3 ms·
Well sure, but they could be wrong.
by wilg 3y ago
Well sure, but they could be wrong.
- GeekyBear 3y agoWouldn't the artists have first hand information on how much money they get paid from each service? The artist's union could get access to that information from their members, so would have a lot more data than most. Notice that they didn't hold global protests at Tidal's offices.
- wilg 3y agoWhat if it's a situation where all the music streaming services pay 70% and Spotify has the most streams and therefore the highest total dollar amount, but the lowest per-stream payment. It would be highly arguable whether Spotify is being greedy in that case. This might be what's happening!
- GeekyBear 3y agoI don't think the difference between the total amount paid by each music streaming service and the amount paid per stream by the various music services is too complex a topic for a musician's union to understand. The statements released to artists with their royalty amount includes the number of streams played of each of their works on the service.
- wilg 3y agoI am aware of that, but the metric I have been talking about this the entire time is neither of those.
- GeekyBear 3y agoWhat matters to artists is how much the artist is paid per stream. Spotify pays artists the least per stream.
- wilg 3y agoI am disagreeing with you about whether that is an important metric.
- GeekyBear 3y agoIt may not be important to you, however you do not speak for the artists. > Among its demands, the Union is calling for a 1 cent per stream royalty rate https://www.billboard.com/pro/international-creators-gather-for-justice-at-spotify-protests/ https://www.billboard.com/pro/international-creators-gather-... To artists it definitely is an important metric, and Spotify screws artists over on that metric worse than any other streaming service.
- wilg 3y agoI am talking about a different metric.