5 ms·

I'm not making that argument. I made an argument that you have better options in which the artist is paid more.

viraptor 3y ago
You said "Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this." but that's not the problem this specific software can solve. However the authors of this software can work on adding reporting the plays back to Spotify. (And I believe they should)
- drewdevault 3y ago
  This software is not trying to solve the problem of getting artists paid, and the suggestion that people should listen to Spotify ads and all is not really going to solve that problem, either.
jsnell 3y ago
Taking the music without compensation and pretending that you're totally going to buy some music or merch from some other artist doesn't actually lead to artists being compensated. While in the plan where you buy music and only listen to the music you bought you don't need this app at all.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  I've spent thousands of dollars on Bandcamp over the past several years, attended many live shows, bought merchandise, etc. Suggesting that one is "pretending" to do these things when making this argument is a hell of a strawman. I feel like pretending that you're supporting your favorite artists by listening them on Spotify is a bit more of an appropriate comparison.
  - apwell23 3y ago
    > attended many live shows, bought merchandise, etc. I don't understand what does attending live shows have to do with how you listen to their music. Ppl who do listen on spotify also do that.
    - drewdevault 3y ago
      Live shows are generally the largest source of revenue for musicians.
      - apwell23 3y ago
        So what? You think only ppl listening on bandcamp go to live shows? How is it relevant to the current topic.
        hedora 3y ago
        If the purpose of Spotify is to pay artists, then it's objectively a failure. If you want pay musicians for their music, then you'd be better off buying albums on bandcamp or attending concerts. Paying Spotify is marginally better than just lighting your money on fire. If the purpose of Spotify is to allow you to listen to music with minimal effort and cost, and don't care if the bands get paid then it does a middling job among paid services. It's probably more convenient than piracy, but I don't know what the state of modern music piracy is (I could imagine a gray-area Internet group that does a better job with metadata and recommendation algorithms than the paid sites do, and that links to a popcorn time style torrent thing.)
  - jsnell 3y ago
    I meant the generic "you" of an user of this app. I'm sure you specifically don't actually use this app, and just listen to the music you bought. But the main selling point of this app, i.e. the actual submission, is to get the music for free and no ads. The target market of it is not going to be paying a cent, because the entire reason the app exists and was submitted is to avoid paying much smaller amounts for music than what you're paying.
    - drewdevault 3y ago
      This is perhaps true (but I'm not sure it is), but consider the context of this thread: we're specifically making arguments to an audience of people who care about artists being paid.
    - andrepd 3y ago
      There's also the artist's point of view in this thread, multiple people saying they made many times more money from Bandcamp than steaming services.
      - apwell23 3y ago
        > multiple people saying they made many times more money from Bandcamp than steaming services. While it might be true that they get more money on bandcamp. They get exposure through streaming websites like youtube, spotify that brings ppl to bandcamp.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    You're supporting the artists you listen to more uniformly (via spotify) though. If you and I listen to 1000 artists over the course of a year, and you spend $1000/year on album purchases (let's say $10 each) while I subscribe to spotify, I pay $90 a year while supporting all of the artists I listen to, loosely based on how much I listen to them, while you much more significantly support up to 100 of the artists you listened to. I think what you're doing is better, don't get me wrong, but I can only afford $90 a year anyway. In your case though, you could support all the artists you listen to by paying for a spotify/itunes/whatever subscription and using that as your primary listening service, while also purchasing their