5 ms·
It's not bypassing anything. It gets the playlist data from Spotify, and streams the song from YouTube, arguably still providing income for the musicians.
by bayindirh 3y ago
It's not bypassing anything. It gets the playlist data from Spotify, and streams the song from YouTube, arguably still providing income for the musicians.
- gnfargbl 3y agoYouTube pays less per stream to the rights holders than Spotify, however.
- bayindirh 3y agoI don't know the numbers. What I was trying to point out that there's no nefariousness going on.
- jsnell 3y agoNo, you weren't just pointing that out. You claimed that it is "arguably still providing income for the musicians". How is it arguably providing income for tyhe artists given the app is obviously not playing ads?
- bayindirh 3y agoFirst of all, the tool’s description doesn’t say anything about ads. Second, I’m neither the developer, nor user of the app. Third, I didn’t say definitely, but arguably. I might be wrong, but I’m not endorsing anything here. Lastly, I’m an ex-musician, too and prefer to pay for premium and buy proper albums when I can. So pointing fingers doesn’t do any favor to anyone. Have a nice day.
- unnamed76ri 3y agoI don’t know where you get your info but Spotify just effectively demonetized the majority of music on their platform. They’ve decided they have the right to just stop paying small time artists so they can funnel more money upwards to the record labels.
- hutzlibu 3y agoSources please?
- erinnh 3y agohttps://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/11/spotify-stream-minimum-impact/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/11/spotify-stream-m...
- gallexme 3y ago1000 annual listens? That's likely less than 1$/mo revenue the artists get no? Even small time musicians I know have about 1000 listens a month Seems to me just like yt monetization partner program which required like 50€ revenue for payout and 1000 subs+approval for even enabling monetization (some time ago unsure if it's still limited for new accounts ) Unless I'm missing something it mainly just trims out mass produced content
- unnamed76ri 3y agoIt is similar but different to what YouTube did (which also sucked). How many musicians do you know of that only ever released one song? This isn’t about the streaming revenue for one song (though that is how Spotify tries to frame it). There are 1000s of artist who might have even been fairly successful at one point who have dozens or more songs in their back catalog that don’t have over 1000 streams per year. Add up the lost revenue from all of those together and it isn’t about just a couple bucks anymore. Further, even approaching the argument from how much it means per song is granting Spotify a pass that this is in any way fair to artists. Why should the top 1% of artists take even more money while the struggling musician now gets nothing?
- hutzlibu 3y agoAgreed in general. "and it isn’t about just a couple bucks anymore." And I want to add, that for quite some musicians, a couple of bucks can make the difference between being able to (partly) pay the rent, or not. And those are usually the ones making interesting music. So I rather would like the trend reversed, less for the superstars, more for the unkown artists. But this is unlikely to change with these services.
- bitcharmer 3y agoIf it streams from YouTube then it's not really a Spotify client, is it?
- bayindirh 3y agoIt's aptly named SpoTube, to be frank. It describes itself as follows: An open source, cross-platform Spotify client compatible across multiple platforms utilizing Spotify's data API and YouTube (or Piped.video or JioSaavn) as an audio source, eliminating the need for Spotify Premium
- svantana 3y agoA very large fraction of music on youtube is also monetized by ads (for free users).
- IanCal 3y agoSo it shows the ads from YouTube?