5 ms·

I love when corpos get scammed or stolen from. They know that the game is "take what you can" and it's about time the plebs learned that too.

zaptrem 2y ago
Streaming royalties are paid from a (majority) portion of subscription revenue. They didn’t steal from Spotify, they stole from musicians. In a way, the same tends to be true whenever people take from “corpos.” That money ultimately comes from people in some form.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  No, they mostly stole from Spotify, then fron the top 100 distributors. Then the artists maybe lost pennies on this scheme. Worst part is that Spotify gained a lot more than 10m from letting this go on for 7 years. I doubt they weren't aware of this, but allowed it becsuse those bots let them attract a lot more than $10m worth of viewers. That's why I have no sympathy.
  - zaptrem 2y ago
    Can you provide any reasoning or evidence for this beyond “No, you’re wrong?” Here’s mine: “ Unlike physical sales or downloads, which pay artists a fixed price per song or album sold, Spotify pays royalties based on the artist's "market share"—the number of streams for their songs as a proportion of total songs streamed on the service. Spotify distributes approximately 70% of its total revenue to rights holders, who then pay artists based on their individual agreements. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify Spotify didn’t make a single cent less than they usually do because of this.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Reasoning: this happened for 7 years. And I'd be shocked if no one was actually privy of this happening years prior. Like every other 2010's tech operation, bots can be used to attract real users, at which point the bots can be sunsetted a bit and then attract real investors. market capture was more important then profitability in the 2010's, so even if they lost money from this overall, they gained something much more important for a company: a brand. That brand is where you start to become "too big to fail". This is basically a 3rd party helping with the first step. If you want to look at raw revenue over 7 years, maybe Spotify made less. But they definitely profitted by time by allowing it to go on until it was not longer useful (especially now. As Spotify is using music to train their own AI models. Ai generated music will just mess up the model). ---------------- Do I have any hard evidence Spotify specifically does this? Not on hand, but I wouldn't be surprised if I can actually dig up Spotify dirt. This is documented for several other large scale tech companies. I'd honestly be surprised if Spotify was a special case. I hope that explanation suffices, or is at least more satifactory than what you interpreted as "no, you're wrong".
      - zaptrem 2y ago
        While I expected you to try to explain how the scammers "mostly stole from Spotify," (which was the claim I disagreed with) you instead put forth a theory to how their scam instead benefited Spotify (which I never made any claims about, nor disputed your claims). Can you explain how they stole from Spotify if the revenue pool they stole from (70% royalty pool) would never have gone to Spotify in the first place?

zaptrem 2y ago

Streaming royalties are paid from a (majority) portion of subscription revenue. They didn’t steal from Spotify, they stole from musicians. In a way, the same tends to be true whenever people take from “corpos.” That money ultimately comes from people in some form.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
No, they mostly stole from Spotify, then fron the top 100 distributors. Then the artists maybe lost pennies on this scheme. Worst part is that Spotify gained a lot more than 10m from letting this go on for 7 years. I doubt they weren't aware of this, but allowed it becsuse those bots let them attract a lot more than $10m worth of viewers. That's why I have no sympathy.
- zaptrem 2y ago
  Can you provide any reasoning or evidence for this beyond “No, you’re wrong?” Here’s mine: “ Unlike physical sales or downloads, which pay artists a fixed price per song or album sold, Spotify pays royalties based on the artist's "market share"—the number of streams for their songs as a proportion of total songs streamed on the service. Spotify distributes approximately 70% of its total revenue to rights holders, who then pay artists based on their individual agreements. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify Spotify didn’t make a single cent less than they usually do because of this.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Reasoning: this happened for 7 years. And I'd be shocked if no one was actually privy of this happening years prior. Like every other 2010's tech operation, bots can be used to attract real users, at which point the bots can be sunsetted a bit and then attract real investors. market capture was more important then profitability in the 2010's, so even if they lost money from this overall, they gained something much more important for a company: a brand. That brand is where you start to become "too big to fail". This is basically a 3rd party helping with the first step. If you want to look at raw revenue over 7 years, maybe Spotify made less. But they definitely profitted by time by allowing it to go on until it was not longer useful (especially now. As Spotify is using music to train their own AI models. Ai generated music will just mess up the model). ---------------- Do I have any hard evidence Spotify specifically does this? Not on hand, but I wouldn't be surprised if I can actually dig up Spotify dirt. This is documented for several other large scale tech companies. I'd honestly be surprised if Spotify was a special case. I hope that explanation suffices, or is at least more satifactory than what you interpreted as "no, you're wrong".
    - zaptrem 2y ago
      While I expected you to try to explain how the scammers "mostly stole from Spotify," (which was the claim I disagreed with) you instead put forth a theory to how their scam instead benefited Spotify (which I never made any claims about, nor disputed your claims). Can you explain how they stole from Spotify if the revenue pool they stole from (70% royalty pool) would never have gone to Spotify in the first place?