36 ms·

User 1 listens once to a 3 minute song by Ariana Grande. User 2 listens once to a 3 minute song by Billie Eilish. That's all they do for that month. I

User 1 listens once to a 3 minute song by Ariana Grande. User 2 listens once to a 3 minute song by Billie Eilish. That's all they do for that month. I think most reasonable people would say that artists A & B would split the money evenly. I don't think reasonable people would say that. Artists should be able to negotiate how much their stream costs.

infecto 3y ago
Was that in the problem constraint? I don’t really think it belongs. I also don’t think a ton of people would disagree with your statement but it has too many open ended question for these examples. Does the artist own their songs? Does the label have any control on which streaming services are used? If the artist owns all of their songs, they don’t have to stream them on Spotify.
- nicce 3y ago
  Yeah, if someone would be able to negotiate about the price, it assumes that they are desired or popular; the platform cannot afford to not take them. But does it matter? If they really are popular, they will be popular on the platform as well. Let the statistics define the value and compensation, hopefully equally.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Why is it "hopefully equally?" I'm not convinced a system that gives Grande and Eilish both $1 per stream on $2 revenue is inherently better than one that gives Grande $1.50 and Eilish $0.50 from $2 revenue, or better than one that gives Grande $0.10 and Eilish $0.05 from $2 revenue.
the_other 3y ago
> I don't think reasonable people would say that. Why don't you think this? What's unreasonable about the distribution in this example? > Artists should be able to negotiate how much their stream costs. reply How could that possibly work? It would lead to shop/bandcamp style artist-fan pricing, which the casual listening market has been trained out of.
satyrnein 3y ago
This is pretty much the case already; the contracts with Spotify are negotiated. It's just that it's record labels (and not artists) doing the negotiating, since they own the recordings.

infecto 3y ago

Was that in the problem constraint? I don’t really think it belongs. I also don’t think a ton of people would disagree with your statement but it has too many open ended question for these examples. Does the artist own their songs? Does the label have any control on which streaming services are used? If the artist owns all of their songs, they don’t have to stream them on Spotify.

nicce 3y ago
Yeah, if someone would be able to negotiate about the price, it assumes that they are desired or popular; the platform cannot afford to not take them. But does it matter? If they really are popular, they will be popular on the platform as well. Let the statistics define the value and compensation, hopefully equally.
- pc86 3y ago
  Why is it "hopefully equally?" I'm not convinced a system that gives Grande and Eilish both $1 per stream on $2 revenue is inherently better than one that gives Grande $1.50 and Eilish $0.50 from $2 revenue, or better than one that gives Grande $0.10 and Eilish $0.05 from $2 revenue.

the_other 3y ago

> I don't think reasonable people would say that. Why don't you think this? What's unreasonable about the distribution in this example? > Artists should be able to negotiate how much their stream costs. reply How could that possibly work? It would lead to shop/bandcamp style artist-fan pricing, which the casual listening market has been trained out of.

satyrnein 3y ago

This is pretty much the case already; the contracts with Spotify are negotiated. It's just that it's record labels (and not artists) doing the negotiating, since they own the recordings.