3 ms·

This is exactly my problem with how Spotify works. If I pay my $120 for a year and listen exclusively to one obscure artist, that artist will get a tiny,tiny fr

This is exactly my problem with how Spotify works. If I pay my $120 for a year and listen exclusively to one obscure artist, that artist will get a tiny,tiny fraction of the $80 that is payed out. Most of it will go to an artist that I probably can't stand. The explanations I've heard roughly equate to: it's too complicated. Oh really? If only there was a machine that could easily keep track of all that information, we'd be all set.

mfoy_ 11y ago
But wouldn't that obscure artist also get a tiny fraction of the money paid by the larger group of people who only listen to popular artists, so it balances out?
- michael_h 11y ago
  That works when more streams = more money. When users pay for premium, the revenue is capped. Artist payout depends on their 'market share' and it's a zero-sum game. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-in-detail http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-i... Let's say that there are 40 million paying users, all streaming 500 songs a month...and then there's me, who only streams 5 songs a month (I'm busy, and I like throwing money away). So, there's 20,000,000,005 total streams that month, and $400 million in revenue. Spotify takes their cut, which leaves $280 million. My artist's share, according to bc: echo '(5 / 20000000005) * 280000000' | bc -l .06999999998040000000 Seven cents. ADDED: To clarify, seven cents for five plays isn't a bad rate at all. From the user's perspective, though, it can be offputting that I'm attracted to the platform because of a certain set of artists, and then my money goes elsewhere. I understand why they do it. Popular acts attract users, and users mean money. They gotta feed the monkey.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    So if you subscribe to Spotify and then stream an extremely disproportionate amount of one artist in particular you can actually cause more money to flow to that artist than you are paying to Spotify? Sounds like a broken model.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      >Sounds like a broken model. Basically. There was a band that had their fans plan silent tracks while they slept, and it earned them $20k: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes-silent-album-that-earned-indie-band-20000 http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes-sil... Personally I think all the artist would be better off setting up donations via PayPal. "Did you steal our work? Throw us a few dollars."
ohitsdom 11y ago
Yes! Spotify's formula is a slap in the face to artists, and was clearly decided by big labels.
dublinben 11y ago
If you have a music budget of $120, and actually want to support the musicians you listen to, pay them directly. You can increase your music library by a dozen albums a year at that rate, and own them forever.
parfe 11y ago
So go to see that artist performing live where they get a far more substantial chunk of money. Buy some merchandise direct from the band. The antiquated idea is that an artist should be getting money for doing absolutely nothing because they once recorded song months or years ago. If they want to be paid they are perfectly capable of going out and working for it.
- williamcotton 11y ago
  You need to look at it from a different angle. The article starts by reporting on a $90 million dollar settlement and a "sea of lawsuits against both Pandora and Sirius XM". The gist of these lawsuits is that one entity is collecting profits on intellectual property that they have not properly licensed nor made any effort in paying the rights-holders. Copyright holders are winning these lawsuits because they are able to show a judge that someone else is refusing to acknowledge the commercial rights of the copyright holders and thus they are awarded damages. Every time that someone is making money either directly or indirectly through copyrighted material they are consistently found liable for damages. There are common law precedents going back many hundreds of years and plenty of statue law that reflect this interpretation of copyright. One of the roles of copyright systems and regulated public markets for copyright has been to reduce the number of unnecessary lawsuits. Instead of a world where people are using the justice system to properly route payments to authors and publishers, it was decided to introduce a concept of honorarium payments. These lawsuits are not going to go away. Copyright is baked right in to the constitution of the United States and has been a part of Anglo-American government and legal systems for hundreds of years prior. The only way to stop the lawsuits in the United States would be with a constitutional amendment that took away congress' right to establish, regulate and enforce a public copyright monopoly. The current copyright monopoly is pretty far removed from the intentions laid out by the US Constitution, the Copyright Act of 1790 and the Statue of Anne, but the foundations, that authors have a right to a limited monopoly on authored works and thus a right to any of the profits had on putting that property to use, are quite robust from the standpoint of individual rights balance with those of the public good, and most importantly, at creating a functioning commercial marketplace for ideas.
- aikah 11y ago

mfoy_ 11y ago

But wouldn't that obscure artist also get a tiny fraction of the money paid by the larger group of people who only listen to popular artists, so it balances out?

