizes the issue: “People still enjoy

4 Streaming Services and the Music Industry music; they just don’t enjoy paying for it” “relies mainly upon the number of (p. 42). Ball (2015) adds that “audiences can subscribers it has, plus a little extra from now enjoy more music, more easily, and in advertising” (Marshall, 2015, p. 182). As more places – yet the amount they spend such, a balance must be struck between is at an unprecedented low.” All streaming providing a high-quality service and aside, there has never been more music in creating steady demand for further the world than right now, and while that premium content (Hamari et al., 2017). incredible level of creativity and production Users of Spotify’s free service have access is to be lauded, saturation points of the to all the same music as subscribed users, market should also be seriously considered. but their service includes commercials, Issues of supply and demand are at play limited skip options, and disabled track here, and as Wang (2017) notes, “when selection. To generate increased revenue, supply outstrips demand, and much Spotify focuses on expanding its paid user content is free and instantly accessible, base by offering attractive premium traditional distribution and pricing practices features. While profit depends on an become irrelevant” (p. 281). The vast supply inherently limited revenue generated of music may be beginning to overtake through subscription and advertising, “the public demand, and while that may be an number of times music can be streamed is aspect of competition aided by wider effectively limitless” (Marshall, 2015, p. 182). digital markets, it still does not bode well In other words, even if a user listens to a for dispelling the “death knell” of the thousand tracks in a month, the industry and of the value of music as a subscription revenue that that individual commodity. Artists may be reluctant to user paid to Spotify remains the same. The embrace these changes in the value of their payout structure is bleak upon such close music, but the drastic structural shift in inspection, and best reflects the ‘value’ of supply and demand within the industry is music in an era of abundant supply. Any undeniable (Ball, 2015). song ‘hired’ to entertain is ‘worth’ the same as another” (Ball, 2015). This business Streaming services like Spotify had a strong model reduces music to a low value or even influence on this structural shift, and on free commodity, and threatens its music’s value as a commodity. Spotify’s uniqueness through exploitation (Marshall, for users resembles that of 2015). a “freemium” service, often seen in mobile gaming, where the core service is free to The freemium business model combined use but the revenue is generated through with Spotify’s subscription-based revenue sales of additional products and premium further complicates the way music is valued services (Hamari, Hanner & Koivisto, 2017). economically. A common misconception is As a subscription service, Spotify’s revenue that Spotify artists are paid “per stream” in

