Remember when the internet was supposed to improve things re: media and instead we’re in this weird siloed locked-off streaming media bizarro world

Basically the only good platform is Bandcamp

For real like Bandcamp is exactly the kind of service we *hoped* the internet would give us: “hey, people make things, they set their own price inc. free, we provide the storefront, you buy it and the money goes to the creator, you get it in a DRM-free format and can play it however you want, we just make money to keep going & improving and aren’t a VC-funded nightmare company of rampant reckless growth that will do something nightmarish and implode.”

We need more media platforms like that.

@kara if some albums weren't asking for like $10+ (trust me that's quite a lot of money to ask me for) and if lots of rather mainstream artists weren't missing I would absolutely just use Bandcamp tbh

@espectalll @kara If a band asks $10+ on a platform where they can set their own price, we can actually learn four things:

1. other places are too cheap.
2. we, the consumers, are used to that too-low-price.
3. for some, this is the price needed to survive.
4. some people are willing to pay that price.

I'm not anti-capitalist, but the capitalism we see is often a race-to-the-bottom, where prices of any goods (including music) are ever pushed downwards by a few large monoplist' platforms.

@berkes @espectalll @kara how much they "need to survive" also depends on how many people actually pay for it..

It's actually tricky i think, more privileged people can sink more resources into getting popular enough. Don't think it is necessarily the role of these services to compensate for that, but something has to exist for it? (this is a big topic, overlapping with education, i suppose, probably some things already exist)

@jasper IMO in case of bandcamp-vs-platform monopolies, I think Copyright is the problem here.

While I believe a pure market-function is very nice in theory, e.g. for someone making generic chairs, it quickly breaks down in practice. Im this case with things that are copyrighted.

Music, is monopolized through copyright. Which allows the holders to i) set any price they want and ii) licence the selling (exclusively) to platforms, causing more monopolies. 1/2

@jasper 2/2

As such, producers/record corps can spend marketing costs more effectively. If you spend 1Million on pushing "ed sheeran", knowing it will make you 1 million and one dollar, you've still made money.

With "a generic chair" that is much more complex and harder: anyone can sell a better/cheaper version. resellers can set their own price etc. With copyrighted materials, the owner (record corp/artist) can control all this.

Follow

@berkes personally ideally i think people should pay for it without paywall or such. People consider this "donation" but it's not really charity, it's just that the usual leverage is not used.

But i find it hard to be harsh about people possibly using paywalls given many music makers' precariousness.

Wasn't really intending to comment on bandcamp vs.. others. Many people wouldn't be willing to give that much money w/o copyright leverage when they show cribs etc.

@berkes but enough of them will still be willing to give money for the pattern to persist i think. It's not entirely only marketing money, but also that this whole marketing apparatus exists, and that's not only the obvious advertising...

@jasper Not mentioned, but in case of "The Platforms", that marketing budget goes to the platforms mostly.

i.e. spotify gets a large share of the budget to promote on spotify. Worse even with Youtube/Google Play where google gets nearly all budget.

They are the winners. The loosers are the artists and the people buying their music.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon.nl

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!