4 ms·

Something like 15% of spotify's revenue is from ads, and so even if you do that you have to address the ad-fraud problem. You also aren't even addressing one o

Something like 15% of spotify's revenue is from ads, and so even if you do that you have to address the ad-fraud problem. You also aren't even addressing one of the issues here, which is functionally "listen-time" related fraud on Spotify, but simple solutions don't really work, since yt has the same issue in reverse. As a general rule, if you think something like "No abuse possible.", you are unfamiliar with the problem space.

rightbyte 3y ago
> As a general rule, if you think something like "No abuse possible.", you are unfamiliar with the problem space. Ok. The gains for the abuse is capped at the subscription fee minus Spotifys fees, per account.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  This is, functionally, already true. The gains from a lot of the abuse vectors they've mention are either ad-fraud related (your suggestions don't help), or are ways you steal from other creators by taking a larger than intended share. That is true whether the pool is $N,000,000 dollars statically, or a larger fraction than intended of 10000 $2 pools per user. The other alternative is a pay-per-listen business model, but this kills the company.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    I am not concerned with ad fraud, since it is more or less futile to prevent fraud in pay per impression setups. My suggestion would however work, if ad money were distributed for plays proportional to how paying users listen, as long as Spotify's fee is larger than the ads share of revenue. I.e. each paying user don't "decide" more than a dollar of royalties per dollar paid. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/great-big-spotify-scam-bulgarian-playlister-swindle-way-fortune-streaming-service/ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/great-big-spotify-sca... They argue a guy in Bulgaria set up 1200 premium accounts. However, they don't have proof.
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      > I.e. each paying user don't "decide" more than a dollar of royalties per dollar paid. Yes, you still run into the issue where 30 second whale songs get a larger than intended share of the royalties from whale-song-listening users. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

rightbyte 3y ago

> As a general rule, if you think something like "No abuse possible.", you are unfamiliar with the problem space. Ok. The gains for the abuse is capped at the subscription fee minus Spotifys fees, per account.

joshuamorton 3y ago
This is, functionally, already true. The gains from a lot of the abuse vectors they've mention are either ad-fraud related (your suggestions don't help), or are ways you steal from other creators by taking a larger than intended share. That is true whether the pool is $N,000,000 dollars statically, or a larger fraction than intended of 10000 $2 pools per user. The other alternative is a pay-per-listen business model, but this kills the company.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  I am not concerned with ad fraud, since it is more or less futile to prevent fraud in pay per impression setups. My suggestion would however work, if ad money were distributed for plays proportional to how paying users listen, as long as Spotify's fee is larger than the ads share of revenue. I.e. each paying user don't "decide" more than a dollar of royalties per dollar paid. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/great-big-spotify-scam-bulgarian-playlister-swindle-way-fortune-streaming-service/ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/great-big-spotify-sca... They argue a guy in Bulgaria set up 1200 premium accounts. However, they don't have proof.
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    > I.e. each paying user don't "decide" more than a dollar of royalties per dollar paid. Yes, you still run into the issue where 30 second whale songs get a larger than intended share of the royalties from whale-song-listening users. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.