> "actually stealing" A lot of people throw those words around in this industry. Here's another case of "actual theft" I worry about. If I'm the only fan of a

> "actually stealing" A lot of people throw those words around in this industry. Here's another case of "actual theft" I worry about. If I'm the only fan of an indie band, and I use my spotify subscription to stream that band a few times a day and nothing else, Spotify's algorithm promptly takes my $10 and uses it to pay more widely popular artists, to attract Taylors to the service. In the loose way you used it, Spotify is "actually stealing" from both me and the indie band I love. That seems at least as accurate as saying that someone simply following the terrible rules Spotify made is stealing. It's like if I put a sign saying "free donuts" in my office, with a donation jar. If no one donates, can I have everyone arrested? Or should I have put up a sign that says "Donuts: $1." I wouldn't be so hard on Spotify if there was no simple way they could adjust their rules to fix the entire situation. But there is. They could just allocate each person's subscription across the songs that subscriber streamed. If there's a pocket of indie music with hardcore fans, that indie music would get fair compensation, as opposed to funding megastars. Spam would have no reason to exist. Hat tip to Litost's link: http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula-pay-artists/ http://markgoldenstein.com/spotify-others-use-unfair-formula...