That sensational graph gets picked up and parroted back by countless other outlets and inevitably digested hook, line, & sinker by Joe Blow music customer. It's awfully disingenuous, ultimately deceptive, and well...chaps my ass as an advocate for both artists and streaming providers. Does that make sense?
As a card carrying member of the Joe Blow Music Customers Guild it might help me to understand in what capacity you are in where you advocate for both artists and streaming providers? This to me seems almost a conflict of interest, or at least a conflict of terms. How exactly do you "advocate" for both? Is this done at the same time, or do you get hired out at different times to represent one or the other, like an attorney or perhaps a lobbyist? Or perhaps you do all this as a hobby? I would like to understand how you advocate for artists in particular. Is this all inclusive, all artists, or just the ones who hire you to advocate for them?
I know that this angers you, the gross misrepresentation of the facts as you see them, but this whole thread hinges on a LOT of easily skewed statistics, and a somewhat complex bit of mathematical formula where the truth can become more than a little obscured. Yes you did set some of the record straight as to payment to the artists and I appreciate that, but much still is a bit mysterious. And not all artist do as well with streaming either as opposed to selling their music to their fans for instance . Nowhere have I seen where you have acknowledged this. I will give you an example of what I am talking about. Small lesser known artists in the music business wouldn't see much from streaming, but currently are none the less making a go of it in small venues, fairs, festivals, etc. If they were to ask the people who came to watch their show to now please go home and stream their music (a lot), how much income could they expect to get from a few hundred people? a few dollars maybe.. But if they were to instead say they will be selling CD's during intermission and after the show, and considering their cut wouldn't be after Walmart's, what would they as musicians prefer that we as listeners do? CDs sold in this way would net them perhaps up to half the costs based on eliminating the stores cut and even shipping. My point here is that not everyone will be a big winner when cd players are found only in museums.
The complete elimination of purchased music would cut into small venue artists revenue. Why do I say that? Because in a few years when streaming takes over the worlds music and nobody has even a device to play purchased music that no CD's can be sold, and fans can't show support by purchasing their wares. It is the same in effect as somehow removing canvas and brushes from painters. Ridiculous I know, but it is the removal of hard copy we are talking about here.