3 ms·

For context: http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-contract http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify...

• 6stringmerc 11y ago
  An excellent point of reference for sure. I've reviewed that in the past and I'm pretty comfortable thinking the consensus by musicians was "Wow, Sony really throws its weight around and gets everything it can for itself and only bothers with artists when it actually has to pay them legally" which, all kidding aside, is kind of what a lot of people do (or should) expect of recording industry practices. As in tenths of tenths of a cent: >Some artists have clauses in their contracts to get a larger share of the streaming revenue, and some artists are still operating under CD-era contracts that only give them 15–20 percent of their streaming revenues. I don't think it's right to lift the entirety of the comment from over at the Billboard site, but one person has already noted the Copyright when the files were on Spotify were attributed to what appears to be Lowery's label at the time. It's an interesting bit of investigation that I'm sure the Spotify team would pursue. I do get the feeling that Lowery doesn't have much of a "willful infringement" case when Spotify is, by outward appearances, setting aside proper monies to pay out when they get the right information. If that turns out to make Lowery's label look bad for agreeing to allow streaming and agreeing to the compensation being offered by Spotify (against his wishes?), I won't be surprised really.