3 ms·
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 ar
by 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 agoI 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.