4 ms·

>> I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates. So no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? Shoul

>> I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates. So no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates? Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service?

kazinator 2y ago
Wouldn't the Taylor Swifts of the world get more money at the same rate, due to being streamed more? The unknown upstart's stuff is not being searched for and played. Is that not already the lower rate that they accept? Does the revenue also have to be lower from those few plays they got?
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Theoretically, it does not have to be. Practically, the big names are not going to accept less than the maximum they can get. Just like almost all people would if they were negotiating multiple equivalent job offers.
iamacyborg 2y ago
This is further complicated by how Spotify actually divvies up payments. If they did it proportionally per subscriber you’d suddenly find money being distributed in a much fairer way. Instead they divvy it up on a global aggregate basis so even if I were to pay the subscription and just listen to indie artists, my money goes towards pop megastars and artificial slop.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  This is the actual problem, and something that should be properly regulated. I would hope that the money I paid, after the Spotify cut, went to the artists/labels that own the music I actually listen to, proportionally. The fact that it goes to some Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga annoys me more than Spotify adding their own slop to slop playlists.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The proper regulation is copyright expiring after 10 years.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      Correct.
    - iamacyborg 2y ago
      I don't see how that does anything but fuck over artists and allow corporations to exploit them even further.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        “Artists” are not a monolith. For example, music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it. This reduces spend available for new artists. Excessive copyright terms go from incentivizing creating art to incentivizing rent seeking. Society also spends a ton more resources litigating disputes and avoiding them.
        iamacyborg 2y ago
        This seems like an incredible naive way of thinking about how artists should be rewarded for their work. > music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it Music streaming services should spend their money on artists their customers are listening to, however old that music happens to be.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > however old Eh, I don't think there's a very convincing argument that the world is better off paying artists for things that were made more than 50 years ago. (Yes I know the person above said 10, I think 10 is too aggressive.)
Dylan16807 2y ago
For a radio-type service, I don't think anyone should be able to negotiate higher rates. I think there should be mandatory licensing. For negotiating a lower rate... I wouldn't try to make it illegal, but I still don't like it. I have no particular reason to think it will be an upstart or an entity that you could say 'deserves' more attention. And taking less money for more exposure doesn't sound like something I want to encourage.
- Gud 2y ago
  What if I want to give it away for free? How does that fit in your authoritarian distribution system?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    If you want to give your music away to people, that's great. This is just about the price to Spotify and services like it. If you don't want the royalties from Spotify, you can do something like donate them to charity. Giving Spotify a discount is something I'm not fond of, because you're either hoping they give you better placement which is basically payola, or you're getting nothing back so you're making a donation to a giant corporation.
    - Gud 2y ago
      But there is no "discount". There is just two parties agreeing to a price point.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        If a big majority are the same price, I don't care what you want to call other prices. My point doesn't depend on what word we use.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    then you give it away for free. Where does spotify fit into this? If this is a metaphor to "I want to work for free", then no. You technically can, but the company will get into trouble for allowing that. Same deal here. Personal projects on your own free time is different from a billion dollar company hiring interns "for exposure".
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? like how it currently is if you're not some 7+ figure earner? Sure, why not? There was no marketing to Spotify to begin with. > Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates? Debtable, but given that Taylor swift gets millions times more listens than the average artist, I'm not going to pretend she's somehow being ripped off here. Those kinds of people do indeed have the power to jump to another platform, or make their own. >Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service? to be frank, no. Just like how some deperate would-be employee should not be able to accept below minimum wage to "kickstart their career". We made these laws precisely because "work for exposure" has failed spectacularly and only hurts the working class.

kazinator 2y ago

Wouldn't the Taylor Swifts of the world get more money at the same rate, due to being streamed more? The unknown upstart's stuff is not being searched for and played. Is that not already the lower rate that they accept? Does the revenue also have to be lower from those few plays they got?

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Theoretically, it does not have to be. Practically, the big names are not going to accept less than the maximum they can get. Just like almost all people would if they were negotiating multiple equivalent job offers.

iamacyborg 2y ago

This is further complicated by how Spotify actually divvies up payments. If they did it proportionally per subscriber you’d suddenly find money being distributed in a much fairer way. Instead they divvy it up on a global aggregate basis so even if I were to pay the subscription and just listen to indie artists, my money goes towards pop megastars and artificial slop.

surgical_fire 2y ago
This is the actual problem, and something that should be properly regulated. I would hope that the money I paid, after the Spotify cut, went to the artists/labels that own the music I actually listen to, proportionally. The fact that it goes to some Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga annoys me more than Spotify adding their own slop to slop playlists.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The proper regulation is copyright expiring after 10 years.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    Correct.
  - iamacyborg 2y ago
    I don't see how that does anything but fuck over artists and allow corporations to exploit them even further.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      “Artists” are not a monolith. For example, music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it. This reduces spend available for new artists. Excessive copyright terms go from incentivizing creating art to incentivizing rent seeking. Society also spends a ton more resources litigating disputes and avoiding them.
      - iamacyborg 2y ago
        This seems like an incredible naive way of thinking about how artists should be rewarded for their work. > music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it Music streaming services should spend their money on artists their customers are listening to, however old that music happens to be.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > however old Eh, I don't think there's a very convincing argument that the world is better off paying artists for things that were made more than 50 years ago. (Yes I know the person above said 10, I think 10 is too aggressive.)

Dylan16807 2y ago

For a radio-type service, I don't think anyone should be able to negotiate higher rates. I think there should be mandatory licensing. For negotiating a lower rate... I wouldn't try to make it illegal, but I still don't like it. I have no particular reason to think it will be an upstart or an entity that you could say 'deserves' more attention. And taking less money for more exposure doesn't sound like something I want to encourage.

Gud 2y ago
What if I want to give it away for free? How does that fit in your authoritarian distribution system?
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  If you want to give your music away to people, that's great. This is just about the price to Spotify and services like it. If you don't want the royalties from Spotify, you can do something like donate them to charity. Giving Spotify a discount is something I'm not fond of, because you're either hoping they give you better placement which is basically payola, or you're getting nothing back so you're making a donation to a giant corporation.
  - Gud 2y ago
    But there is no "discount". There is just two parties agreeing to a price point.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      If a big majority are the same price, I don't care what you want to call other prices. My point doesn't depend on what word we use.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  then you give it away for free. Where does spotify fit into this? If this is a metaphor to "I want to work for free", then no. You technically can, but the company will get into trouble for allowing that. Same deal here. Personal projects on your own free time is different from a billion dollar company hiring interns "for exposure".

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? like how it currently is if you're not some 7+ figure earner? Sure, why not? There was no marketing to Spotify to begin with. > Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates? Debtable, but given that Taylor swift gets millions times more listens than the average artist, I'm not going to pretend she's somehow being ripped off here. Those kinds of people do indeed have the power to jump to another platform, or make their own. >Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service? to be frank, no. Just like how some deperate would-be employee should not be able to accept below minimum wage to "kickstart their career". We made these laws precisely because "work for exposure" has failed spectacularly and only hurts the working class.