5 ms·
I have music on Spotify that I will be removing as well because of their decision not to pay out small artist streams under a certain amount. I pay a distribut
by thejarren 3y ago
I have music on Spotify that I will be removing as well because of their decision not to pay out small artist streams under a certain amount.
I pay a distributor (distrokid) to send out music, and do not have a direct agreement with Spotify. As far as I'm concerned, monetizing my music without my consent is theft.
Their argument is that the stream amount is so low it ends up not being worth the transaction. On a moral level, I'd argue that it's their responsibility to pay out the money generated even if it costs them money to do so for a small number of streams.
This is estimated to generate $40m annually for them (which they've said they will be distributing to other artists instead), which isn't deeply significant, but this is money that is only generated because of small content creators that have uploaded their content to their distributor (which they pay for) which then distributes to spotify.
If I were to upload directly to Spotify for free, I'd consider the terms different, because I'd expect distribution as the exchange in the relationship. But in this case I pay a distributor, who then sends to spotify, who then decides to offer my content for free and pocket the money. Not acceptable for me.
(note: I consider this relevant to the original article because it is mentioned, as well as because it is one of the variables involved in music purchasing/accessing)
edit: corrected the $40m statement to show where money was going.
- DeIlliad 3y agoSounds like your beef should be with Distrokid not Spotify.
- 1_1xdev1 3y agodistrokid charges a flat fee to put your stuff on the distributors. they're holding up their end spotify is distributing without paying the artists
- thejarren 3y agoCorrect. Distrokid isn't the problem here, they've not altered any terms.
- unnamed76ri 3y agoI’d only argue that Distrokid and other distributors are part of the problem though. They should be advocating vigorously for their clients and I haven’t seen any of them put out any kind of statement about this.
- thejarren 3y agoUnfortunately, this is actually a problem because of the legacy format of distribution for music. In order to add contact to classic music sales platforms like iTunes, you needed to go through a music distribution platform. CDBaby is a good example of an older 2010s company that offered similar services. When streaming became an option, music distribution platforms that appeal to a lower barrier of entry became more popular. If the industry were refreshed today, it would make more sense to directly upload content directly to the streaming platform, like Apple Music or Spotify, just like we do with social networks. Unfortunately, this put Spotify in a weird position because while they are a distributor, they are a secondary distributor. Unlike YouTube, or other platforms that directly host the content. (yes, I know they're hosting the audio files, but they are still secondary, because distro kid is primary). Again, I pay for distro kid, everyone who uploads music to platforms, pays their distributor. So unfortunately, it's more complex than monetization and ownership rates around content on YouTube or something like that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- oefrha 3y agoFor those of us who don't know about the threshold and might think it's something outrageous -- it's 1000 streams, which translates to ~$3.
- unnamed76ri 3y ago1000 stream per year per song. 2/3 of all music will be demonetized. There’s very successful artists with lots of songs in their back catalogs that don’t hit that threshold. And pointing how low the royalties are is not a valid argument for not paying artists anything!
- thejarren 3y agoYou're right, it's not outrageous, but I'd argue theft at any size is still wrong. I think it's likely they kept this number very low specifically to keep people arguing about whether or not the amount was important, versus if it was OK to be doing in the first place.
- oefrha 3y agoIt’s basically a <= $3 publishing fee that’s refunded if minimum success is achieved. Professionally producing a track typically costs thousands (I have musician friends).
- thejarren 3y ago(I am a musician) I think you’re missing the point. I already pay a publishing fee to my distributor.
- oefrha 3y agoI honestly fail to see why it’s wrong for Spotify to adjust their commission structure to slightly favor more successful artists just because you have paid a third-party multi-channel distributor. Ask your distributor to renegotiate (over $3)?
- ducereiudicem 3y agoA small correction, from the article mentioned in the post, the $40m is not going to Spotify, it is going to the other artists with more than 1000 streams annually.
- unnamed76ri 3y agocorrection to your correction…that $40 million will mostly end up in the hands of the record labels that have pushed this change.
- thejarren 3y agoUpdated my comment, thanks
- libraryatnight 3y agoI'm sure they'll miss you given you weren't even breaking their pitifully low stream threshold for payout. If you don't like the platform's terms, don't choose them as a place you want DistroKid to put your music. This comment is so entitled and pathetic.
- unnamed76ri 3y agoPitifully low stream threshold? They are about to demonetize 2/3 of all tracks on their platform.
- averageRoyalty 3y ago> If you don't like the platform's terms, don't choose them as a place you want DistroKid to put your music. That's precisely what he's going to do. Did you read the comment? > This comment is so entitled and pathetic. Ironic.