Streaming Services and the Music Industry 5 a unit-based manner, more akin to information, free and valuable music, old traditional methods of payment. In reality, and new industries, Spotify and its users, Spotify “has repeatedly argued that it does and Spotify and its artists. According to not sell streams, but access to music … One Marshall (2015), these tensions could, in a must look at the overall revenues that broader sense, be reflecting “more deep- Spotify is generating” (Marshall, 2015, p. seated uncertainties regarding the 181). The more money Spotify makes changing nature of the music commodity overall, the more their artists make. Pelly and its impact upon the perceived value of (2017) expands this point, explaining that music, as well as more long-standing issues “Spotify’s ‘pro-rata’ payment model means regarding the dominant power relations artists are paid a percentage of the total within the industry” (p. 178). Power pool of royalties relative to how their relations are an important aspect of this stream count stacks up in the entire pool scenario, as the giants of old industry of streams, meaning the tiniest of payouts struggle to maintain power against new for the most independent musicians” (para. industry mavericks like Spotify. 25). All of this represents an institutional, Institutional Tensions fundamental restructuring of how music is Spotify and its streaming service valued and, in turn, how artists are paid. As counterparts represent powerful Marshall (2015) states: institutions within the modern music the nature of what is being sold is industry, but the titans of the old industry qualitatively different than in the past and, must also be taken into account. As Ball therefore, artists need to reconsider how (2015) notes, “for nearly half a century, the they are paid: in the “old” model of music- major labels (and therefore their artists) buying/owning, consumers paid (and have held a de facto monopoly on the artists therefore received) a one-off music industry and its output – all by payment; in the new model of music- controlling distribution”. When peer-to- renting, consumers continually pay for peer file-sharing appeared, the subsequent access to music. (p. 181). decline in physical album sales impacted This shift in structure and revenue has record labels gravely, along with the created new tensions within the industry livelihoods of their signed artists. One that are struggling to be reconciled. might assume the label suffers equally with its artists, but that may not always be the Thus far we have seen how technology case. In fact, Marshall (2015) suggests that triggered the shift of music as information the “consumption-based logic of streaming from analog to digital, and how that shift services actually fits the logic of the pre- changed information behaviours and value digital record industry quite well,” and so structures. We have also encountered the larger labels are able to stay afloat on tensions between free and valuable 6 Streaming Services and the Music Industry the revenue from a handful of successes Spotify as a hybrid “hypercommercial while their less successful artists suffer (p. webspace” that surrounds music with 184). While Spotify has influenced how shameless advertising, and leaves artists in artists are paid in the streaming market, a difficult position “where they’re unable to “for many artists, the amount they receive outwardly criticize their corporate overlords from Spotify reflects their contract with without risking total irrelevance” (para. 24). their record label and not the amount that The capitalist institution of the music Spotify pays out” (Marshall, 2015, p. 181). business, in partnership with ambitious Old industry maintains its control over companies like Spotify, effectively enacts contractual rates. Ball (2015) adds that: “deliberate commoditization of music by those who have no respect for the craft or what makes this distribution particularly its artists – only a desire to serve up ads, problematic is its resilience. Over the past build a digital empire or hawk hardware” 15 years, the music industry has been (Ball, 2015). While these views may be from transformed in almost every way, yet the biased arts-affiliated sources, the rates paid by labels to their artists remain evaluation and criticism of how institutional largely unchanged. (para. 49). influence can affect the dissemination of Contractually the labels share the blame for music and of information is important to miniscule monetary returns for artists’ consider. streams. Cultural Tensions Beyond the institutions of Spotify and If we take institutions out of the equation, record labels is the institution of music we are left with creators and users, and this business itself. Deep-rooted tension has is arguably where true cultural exchange long existed between art and business, and occurs in a music transaction. In 1996, Bill the values between these aspects of the Gates stated that “for the internet to thrive, music industry are naturally at odds. In a content providers must be paid for their digital context, Pelly asks, “how can artists work,” and predicted micropayments would distribute and sell their work in a digital help link users and creators financially (as economy beholden to ruthlessly quoted in Krukowski, 2018, para. 22). What commercial and centralized interests?” he could not have predicted, however, was Indeed, behind editorial facades, Spotify’s “massively capitalized platforms aims are financially driven, just as Apple monopolizing access to content, with no Music’s bottom line involves selling more interest in encouraging those hardware, and Amazon Music opts to move micropayments” (Krukowski, 2018, para. 22). more Alexa devices and Prime While artists and consumers may be prey subscriptions (Pelly, 2017). These external to these overpowering institutional financial goals further serve to cheapen and influences, there are still alternative ways devalue music. Pelly (2017) describes Streaming Services and the Music Industry 7 that technology can be used to disseminate listened-to content on the platform. music purposefully. Enhanced reaches of Algorithms are pervasive and powerful, social media allow artists to create their especially now as more of our everyday own brand and communicate with their activities are conducted online (Willson, audiences, thus subverting 2017). Spotify has seized the power of the “hypercommercial webspaces” and algorithm and used it to commodify music corporate mass marketing (Ball, 2015). and its curation in new ways. As Pelly (2017) Falling technology costs have enabled mass describes: production and subsequent mass Spotify’s worth is more ephemeral. Its value devaluation of popular music, but they – what makes it addictive for listeners, a have also provided independent artists with necessity for artists, and a worthwhile more affordable options for self- investment for venture capitalists – lies in production. Additionally, as live music its algorithmic music discovery “products” remains one of the last genuine sources of and its ability to make the entire music revenue for artists, thankfully the concert industry conform to the new standards it industry continues to thrive and streamline sets. This means one thing: playlists are its growth, providing further means of self- king, and particularly the ones curated by sufficiency (Ball, 2015). Through these Spotify itself (para. 7). avenues, artists can still retain subversive power for self-promotion, self-production, Technological influence on digital music and self-generated revenue in order to services is nothing new. like distribute their own music to their potential iTunes has relied on “music information audiences. As Wang (2017) notes, “multi- retrieval” focused on “signal processing for linear and multi-channel access have audio files,” and is “integral to playlist fundamentally changed the relationship generation in online streaming services” between users and content” (p. 277). (Riley, 2017). The difference here is that algorithms take that influence a step Another example of user and content further from information retrieval to interaction is the curation and consumption behavioural prediction. of playlists. Music lovers have been creating mixtapes and burning custom CD mixes for In addition to replacing humans with decades, and digital playlists have become algorithms, Spotify has also been criticized the new dominant form of music curation. for further devaluing music through the Spotify has made a cultural impact with its creation of “chill” playlists that serve more promotion of the almighty playlist. Its as background music than cultural material. sophisticated algorithms are largely Pelly (2017) again explains that “Spotify responsible for the curation of thousands loves ‘chill’ playlists: they’re the purest of playlists that make up some of the most- distillation of its ambition to turn all music into emotional wallpaper. They’re also tied 8 Streaming Services and the Music Industry to what its algorithm manipulates best: American programming, says the company mood and affect” (para. 9). Through “looks at the process as ‘man loves playlists, music is being valued more for its machine’ instead of algorithm versus blanket effect than its singular impact. human curation” (as quoted in McConnell, Artists have better chances at being played 2016, para. 11). There has always been an on popular playlists if their music caters to art to playlist curation, whether it was the dominant mood of listeners, and right recording the latest hits from radio onto a now that mood is “the chiller, the better.” tapedeck or choosing the perfect mp3s to This emphasis on “chill” may indicate a burn to a CD and give to someone special. larger cultural shift in lifestyle where people That art is not completely lost through listen to music differently, and for different algorithmic curation. Instead, major purposes. In other words, “these streaming services are now arguing that it algorithmically designed playlists … have is in curation “where human instinct should seized on an audience of distracted, kick in, as opposed to just mathematics,” perhaps overworked, or anxious listeners adding that “people have a better sense of whose stress-filled clicks now generate which song transitions smoother to another, anesthetized, algorithmically designed or how different songs might relate to each playlists” (Pelly, 2017, para. 11). other in less obvious ways” (McConnell, 2016, para. 29). If humans and algorithms Pelly puts humans and machines at odds, can work together, the music industry may with overtired populations submitting to not be as doomed as we thought. algorithmic influence, resulting in mindless background music for the masses. Tensions of Privacy and Copyright Alternatively, however, there has also been a renewed effort among major streaming Whether or not humans are reintroduced services to reintroduce human influence into playlist curation, the use of algorithms into playlist curation. Algorithms may be involves Spotify’s monitoring of user king, but as Willson (2017) observes, “the activity and harvesting of that data for interplay of human emotions, decisions, strategic purposes. If terms and conditions and inputs alongside the sorting, analytical, are not transparent enough, this can mean and manipulative capacity of the serious privacy issues for users. Willson technologies becomes more complex and (2017) identifies the “rise of surveillance reveals an iterative, multilayered exchange” capitalism tied to the capture and (p. 147). Algorithms are effective, but they commodification of users’ behavioural data are not perfect, and the tensions between for persuasive and predictive application” human and machine may be resolved (p. 147). While listening preferences may through collaboration. Doug Ford, Spotify’s not be the most important privacy concern global head of curation and North for the average streaming user, they are still victim to surveillance. Spotify harvests Streaming Services and the Music Industry 9 “an unprecedented amount of data,” and it is integral but far more difficult to ensure where playlists are concerned, “skip rates rights holders are paid (CIMA, 2010). and completion rates determine whether a Through streaming services, artists are still song survives,” aiding the curation of technically being paid as rights holders – “perfect” playlists (Pelly, 2017, para. 7). an improvement from piracy culture – but Though many users fail to glance over the those pay-outs are still vastly reduced terms and conditions where they sign away compared to physical sales. Wang (2017) their listening privacy, it could be generally explains that “consuming copyrighted assumed most users know their actions are material online is no longer an anomaly, it being monitored. As with many current is a norm aligned with users’ desire for information interactions, “users attempt to immediate access to new content” (p. 271). weight the identified or assumed privacy Here we return to a supply and demand risks of a transaction against its benefits” framework. With on-demand services like (Lutz, Hoffman, Bucher, & Fieseler, 2018, p. Spotify, the “value proposition is based on 1477). In the context of Spotify, users weigh having all (or roughly all) the music a user the identified or assumed privacy risk of might want,” which has gravely affected their listening habits being monitored and how artists are credited and paid (Ball, harvested against the benefits of catered 2015). For every competing service to content curation. In this problematic attempt to acquire licenses to individual manner, “human-machine technologies are catalogues or titles “would be both deployed to quantify your tastes. This is contractually impractical and analytically what lies behind the ‘magic’ of Spotify” infeasible” (Ball, 2015). Consequently, the (Pelly, 2017, para. 7). In the risk versus consumer demand for instant access to all benefit transaction, this “magic” often the music they could ever want has prevails. corrupted the structure of copyright regulations initially intended to protect Surveillance and privacy are not the only creatives. legal and moral tensions within streaming culture. Considering the fact that streaming Playlists present even further copyright and descended from piracy traditions, it is intellectual property tensions. Spotify- important to note the copyright issues curated playlists, including branded involved in peer-to-peer file sharing and playlists by commercial conglomerates how those illegalities were resolved (or such as Nike or Victoria’s Secret, often loopholes found). Historically, Canada has feature artists’ work without their had “an extremely well-developed system knowledge. To make matters worse, “the for the payment of copyright obligations of band receives no additional compensation all kinds to copyright owners,” and as the beyond the usual streaming royalties sent digital age speeds and expands distribution, to labels and rights-holders” (Pelly, 2017,

