3 ms·

If everybody did the same amount of listening the two schemes would be the same. Since they don't, your proposed scheme gives an outsize vote to people who lis

If everybody did the same amount of listening the two schemes would be the same. Since they don't, your proposed scheme gives an outsize vote to people who listen less. The current scheme gives a bigger vote to those who listen more. Spend more time than average listening and your preferred bands will get more money from the royalty pool than you put in.

elbasti 4y ago
That math is incorrect. Imagine a simplified world with 100 listeners. They are all average listeners and listen to 10 songs per day, for a total of 1000 plays per day. 99 are pop fans and listen entirely to top 20. 1 is an outlier and listens entirely to jazz. Royalty payments are $10/mo per user. ie every month there's $1,000 to be split between artists. Under Spotify's current scheme, top 20 artists receive ($1,000 * (999/1000)) = $999 dollars. Jazz artists get $1. Under my proposed scheme, top 20 artists would receive 99*10 = $990, while jazz artists would receive $10. In other words, multiplying the income of "smaller" artists by 10x. Artists shouldn't get money from people that don't listen to them.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > Under Spotify's current scheme, top 20 artists receive ($1,000 * (999/1000)) = $999 dollars. Jazz artists get $1. There are 1000 plays per day (total) and 990 of those are pop—not 999. Pop artists receive ($1,000 * (990/1000)) = $990 dollars. Jazz artists get ($1,000 * (10/1000)) = $10. Which is the same as your proposed scheme, because everyone listens to the same amount of music. If the jazz fan listened to five songs per day, all else being equal, then the current scheme would allocate ($1,000 * (5/995)) = $5.025 to jazz and ($1,000 * (990/995)) = $994.975 to pop. Which is clearly a bit unfair since the service is being paid $10 for the jazz and $990 for the pop. However, if the jazz fan listened to 20 songs per day then under the current scheme jazz would get ($1,000 * (20/1010)) = $19.80 and pop would get ($1,000 * (990/1010)) = $980.20. Which is also a bit unfair, but in the other direction. The current scheme isn't necessarily biased against small artists, but rather against subscribers who don't listen to much music, and the artists they prefer.
- 988747 4y ago
  >> top 20 artists receive ($1,000 * (999/1000)) = $999 dollars This is where your math seems wrong, how come there are 999 plays of pop songs from 99 fans? should be 990, right? However, if the pop fans listen to 10 songs per day, and jazz fan only listens to 1 or 2, then yes, some of jazz fan's money would go to pop artits.

elbasti 4y ago

That math is incorrect. Imagine a simplified world with 100 listeners. They are all average listeners and listen to 10 songs per day, for a total of 1000 plays per day. 99 are pop fans and listen entirely to top 20. 1 is an outlier and listens entirely to jazz. Royalty payments are $10/mo per user. ie every month there's $1,000 to be split between artists. Under Spotify's current scheme, top 20 artists receive ($1,000 * (999/1000)) = $999 dollars. Jazz artists get $1. Under my proposed scheme, top 20 artists would receive 99*10 = $990, while jazz artists would receive $10. In other words, multiplying the income of "smaller" artists by 10x. Artists shouldn't get money from people that don't listen to them.

nybble41 4y ago
> Under Spotify's current scheme, top 20 artists receive ($1,000 * (999/1000)) = $999 dollars. Jazz artists get $1. There are 1000 plays per day (total) and 990 of those are pop—not 999. Pop artists receive ($1,000 * (990/1000)) = $990 dollars. Jazz artists get ($1,000 * (10/1000)) = $10. Which is the same as your proposed scheme, because everyone listens to the same amount of music. If the jazz fan listened to five songs per day, all else being equal, then the current scheme would allocate ($1,000 * (5/995)) = $5.025 to jazz and ($1,000 * (990/995)) = $994.975 to pop. Which is clearly a bit unfair since the service is being paid $10 for the jazz and $990 for the pop. However, if the jazz fan listened to 20 songs per day then under the current scheme jazz would get ($1,000 * (20/1010)) = $19.80 and pop would get ($1,000 * (990/1010)) = $980.20. Which is also a bit unfair, but in the other direction. The current scheme isn't necessarily biased against small artists, but rather against subscribers who don't listen to much music, and the artists they prefer.
988747 4y ago
>> top 20 artists receive ($1,000 * (999/1000)) = $999 dollars This is where your math seems wrong, how come there are 999 plays of pop songs from 99 fans? should be 990, right? However, if the pop fans listen to 10 songs per day, and jazz fan only listens to 1 or 2, then yes, some of jazz fan's money would go to pop artits.