4 ms·

And yet the author uses figures to also generate a false dichotomy. Just because a gap in income might be wider does not mean everyone is worse off, it is not a

by Guthur 4y ago

And yet the author uses figures to also generate a false dichotomy. Just because a gap in income might be wider does not mean everyone is worse off, it is not a zero sum game. There is now far more music variety available than ever before, and I'm sure it's more and more difficult to stand out. What has probably been lost is some word of mouth for music, the algorithms have taken much of that over for better or worse.

throw0101a 4y ago
> And yet the author uses figures to also generate a false dichotomy. Just because a gap in income might be wider does not mean everyone is worse off, it is not a zero sum game. It is, in fact, zero sum. Spotify puts the money for music streaming into a pot and payouts out proportionally to how much time a particular artists is listened to. Given there (a) a finite amount of money in the pot, and (b) a finite amount of time that people can listen to Spotify (per person, and cumulatively), it stands to reasons there's only so much 'pie' that can be sliced. Listening more to one artist means listening less to another, thus one artist gets paid more than another Add to this that Spotify is creating/contracting music itself, such that is is both distributor and "artist", thus paying money out of the pot to itself.[1] Further Spotify controls the recommendation system, so it can send people to its own music, thus increasing the money it pays itself. [1] https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/spotify-denies-creating-fake-artists-although-multiple-sources-claim-the-practice-is-real-1202492307/ https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/spotify-denies-creating-fa... The author of the linked HN article, Damon Krukowski, recently did an interesting interview on Bloomberg's Odd Lots about streaming music services and basically how they screw over small time musicians: > Earlier this year, there was a growing movement among some musicians (lead by Neil Young) to remove music from Spotify as a protest against Joe Rogan. But frustration at the streaming music giant goes back a lot further than that. And it has to do with how royalties are paid, and the lack of transparency about how music gets discovered on the service. On this episode of Odd Lots, Tracy Alloway and Joe Weisenthal speak with Damon Krukowsky, the former drummer of the indie rock band Galaxie 500, and one half of the duo Damon and Naomi. He gives us his perception of industry economics, and explains his frustration as an independent musician with how the service works. * https://play.acast.com/s/oddlots/ee1d1ad6-b109-11ec-b00b-0f6c58550a30 https://play.acast.com/s/oddlots/ee1d1ad6-b109-11ec-b00b-0f6... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_Krukowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_Krukowski
- mechE321 4y ago
  There is a finite but variable amount of money in the pot. It is not a zero sum game.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > a finite amount of time that people can listen to Spotify (per person, and cumulatively) The amount of time people can spend listening is finite. But the amount of time that people do spend listening is decidedly elastic.
- Guthur 4y ago
  I don't use Spotify at all so not sure your point. I've listen to google play, amazon music, random guy on YouTube, random busker on the street. I hazard that more people are making money from music than ever before, maybe not mainstream but it's there.

by Guthur 4y ago

throw0101a 4y ago

> And yet the author uses figures to also generate a false dichotomy. Just because a gap in income might be wider does not mean everyone is worse off, it is not a zero sum game. It is, in fact, zero sum. Spotify puts the money for music streaming into a pot and payouts out proportionally to how much time a particular artists is listened to. Given there (a) a finite amount of money in the pot, and (b) a finite amount of time that people can listen to Spotify (per person, and cumulatively), it stands to reasons there's only so much 'pie' that can be sliced. Listening more to one artist means listening less to another, thus one artist gets paid more than another Add to this that Spotify is creating/contracting music itself, such that is is both distributor and "artist", thus paying money out of the pot to itself.[1] Further Spotify controls the recommendation system, so it can send people to its own music, thus increasing the money it pays itself. [1] https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/spotify-denies-creating-fake-artists-although-multiple-sources-claim-the-practice-is-real-1202492307/ https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/spotify-denies-creating-fa... The author of the linked HN article, Damon Krukowski, recently did an interesting interview on Bloomberg's Odd Lots about streaming music services and basically how they screw over small time musicians: > Earlier this year, there was a growing movement among some musicians (lead by Neil Young) to remove music from Spotify as a protest against Joe Rogan. But frustration at the streaming music giant goes back a lot further than that. And it has to do with how royalties are paid, and the lack of transparency about how music gets discovered on the service. On this episode of Odd Lots, Tracy Alloway and Joe Weisenthal speak with Damon Krukowsky, the former drummer of the indie rock band Galaxie 500, and one half of the duo Damon and Naomi. He gives us his perception of industry economics, and explains his frustration as an independent musician with how the service works. * https://play.acast.com/s/oddlots/ee1d1ad6-b109-11ec-b00b-0f6c58550a30 https://play.acast.com/s/oddlots/ee1d1ad6-b109-11ec-b00b-0f6... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_Krukowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_Krukowski

mechE321 4y ago
There is a finite but variable amount of money in the pot. It is not a zero sum game.
robonerd 4y ago
> a finite amount of time that people can listen to Spotify (per person, and cumulatively) The amount of time people can spend listening is finite. But the amount of time that people do spend listening is decidedly elastic.
Guthur 4y ago
I don't use Spotify at all so not sure your point. I've listen to google play, amazon music, random guy on YouTube, random busker on the street. I hazard that more people are making money from music than ever before, maybe not mainstream but it's there.