10 Streaming Services and the Music Industry para. 14). Artists become “automated sell- music, it is easier to see why many predict outs,” falling prey to corrupted licensing the music industry’s demise, alongside structures in the new dominant and often privacy. Still, so-called passé privacy exists oppressive framework. Pelly (2017) further and so does the business of music. Some argues: solutions may be had yet, but they must be based in solving the variety of tensions I Brand playlists are advertisements, even if have highlighted. First and foremost, the Spotify strives to imbue them with so- tensions between artists and their labels, called editorial integrity. Such and artists and Spotify must be addressed. uncompensated advertorial playlists are Ball (2015), offers a possible solution here harmful in that they offer artists no option when he hypothesizes that “record to opt-out, but also because they undercut companies and publishers could pressure what can sometimes be a valuable source Spotify to reconsider its focus on user of revenue for artists. (para. 17) maximization at the expense of revenue Sources of real revenue for artists are optimization by adjusting contract terms” quickly diminishing, especially with the rise (para. 46). If streaming services begin to of streaming culture. In past decades, many privilege their artists over their users, artists were faced with the difficult decision positive change could be affected. Marshall of “selling out” to support commercial (2015) echoes these insights, positing that enterprises, but at the very least they were “independent and less popular artists reasonably financially compensated. In this would benefit from an alternative system of new institutional structure created by payment that directly distributed an streaming services, artists are not even individual’s subscription to only those given the chance to decide whether or not artists to which the individual had actually to “sell out.” They are not notified when listened” (p. 185). This solution most closely they are placed on playlists (Spotify- mirrors the revenue system generated by curated, branded, or otherwise) and they physical sales but is also reliant upon a do not receive any additional revenue. This major shift in Spotify’s business model, coerced endorsement of capitalist entities which is unlikely given its wild success. presents a seriously problematic corruption For the time being, external solutions may borne of copyright and intellectual be required. Krukowski (2018) suggests that property tensions within this new era of the “adjusting our purchases to the scale that music industry. makes sense for what we’re really after is Conclusion and Possible one way to work around the Spotify/Apple Solutions Music model” (para. 11). This means After close and comprehensive examination making physical purchases to support the of the effects of streaming services on the artists you really care about. As mentioned ways we listen to, collect, and consume

