3 ms·

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 f

by 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.