4 ms·

If you are implying they "solved the problem of having to pay artists", that isn't true as Spotify payed artists over $23 billion as of 2020. https://loudandcl

If you are implying they "solved the problem of having to pay artists", that isn't true as Spotify payed artists over $23 billion as of 2020. https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/ https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/ I think they solved the problem of paying artists quite well, 70% of their revenue goes to the copyright holders (if those aren't the artists, that is a different problem Spotify can't really address). It's hard to see a record store or different streaming service do better than that ratio.

Marazan 5y ago
How much of that went to artists and how much went to the record labels? Spotify 'negotiated' a deal with the record labels that maximised how much money that went to the labels and minimised the money that went to song writers and artists.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  “ 70% of their revenue goes to the copyright holders (if those aren't the artists, that is a different problem Spotify can't really address)”
  - Marazan 5y ago
    Absolute lols. It is a problem they can address. Their deal with the labels sends the money to the labels rather than the artists as a stream is counted like pressing a record rather than a radio play. If a stream was considered a radio play the far, far more money would go to the artists.
    - jeroenhd 5y ago
      > If a stream was considered a radio play the far, far more money would go to the artists. Doesn't that still imply that the problem is really just the labels negotiating contracts that are exceedingly in their favor? Artists are getting screwed over because they signed away their distribution rights but there's not a lot Spotify can do about that. Spotify doesn't know where the money goes when they send it to the only place that can legally sell the rights to the content, and it probably shouldn't. Artists across the board need to stand up for themselves and make better deals. More and more big names are standing up against the industry and causing a ruckus, so we may see a revolution in that space in a few short years. Until then, the music labels will continue to profit from their artists as they always have.
      - Marazan 5y ago
        Spotify absolutely knew what they where doing when they "negotiated" the deal. They knew they would be funelling money to the labels over the artists by adopting the ludicrous notion that they were making the equivalent of a mechanical reproduction over the equivalent of a radio play when a user streamed a song. The major labels are big share holders in Spotify. It was a complete stitch up of the artists. Spotify were not a neutral party.
        elzbardico 5y ago
        The artist sold their distribution rights to the labels. What do you think could be done differently from Spotify side that was still legal?
        thenthenthen 5y ago
        Fun side note, spotify (from sweden) started of with a collection of pirated (scene) releases, prolly from thepiratebay(sweden): https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files-some-from-pirate-bay-170509/ https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
        Marazan 5y ago
        They could have said streaming a song was equivalent to a Radio play and not pressing a vinyl record. Boom, instantly performers and writers get more money and the labels less.
        topranks 5y ago
        It’s moronic to keep asserting that Spotify had all the power here, or made the decision on how the labels should distribute revenues.
        Marazan 5y ago
        Some other streaming services (e.g. Pandora) pay out on streams as if they are radio plays.
- topranks 5y ago
  You got any evidence of that? The labels own the rights. Yes they fleece artists, no it’s not new nor something anyone who wants to deal with them can directly influence.
  - Marazan 5y ago
    Look at the hashtag #brokenrecord by Tom Gray on Twitter. Look at the the evidence nce goven to thr British Parliament on this topic.
missedthecue 5y ago
I don't think it's Spotify that is paying them less, it's consumers. With Spotify, I can listen to hundreds of new songs every month for $10. That would cost a fortune with CDs or buying digital downloads.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Most people bought very few records in the past. FM rádio and cassetes where extremely popular because of that. I think that there is far more today between Spotify and Apple Music than there was between all labels during the CD era
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  With Spotify, the music industry is collectively able to extract $120/year from you for your at-home music listening experience. Would they be able to extract more with buying CDs or digital downloads? Or would you spend a similar or smaller amount, and simply consume less?
  - ix101 5y ago
    Zoom out a bit and take a group of friends 20 years ago vs now. A CD would commonly be shared/ripped, unlikely that everyone in the group buys the same record. Nowadays I wouldn't be surprised if sharing music is much less common since the monthly fee is quite low and good value.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
      I think now they can extract $120 in subscription fees, back then they might have been able to extract $120 in each person buying 4 CD's a year for $30. My gut feeling (that might be completely wrong) is that the total value extracted probably stays roughly the same or goes up with an increase in disposable income.