Streaming Services and the Music Industry 11 earlier, the falling costs of production note, “high pirate media consumption has technology paired with the streamlining of likely seeded and grown large new the live music circuit means that “music, generations of film viewers and music itself, may be commoditizing – but as lovers” (p. 279). Having matured in the age concerts have shown, there are of piracy, I can attest to the illegitimate opportunities to expand musical content fueling of legitimate passions for culture into new experiences and products” (Ball, and can attest that “heavy downloaders” 2015, para. 51). As also previously are also bigger legitimate media discussed, tensions continue to persist consumers (Wang, 2017, p. 279). For the between both information and music industry and its artists to survive, however, wanting to be free versus wanting to be these passions earned through piracy need expensive. As the structures surrounding to be translated into new forms of revenue both commodities continue to evolve, for creators. Fisher (2018) posits that in “Web 2.0 My personal vision for the future of the capitalism, information is both free and industry involves the embrace of expensive,” referring to the vast variety of information technologies paired with digital platforms that allow users to interact careful attention to the ways revenue is and engage with the creation and disseminated throughout the system. collection of user-generated content that is Knapp (2012) says the people who still buy both free and uniquely valuable (p. 41). This physical LPs are “the same sorts that enjoy resolution of tensions presents renewed writing letters with pen and paper and opportunities for artists to become self- shaving with a badger brush and double- sufficient and supported. If artists survive, edge razor” (p. 44). While I may have so does the music industry. misplaced my badger brush, I did write a Just as the end of privacy is often few letters to friends this month. I may be prophesized but never realized, I believe a cartoonish exception to the rule, but all the music industry will continue to live on jokes aside I believe we are overdue for a and evolve in this new information society. renewed appreciation of the beauty, history, Music is constantly influenced and and tactility of physical music collections. I frequently aided by technologies, have offered several arguments for the institutions, and culture, despite their initial demise of the music industry, along with appearance as the three horsemen of the some possible solutions, but let me close music industry apocalypse. For instance, in with some additional arguments for its the context of film piracy, Wang (2017) revival. observes that the “highest growth film Trent Reznor, founding member of Nine markets are also the countries with the Inch Nails, states that “if I wanted a vinyl highest piracy rates,” and on a connected record, I could go on Amazon if I know

