4 ms·
Sorry but it seems like you just aren't getting many streams . But let's say I give you $5/month for a year. Do you want it?
by johntiger1 7y ago
Sorry but it seems like you just aren't getting many streams . But let's say I give you $5/month for a year. Do you want it?
- mikorym 7y ago> just aren't getting many streams Exactly, yes. But many fans (of other artists; when referring to myself we'll have sampling bias) actually have no idea that their $5 doesn't go directly to the songs they listen to in a month. > let's say I would happily accept if we can cut out transaction costs. My idea of a "good" streaming platform for music is one with only a flat rate (say $5), no free option, and no pooling. That means that if I listen to Scatman once in the month and it is the only song I listened to, then John Larkin's estate should get exactly $5, min some small platform fee. (Sorry for picking a dead artist; royalties after death is complicated. Personally I guess I would limit mine to about 10 years, but then again I don't receive any royalties.)
- mikorym 7y agoSorry, just another clarification. I am not against pirated music. But I am just explaining a possible improvement over Spotify / Apple music. Also, this "improvement" may actually discribe a niche kind of "fandomify" that maybe will always be small. But if you implement the above it puts the onus on the customer to support their artists. It also disincentivises account sharing for hard core fans that want to give money to their favourite artists. You can easily check that your money goes where you want it to from a statement at the end of the month... If you see that Justin Bieber's Baby got $0.99 then of course it's plausible because your "friend" logged in and listened to the song 99 times out of your 500 listens that month.