4 ms·

Nothing is free. If you enjoy the hard worked output of musicians then you really should contribute something back to the system which supports them and allows

by wdfx 3y ago

Nothing is free. If you enjoy the hard worked output of musicians then you really should contribute something back to the system which supports them and allows the delivery of their creativity to your ears.

whatshisface 3y ago
A good way to do that is through donations.
- _chu1 3y ago
  How do you donate to a 80's hair metal band?
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    If someone isn't around to collect the proceeds of their work anymore, it should go into the public domain.
ijhuygft776 3y ago
I guess it's not free, I use electricity, electronics, etc...
bdcravens 3y ago
Youtube pays 2/10th of a penny (on average) per stream to artists (and most platforms pay more) https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a-guide-for-musicians/ https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a...
- wdfx 3y ago
  I expected this reply and it's good to debate the fairness of platforms towards artists, but I don't really want to get into that. My point is that if you're freeloading music then the artist gets precisely 0.00 which is less even than the worst platform.
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    I would have to do more research to confirm, but I believe the platforms pay the artist for all streams, not just premium ones. In that case, you’re only stealing from the platform.
    - wdfx 3y ago
      Again to clarify I'm also referring to the listener who uses some means to download the content locally to consume and therefore doesn't rely on any platform to use the content.
      - bdcravens 3y ago
        Ok, much of the conversation in this thread revolves around accessing streaming services via adblockers rather than downloading files.
        wdfx 3y ago
        Fair. To be honest I'm only half paying attention here sitting in the pub doing open mic
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    It's a pitiful amount. I listened to 7000 tracks last year (I think that's well above average), so if that had been on YouTube it would have given $14 to the artists. People used to spend more on music, even if they only bought a couple of CDs a year.
- skeaker 3y ago
  Is that for streams to free users or premium ones?
  - bdcravens 3y ago
    That's unclear. Playing any recorded music typically requires a license fee to be paid even when it's "free" to the listener (for instance, the radio or a public venue) Spotify pays based on payments from Premium users, as well as ad revenue. I presume others have similar arrangements. https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/ https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/

by wdfx 3y ago

whatshisface 3y ago

A good way to do that is through donations.

_chu1 3y ago
How do you donate to a 80's hair metal band?
- whatshisface 3y ago
  If someone isn't around to collect the proceeds of their work anymore, it should go into the public domain.

ijhuygft776 3y ago

I guess it's not free, I use electricity, electronics, etc...

bdcravens 3y ago

Youtube pays 2/10th of a penny (on average) per stream to artists (and most platforms pay more) https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a-guide-for-musicians/ https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a...

wdfx 3y ago
I expected this reply and it's good to debate the fairness of platforms towards artists, but I don't really want to get into that. My point is that if you're freeloading music then the artist gets precisely 0.00 which is less even than the worst platform.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  I would have to do more research to confirm, but I believe the platforms pay the artist for all streams, not just premium ones. In that case, you’re only stealing from the platform.
  - wdfx 3y ago
    Again to clarify I'm also referring to the listener who uses some means to download the content locally to consume and therefore doesn't rely on any platform to use the content.
    - bdcravens 3y ago
      Ok, much of the conversation in this thread revolves around accessing streaming services via adblockers rather than downloading files.
      - wdfx 3y ago
        Fair. To be honest I'm only half paying attention here sitting in the pub doing open mic
- Symbiote 3y ago
  It's a pitiful amount. I listened to 7000 tracks last year (I think that's well above average), so if that had been on YouTube it would have given $14 to the artists. People used to spend more on music, even if they only bought a couple of CDs a year.
skeaker 3y ago
Is that for streams to free users or premium ones?
- bdcravens 3y ago
  That's unclear. Playing any recorded music typically requires a license fee to be paid even when it's "free" to the listener (for instance, the radio or a public venue) Spotify pays based on payments from Premium users, as well as ad revenue. I presume others have similar arrangements. https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/ https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/