12 Streaming Services and the Music Industry what I want, and it will show up. Or I could revenue distribution, the music industry go down to a record shop, surrounded by need not be so doomed after all. people who love music, and see it References presented in a way that is inspiring” Ball, M. (2015, July 28). Less money, mo’ (McConnell, 2016, para. 19). There is still a music & lots of problems: A look definitive argument to be made for physical at the music biz. REDEF. Retrieved music. As former college radio DJ and from music journalist Drew Millard (2017) points https://redef.com/original/less- out, much of the music exclusively available money-mo-music-lots-of- on vinyl is “exceedingly rare or otherwise problems-the-past-present-and- inaccessible online” (para. 6). Behind the future-of-the-music-biz romantic and nostalgic notions of physical music collections, there is still concrete Canadian Independent Music Association value. Music is rooted in the fundamental (CIMA). (2010, July 13). The gesture of sharing and in those special Canadian music industry in a relationships between creators, listeners, digital world. Digital Canada 150. and the music itself. The methods of Retrieved from sharing may have changed from https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.n handwritten scores and harpsichord sf/eng/00331.html concerts to digital downloads and stadium Fisher, E. (2018). When information wanted tours, but the value and the experience to be free: Discursive bifurcation remains the same. Ultimately: of information and the origins of Does it really matter how fans consume Web 2.0. The Information Society, music? Who cares if they play it on old- 34(1), 40–48. school turntables, stream it online, https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243. download it to a mobile device, or hard- 2017.1391910 wire a chip directly to their brains? A Hamari, J., Hanner, N., & Koivisto, J. (2017). musician’s job isn’t to control how much Service quality explains why music fans interface with technology; it’s to people use freemium services but make a connection, and if you write a truly not if they go premium: An great song, people will want to hear it. empirical study in free-to-play (Knapp, 2012, p. 46) games. International Journal of If technology, institutions, and culture can Information Management, 37(1), all work together to examine, criticize, and 1449–1459. adjust existing structures to ensure https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt. comprehensive dissemination and fair 2016.09.004

Streaming Services and the Music Industry 13 John, N. A., & Peters, B. (2017). Why ttps://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2 privacy keeps dying: The trouble 015.1096618 with talk about the end of privacy. McConnell, J. (2016, September 2). Move Information, Communication & aside algorithms, meet the Society, 20(2), 284–298. tastemakers: Music streaming https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X. services bring humans back into 2016.1167229 the equation. Financial Post. Knapp, L. (2012, March). Up the stream. Retrieved from Canadian Musician, 34, 42-46. https://business.financialpost.com/ Retrieved from technology/step-aside-algorithms- http://ezproxy.library.dal.ca/login? meet-the-tastemakers-who- url=https://search-proquest- curate-the-major-streaming- com.ezproxy.library.dal.ca/docview music-services /1017883509?accountid=10406 Millard, D. (2017, April 7). F-- algorithms, Krukowski, D. (2018, January 30). How to college radio is a reminder of how be a responsible music fan in the great music can be when age of streaming. Pitchfork. nobody’s trying to make money. Retrieved from Noisey. Retrieved from https://pitchfork.com/features/ope https://noisey.vice.com/en_ca/artic d/how-to-be-a-responsible-music- le/xy9bg3/fuck-algorithms- fan-in-the-age-of-streaming/ college-radio-is-a-reminder-of- how-great-music-can-be-when- Lutz, C., Hoffman, C.P., Bucher, E., & nobodys-trying-to-make-money Fieseler, C. (2018). The role of privacy concerns in the sharing Pelly, L. (2017, December 4). The problem economy. Information, with muzak. The Baffler, 37. Communication & Society, 21(10), Retrieved from 1472-1492. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the- https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X. problem-with-muzak-pelly 2017.1339726 Riley, J. (2017). Understanding metadata: Marshall, L. (2015, October 29). Let’s keep What is metadata, and what is it music special. F-- Spotify: On- for? Retrieved from demand streaming and the https://groups.niso.org/apps/grou controversy over artist royalties. p_public/download.php/17446/Un Creative Industries Journal, 8(2), derstanding%20Metadata.pdf 177-189. Wang, S. (2017). The cloud, online piracy, and global copyright governance.

14 Streaming Services and the Music Industry International Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(3), 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779 16628239

Willson, M. (2017). Algorithms (and the) everyday. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X. 2016.1200645

Streaming Services and the Music Industry 15