4 ms·

I can't help but think that there's no difference between good streams and bad streams. The system should automatically track and handle abuse so that it's not

by dave2000 11y ago

I can't help but think that there's no difference between good streams and bad streams. The system should automatically track and handle abuse so that it's not possible; as soon as you say things like the purpose of this or that tracklisting is fraudulent whereas another selection isn't and you've sort of lost me. I also can't help that this whole model - of artists getting fuck all money from their music being streamed - is going to end up where it belongs, in the toilet, eventually and the internet will be used to allow the creators to profit by selling their stuff directly to the consumers without all the suits, parasites and hangers-on taking their cut.

Litost 11y ago
Surely if all the bad streams are coming from the same small number of accounts, or maybe many accounts that don't pay much/any subscription, this problem is simply neutralised by rejigging the payout formula? Assuming this is still the case: http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula-pay-artists/ http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula... then by calculating revenue more fairly as per the formula in the above link the problem goes away. e.g. Instead of calculating the amount an artist gets as total revenue * (their plays / total plays) it was individual account revenue * (their plays / total plays) summed over all accounts. This would then penalise the gym/bar or bot accounts, that either aren't paying any money or are generating huge numbers of plays. Though, cynically you could probably say there's a reason the formula has been done that way so it would be unlikely to change???