[evilantnie]

I don't know if it's a fair takeaway to consider the decline in non-streaming music was unaffected by streaming that early on. Napster launched in 1999 as a first iteration of what could be considered a streaming service at the time. This chart doesn't represent that impact at all since it's focused on revenue, but timing wise I think there could be correlation.

[Isamu]

>Napster .. could be considered a streaming service

It was downloads. Anyway the article specifically calls out "streaming platforms" and that's what I take issue with.

The big difference is the newer streaming platforms tend to be subscription-based or otherwise ad-based and share revenue with the music industry.

My point is the decline in music industry revenue is more due to rogue free download sites or user uploads to YouTube, etc. This generated no (direct) revenue to the music industry. Whereas the newer streaming platforms are working with the music industry and are turning back the tide.

[52-6F-62]

I wouldn't be so certain.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/streaming-...

https://nowtoronto.com/music/features/artists-vs-spotify/

That music industry money isn't going to the artists.

https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-...

(Ironically, Napster's streaming service appears to pay the most out of all of them now)

[Isamu]

>That music industry money isn't going to the artists.

No argument there! The artists have always been the last to be paid. It may be getting worse for the artists, but the situation for actual creators has always been bad ... on average.

[52-6F-62]

It’s been bad, but it’s getting worse.

Buddy Holly was revolutionary for the way he negotiated his contracts and set a precedent for better treatment for a time. There a lot more nuance to that history.

[drngdds]

Yeah, this is important. I remember reading plenty of screeds about how awful the music industry and record labels are for artists long before streaming took over.