Spotify doesn't make profit from music streaming, despite having over 400M monthly active users, because it pays two-thirds of all its revenue to the rights holders. - eviltoast
  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    11 months ago

    Spotify picks it’s price point. It’s picked a price point (free) that meams artists can’t get paid. And it’s price point (free) means that artists can’t compete either.

    So yeah fuck spotify, pay artists what they are worth and having servers to download mp3s on isn’t worth taking 1/3rd of the revenue. They should get less not more. Adjust their prices (maybe it shouldn’t be free so artists can fucking pay rent and spotify can pay employees)

    Blaming artists for wanting to pay rent and eat food is some bootlicking bullshit.

    • Phlogiston@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Blaming artists? What are you smoking?

      I was asking if it’s Spotify which is relatively new and, as pointed out in the article MUST get this contract or die, or if the problem might be the big three that hold all the power in this negotiation.

      Speaking of which. Isn’t it the big three that actually pay the artists. So how would Spotify, if they were so inclined, manage that payout? (It’s an interest idea though. I wonder what would happen if they offered a tip-the-artist button).

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        Spotify is not new.

        Spotify already manage their payout. To labels and indies. They screw over both massively.

    • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Unfortunately, my understanding is that at least part of the blame lies with the labels. Most labels have contracts with their artists that mean the artists make very little, if anything, off studio recordings. That means they make very little from vinyl sales, CD sales, Spotify streams, etc. If you wanna actually support an artist, you buy merch and go to live shows. My understanding is that this is how it’s always been and people are barking up the wrong tree. People are bitching about Spotify when they should be bitching about labels taking a massive chunk of their money. They’ve only become aware of how much money they’re missing out on because Spotify supposedly makes so little that they get sticker shock when they get their royalty check, but it’s really not entirely Spotify’s fault.

      That’s not saying Spotify is blameless; but if Spotify’s hands are covered in shit, then the labels’ hands are covered in diarrhea and vomit.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, labels are shits. Spotify pays indie artists shit too though.

        This is not a case of labels being greedy. This is a case of spotify being greedy and making a bad situation worse.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Free is literally why they have the market they have. Completely silly point.

      You can’t assume the price point changes and the market remains the same as well. It’s more complicated than that. We literally have talks of people leaving Netflix every other week from the constant changes being made this year.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, and they don’t deserve a market if they can’t pay artists to make the content. They should not exist if they can’t do that.

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          That just leaves us nowhere to go though. We know artists aren’t paid enough, but if our only answer is the one that clearly takes them out of business, then it’s just sitting on a soapbox while another company comes in and does the same thing.

          Either the solution has to be feasible or someone will eventually show up to ignore it.

          To reemphasize, this is regarding “they have the market because they’re free”, it’s not regarding something else like just paying the artists more, or getting a better deal with labels.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            You can buy music. You can use subscription services that are less shit to artists.

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I do buy music.

              I know most people don’t and won’t though.

              You can’t make a solution that ignores evil and apathetic exists.