michael_h 11y ago
That works when more streams = more money. When users pay for premium, the revenue is capped. Artist payout depends on their 'market share' and it's a zero-sum game. http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-in-detail http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#royalties-i... Let's say that there are 40 million paying users, all streaming 500 songs a month...and then there's me, who only streams 5 songs a month (I'm busy, and I like throwing money away). So, there's 20,000,000,005 total streams that month, and $400 million in revenue. Spotify takes their cut, which leaves $280 million. My artist's share, according to bc: echo '(5 / 20000000005) * 280000000' | bc -l .06999999998040000000 Seven cents. ADDED: To clarify, seven cents for five plays isn't a bad rate at all. From the user's perspective, though, it can be offputting that I'm attracted to the platform because of a certain set of artists, and then my money goes elsewhere. I understand why they do it. Popular acts attract users, and users mean money. They gotta feed the monkey.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  So if you subscribe to Spotify and then stream an extremely disproportionate amount of one artist in particular you can actually cause more money to flow to that artist than you are paying to Spotify? Sounds like a broken model.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >Sounds like a broken model. Basically. There was a band that had their fans plan silent tracks while they slept, and it earned them $20k: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes-silent-album-that-earned-indie-band-20000 http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes-sil... Personally I think all the artist would be better off setting up donations via PayPal. "Did you steal our work? Throw us a few dollars."

ohitsdom 11y ago

Yes! Spotify's formula is a slap in the face to artists, and was clearly decided by big labels.

dublinben 11y ago

If you have a music budget of $120, and actually want to support the musicians you listen to, pay them directly. You can increase your music library by a dozen albums a year at that rate, and own them forever.

parfe 11y ago

So go to see that artist performing live where they get a far more substantial chunk of money. Buy some merchandise direct from the band. The antiquated idea is that an artist should be getting money for doing absolutely nothing because they once recorded song months or years ago. If they want to be paid they are perfectly capable of going out and working for it.

williamcotton 11y ago
You need to look at it from a different angle. The article starts by reporting on a $90 million dollar settlement and a "sea of lawsuits against both Pandora and Sirius XM". The gist of these lawsuits is that one entity is collecting profits on intellectual property that they have not properly licensed nor made any effort in paying the rights-holders. Copyright holders are winning these lawsuits because they are able to show a judge that someone else is refusing to acknowledge the commercial rights of the copyright holders and thus they are awarded damages. Every time that someone is making money either directly or indirectly through copyrighted material they are consistently found liable for damages. There are common law precedents going back many hundreds of years and plenty of statue law that reflect this interpretation of copyright. One of the roles of copyright systems and regulated public markets for copyright has been to reduce the number of unnecessary lawsuits. Instead of a world where people are using the justice system to properly route payments to authors and publishers, it was decided to introduce a concept of honorarium payments. These lawsuits are not going to go away. Copyright is baked right in to the constitution of the United States and has been a part of Anglo-American government and legal systems for hundreds of years prior. The only way to stop the lawsuits in the United States would be with a constitutional amendment that took away congress' right to establish, regulate and enforce a public copyright monopoly. The current copyright monopoly is pretty far removed from the intentions laid out by the US Constitution, the Copyright Act of 1790 and the Statue of Anne, but the foundations, that authors have a right to a limited monopoly on authored works and thus a right to any of the profits had on putting that property to use, are quite robust from the standpoint of individual rights balance with those of the public good, and most importantly, at creating a functioning commercial marketplace for ideas.
aikah 11y ago