I found this attempt to look at what illegal music sharing has done for non-traditional and classical artists very interesting:
Over the past fourteen years, since the launch of peer-to-peer filesharing service Napster, those rights have been harder and harder to protect, whether you’re Domingo, Dylan or Diddy. The recent news that global recorded music revenues are growing for the first time since Napster’s launch in 1999 must therefore be cause for tentative celebration – even if the growth is only 0.3%.
But the menace of illegal music-sharing still looms large. “Our markets remain rigged by illegal free music,” says Frances Moore, Chief Executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, whose latest findings estimate that a massive 32% of all internet users still regularly access unlicensed music sites.
This turns what’s left of the legal online music space into a vicious turf war where the rules of engagement change constantly and a titan like Apple – which, according to Asymco analyst Horace Dediu, controls around 75% of the $9.3bn digital music space – must watch its back. Witness the launch later this year of iTunes Radio, intended to counter the attack from subscription services like Spotify and Pandora, that now boast tens of millions of users worldwide and whose profits make up more than 10% of overall digital revenues.
But if life in the small, legal digital space is tough for the mainstream record industry and content-distribution companies, it’s even more precarious for those in classical music, whose audience has traditionally exhibited very different buying, listening and collecting habits to those in the pop world.
The problem is, no one is going to pay for music in the future. It will continue to vanish as the years progress, and if classical artists can't survive, then they will simply stop making music.
No one could possibly live off of revenues from Spotify. I don't even know how that would even begin to compensate a classical music ensemble. If you had a popular quartet, how would they even begin to subsidize their future recordings from a Spotify account? It's mind-boggling. You gotta pay for stuff.
Would it be rude to point out that a massive amount of wealth was stolen from artists and concentrated in the hands of an immature manchild who believes himself entitled to fairytale weddings that destroy the environment?