Marazan 5y ago

How much of that went to artists and how much went to the record labels? Spotify 'negotiated' a deal with the record labels that maximised how much money that went to the labels and minimised the money that went to song writers and artists.

shukantpal 5y ago
“ 70% of their revenue goes to the copyright holders (if those aren't the artists, that is a different problem Spotify can't really address)”
- Marazan 5y ago
  Absolute lols. It is a problem they can address. Their deal with the labels sends the money to the labels rather than the artists as a stream is counted like pressing a record rather than a radio play. If a stream was considered a radio play the far, far more money would go to the artists.
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    > If a stream was considered a radio play the far, far more money would go to the artists. Doesn't that still imply that the problem is really just the labels negotiating contracts that are exceedingly in their favor? Artists are getting screwed over because they signed away their distribution rights but there's not a lot Spotify can do about that. Spotify doesn't know where the money goes when they send it to the only place that can legally sell the rights to the content, and it probably shouldn't. Artists across the board need to stand up for themselves and make better deals. More and more big names are standing up against the industry and causing a ruckus, so we may see a revolution in that space in a few short years. Until then, the music labels will continue to profit from their artists as they always have.
    - Marazan 5y ago
      Spotify absolutely knew what they where doing when they "negotiated" the deal. They knew they would be funelling money to the labels over the artists by adopting the ludicrous notion that they were making the equivalent of a mechanical reproduction over the equivalent of a radio play when a user streamed a song. The major labels are big share holders in Spotify. It was a complete stitch up of the artists. Spotify were not a neutral party.
      - elzbardico 5y ago
        The artist sold their distribution rights to the labels. What do you think could be done differently from Spotify side that was still legal?
        thenthenthen 5y ago
        Fun side note, spotify (from sweden) started of with a collection of pirated (scene) releases, prolly from thepiratebay(sweden): https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files-some-from-pirate-bay-170509/ https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
        Marazan 5y ago
        They could have said streaming a song was equivalent to a Radio play and not pressing a vinyl record. Boom, instantly performers and writers get more money and the labels less.
        topranks 5y ago
        It’s moronic to keep asserting that Spotify had all the power here, or made the decision on how the labels should distribute revenues.
        Marazan 5y ago
        Some other streaming services (e.g. Pandora) pay out on streams as if they are radio plays.
topranks 5y ago
You got any evidence of that? The labels own the rights. Yes they fleece artists, no it’s not new nor something anyone who wants to deal with them can directly influence.
- Marazan 5y ago
  Look at the hashtag #brokenrecord by Tom Gray on Twitter. Look at the the evidence nce goven to thr British Parliament on this topic.

missedthecue 5y ago

I don't think it's Spotify that is paying them less, it's consumers. With Spotify, I can listen to hundreds of new songs every month for $10. That would cost a fortune with CDs or buying digital downloads.

elzbardico 5y ago
Most people bought very few records in the past. FM rádio and cassetes where extremely popular because of that. I think that there is far more today between Spotify and Apple Music than there was between all labels during the CD era
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
With Spotify, the music industry is collectively able to extract $120/year from you for your at-home music listening experience. Would they be able to extract more with buying CDs or digital downloads? Or would you spend a similar or smaller amount, and simply consume less?
- ix101 5y ago
  Zoom out a bit and take a group of friends 20 years ago vs now. A CD would commonly be shared/ripped, unlikely that everyone in the group buys the same record. Nowadays I wouldn't be surprised if sharing music is much less common since the monthly fee is quite low and good value.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    I think now they can extract $120 in subscription fees, back then they might have been able to extract $120 in each person buying 4 CD's a year for $30. My gut feeling (that might be completely wrong) is that the total value extracted probably stays roughly the same or goes up with an increase in disposable income.