music via bandcamp. You probably won't feel the additional subscription price. And I think most people who can afford $1000/year for music are not going to be using YouSpot, so I'm not sure why you're pointing out that people can leech off of spotify and then support the artists directly, when the above person said "please also support the artists" > You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists; Yes, but most people can't afford this. It's good that YouSpot is available for people who can't even afford spotify (no one upthread said otherwise), and many people aren't going to be able to pay bandcamp $1000 per year to support maybe 10-50% of the artists they listen to. So please save your thesis for somewhere it's relevant. For the average person who can maybe comfortably afford $90 per year, a subscription service is a much more viable way to support the musicians they listen to than buying 4-9 albums
    - etaweb 3y ago
      You say that it is better to pay 90$ for 1000$ worth of goods than to pay nothing. This is a false dilemma, there is a third choice that is paying only what you can afford. Paying only 9% of a physical good wouldn't make anyone less of a robber. A lot of people here would rather blame those who steal better than they do, than question the industry that allows artists work to be sold off. Furthermore, I would say that most people using Spotify and alike services do it only for convenience, but certainly not to "support the artists".
      - pcthrowaway 3y ago
        These aren't physical goods, and (my issues with the categorization of piracy as theft aside) given that we're talking about legally listening to music you have access to through a service you pay for, I don't even know how to engage with the suggestion that this is theft (on the part of the consumers anyway). If you have the means and inclination to pay more I strongly urge people to pay more also. There are issues with the intermediaries, but there is no practical way for people who can't afford $1000/yr to support the artists they like legally, while still being able to listen to them. So if your suggestion is that someone who can afford $90/year should only have access to the albums they can afford to purchase through bandcamp because those support the artists more directly, I strongly disagree. This just further creates a wedge between the wealthy and regular working class people. Are you suggesting poor people make do with the few albums they can purchase from bandcamp and then whatever they can listen to on the radio? On youtube? Because I fail to see how those are any less 'theft' than just paying spotify and listening there. edit: I'm actually legitimately confused about what your idea is here and I'd like to understand. It seems like we're both coming at this from an anti-capitalist perspective, but your idea that poor people should have reduced access to the arts doesn't seem to align with any anti-capitalist ideology I'm aware of. Or are you just opposed to the consolidation of the distribution channels which exploit the working class (artists in this case) but somehow haven't drawn the connection that this is a condition of late-stage capitalism? If so, I'd recommend listening to some content by the wonderful Cory Doctorow
- blibble 3y ago
  I spend quite a lot on bandcamp and amazon's mp3 store (couple of hundred bucks a year maybe?) I am very very happy to pay for DRM free music however this getting increasingly difficult as companies don't even seem to want to provide it for sale at all under no circumstances am I going to pay a monthly subscription for a digital product that can be delivered as a one off download
  - hedora 3y ago
    I know people that still buy CDs. I've been meaning to dump my Tidal artist list to a spreadsheet or something, and figure out how to pay a few dozen artists directly this year. One possibility is to buy their albums and copy them to my NAS. Paying for DRM-free downloads seems easier / better, but I'd want to make sure the artists' cut is higher than with streaming. For what it's worth, iTunes is apparently DRM-free these days. I don't want to figure out their terrible GUI, but presumably there's some tool that'll copy the songs out of it and into a filesystem.
    - blibble 3y ago
      I would buy CDs and rip them up until about 5 years ago at which point the stuff I liked vanished > For what it's worth, iTunes is apparently DRM-free these days. I'll try this!

