4 ms·

I think, for me, the core issue is that I want my subscription money going to music, and not to podcasting. I think the only way Spotify and others get through

I think, for me, the core issue is that I want my subscription money going to music, and not to podcasting. I think the only way Spotify and others get through this is to direct your subscription dues to whatever you listen to. That way you can "vote with your ears" and if they put something you don't like on the platform (from your perspective) on the platform, you just don't listen to it, and your money isn't going to it. Hopefully they get there. Until then, I've moved to another all-music platform to get halfway there.

saurik 5y ago
Isn't this how it already works? I thought people on Spotify were paid (very little) "per stream".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  This is not how it works. If you subscribe and listen to Bad Apple!! once per month, the rightsholders of that song will not be paid 70% of your subscription cost because of you, or even 1%.
jarjoura 5y ago
Isn't that exactly how it works? You listen to something and the artist gets a share of the profits. Same as YouTube. Personally, I still don't think that should make these platforms immune from content scrutiny. There's implicit granting of authenticity when a global leader like Spotify or YouTube hosts content and puts their brand behind it, so I think it's fair they get to decide what is acceptable or not. ESPECIALLY when something is controversial, better to just get it off the platform and take a position that they do not want their brand attached to it. Facebook and Twitter went all in on free speech for years, beyond any reasonable doubt and it still burnt them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- outside1234 5y ago
  In most cases, yes. But someone is paying for the guaranteed $100M too, and they aren't going to get there with streams at the rate they are paying, so it's probably me as a well. I don't want that. I am suggesting that they should also switch to a pure pay for stream model so I don't have to pay for podcasts (don't want that from Spotify).
spiderice 5y ago
You’re acting as if Spotify increased their prices to pay Joe Rogan. If this really is the core issue for you, why are you ok paying $x/month to listen to your music, but suddenly unhappy about Spotify paying for podcasts, when you still pay $x/month. It isn’t like Spotify reduced the amount they pay music artists per listen.
- outside1234 5y ago
  Are you sure they didn't reduce the amount they pay artists? How do you know that? If they didn't sign this deal, could they pay the artists more?
  - spiderice 5y ago
    Um.. because bit a single artist has said their pay was reduced. Lol. What is this argument?

saurik 5y ago

Isn't this how it already works? I thought people on Spotify were paid (very little) "per stream".

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
anonymoushn 5y ago
This is not how it works. If you subscribe and listen to Bad Apple!! once per month, the rightsholders of that song will not be paid 70% of your subscription cost because of you, or even 1%.

jarjoura 5y ago

Isn't that exactly how it works? You listen to something and the artist gets a share of the profits. Same as YouTube. Personally, I still don't think that should make these platforms immune from content scrutiny. There's implicit granting of authenticity when a global leader like Spotify or YouTube hosts content and puts their brand behind it, so I think it's fair they get to decide what is acceptable or not. ESPECIALLY when something is controversial, better to just get it off the platform and take a position that they do not want their brand attached to it. Facebook and Twitter went all in on free speech for years, beyond any reasonable doubt and it still burnt them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

outside1234 5y ago
In most cases, yes. But someone is paying for the guaranteed $100M too, and they aren't going to get there with streams at the rate they are paying, so it's probably me as a well. I don't want that. I am suggesting that they should also switch to a pure pay for stream model so I don't have to pay for podcasts (don't want that from Spotify).

spiderice 5y ago

You’re acting as if Spotify increased their prices to pay Joe Rogan. If this really is the core issue for you, why are you ok paying $x/month to listen to your music, but suddenly unhappy about Spotify paying for podcasts, when you still pay $x/month. It isn’t like Spotify reduced the amount they pay music artists per listen.

outside1234 5y ago
Are you sure they didn't reduce the amount they pay artists? How do you know that? If they didn't sign this deal, could they pay the artists more?
- spiderice 5y ago
  Um.. because bit a single artist has said their pay was reduced. Lol. What is this argument?