You said "Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this." but that's not the problem this specific software can solve. However the authors of this software can work on adding reporting the plays back to Spotify. (And I believe they should)

drewdevault 3y ago
This software is not trying to solve the problem of getting artists paid, and the suggestion that people should listen to Spotify ads and all is not really going to solve that problem, either.

jsnell 3y ago

Taking the music without compensation and pretending that you're totally going to buy some music or merch from some other artist doesn't actually lead to artists being compensated. While in the plan where you buy music and only listen to the music you bought you don't need this app at all.

drewdevault 3y ago
I've spent thousands of dollars on Bandcamp over the past several years, attended many live shows, bought merchandise, etc. Suggesting that one is "pretending" to do these things when making this argument is a hell of a strawman. I feel like pretending that you're supporting your favorite artists by listening them on Spotify is a bit more of an appropriate comparison.
- apwell23 3y ago
  > attended many live shows, bought merchandise, etc. I don't understand what does attending live shows have to do with how you listen to their music. Ppl who do listen on spotify also do that.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    Live shows are generally the largest source of revenue for musicians.
    - apwell23 3y ago
      So what? You think only ppl listening on bandcamp go to live shows? How is it relevant to the current topic.
      - hedora 3y ago
        If the purpose of Spotify is to pay artists, then it's objectively a failure. If you want pay musicians for their music, then you'd be better off buying albums on bandcamp or attending concerts. Paying Spotify is marginally better than just lighting your money on fire. If the purpose of Spotify is to allow you to listen to music with minimal effort and cost, and don't care if the bands get paid then it does a middling job among paid services. It's probably more convenient than piracy, but I don't know what the state of modern music piracy is (I could imagine a gray-area Internet group that does a better job with metadata and recommendation algorithms than the paid sites do, and that links to a popcorn time style torrent thing.)
- jsnell 3y ago
  I meant the generic "you" of an user of this app. I'm sure you specifically don't actually use this app, and just listen to the music you bought. But the main selling point of this app, i.e. the actual submission, is to get the music for free and no ads. The target market of it is not going to be paying a cent, because the entire reason the app exists and was submitted is to avoid paying much smaller amounts for music than what you're paying.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    This is perhaps true (but I'm not sure it is), but consider the context of this thread: we're specifically making arguments to an audience of people who care about artists being paid.
  - andrepd 3y ago
    There's also the artist's point of view in this thread, multiple people saying they made many times more money from Bandcamp than steaming services.
    - apwell23 3y ago
      > multiple people saying they made many times more money from Bandcamp than steaming services. While it might be true that they get more money on bandcamp. They get exposure through streaming websites like youtube, spotify that brings ppl to bandcamp.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  You're supporting the artists you listen to more uniformly (via spotify) though. If you and I listen to 1000 artists over the course of a year, and you spend $1000/year on album purchases (let's say $10 each) while I subscribe to spotify, I pay $90 a year while supporting all of the artists I listen to, loosely based on how much I listen to them, while you much more significantly support up to 100 of the artists you listened to. I think what you're doing is better, don't get me wrong, but I can only afford $90 a year anyway. In your case though, you could support all the artists you listen to by paying for a spotify/itunes/whatever subscription and using that as your primary listening service, while also purchasing their music via bandcamp. You probably won't feel the additional subscription price. And I think most people who can afford $1000/year for music are not going to be using YouSpot, so I'm not sure why you're pointing out that people can leech off of spotify and then support the artists directly, when the above person said "please also support the artists" > You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists; Yes, but most people can't afford this. It's good that YouSpot is available for people who can't even afford spotify (no one upthread said otherwise), and many people aren't going to be able to pay bandcamp $1000 per year to support maybe 10-50% of the artists they listen to. So please save your thesis for somewhere it's relevant. For the average person who can maybe comfortably afford $90 per year, a subscription service is a much more viable way to support the musicians they listen to than buying 4-9 albums
  - etaweb 3y ago
    You say that it is better to pay 90$ for 1000$ worth of goods than to pay nothing. This is a false dilemma, there is a third choice that is paying only what you can afford. Paying only 9% of a physical good wouldn't make anyone less of a robber. A lot of people here would rather blame those who steal better than they do, than question the industry that allows artists work to be sold off. Furthermore, I would say that most people using Spotify and alike services do it only for convenience, but certainly not to "support the artists".
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      These aren't physical goods, and (my issues with the categorization of piracy as theft aside) given that we're talking about legally listening to music you have access to through a service you pay for, I don't even know how to engage with the suggestion that this is theft (on the part of the consumers anyway). If you have the means and inclination to pay more I strongly urge people to pay more also. There are issues with the intermediaries, but there is no practical way for people who can't afford $1000/yr to support the artists they like legally, while still being able to listen to them. So if your suggestion is that someone who can afford $90/year should only have access to the albums they can afford to purchase through bandcamp because those support the artists more directly, I strongly disagree. This just further creates a wedge between the wealthy and regular working class people. Are you suggesting poor people make do with the few albums they can purchase from bandcamp and then whatever they can listen to on the radio? On youtube? Because I fail to see how those are any less 'theft' than just paying spotify and listening there. edit: I'm actually legitimately confused about what your idea is here and I'd like to understand. It seems like we're both coming at this from an anti-capitalist perspective, but your idea that poor people should have reduced access to the arts doesn't seem to align with any anti-capitalist ideology I'm aware of. Or are you just opposed to the consolidation of the distribution channels which exploit the working class (artists in this case) but somehow haven't drawn the connection that this is a condition of late-stage capitalism? If so, I'd recommend listening to some content by the wonderful Cory Doctorow
blibble 3y ago
I spend quite a lot on bandcamp and amazon's mp3 store (couple of hundred bucks a year maybe?) I am very very happy to pay for DRM free music however this getting increasingly difficult as companies don't even seem to want to provide it for sale at all under no circumstances am I going to pay a monthly subscription for a digital product that can be delivered as a one off download
- hedora 3y ago
  I know people that still buy CDs. I've been meaning to dump my Tidal artist list to a spreadsheet or something, and figure out how to pay a few dozen artists directly this year. One possibility is to buy their albums and copy them to my NAS. Paying for DRM-free downloads seems easier / better, but I'd want to make sure the artists' cut is higher than with streaming. For what it's worth, iTunes is apparently DRM-free these days. I don't want to figure out their terrible GUI, but presumably there's some tool that'll copy the songs out of it and into a filesystem.
  - blibble 3y ago
    I would buy CDs and rip them up until about 5 years ago at which point the stuff I liked vanished > For what it's worth, iTunes is apparently DRM-free these days. I'll try this!