4 ms·

Not sure you remember where we were in 2012. We've come a long way from listeners not paying at all to $10B. The system is far from perfect but it is better tha

by jppope 2y ago

Not sure you remember where we were in 2012. We've come a long way from listeners not paying at all to $10B. The system is far from perfect but it is better than it was

basisword 2y ago
Of course, and streaming was always going to be the best solution. But unfortunately it's a market where there are a few big players and they can use that power in an abusive way. Spotify can do better. And puff pieces where they brag bout 'percentage of revenue' or speak in absolute numbers are bullshit and should be called out as such. I mean this should be criminal given their market power: > their new policy to not pay artists who get less than 1000 streams on a track in a 12 month period It may not be much to the individual artists (at most a few hundred $ a year in the extreme cases) but it's a nice chunk of change for Spotify to pocket.
- freetime2 2y ago
  Spotify doesn’t “pocket” the money. Here is their justification, which seems reasonable to me: > Tens of millions of them have been streamed between 1 and 1,000 times over the past year and, on average, those tracks generated $0.03 per month. > Because labels and distributors require a minimum amount to withdraw (usually $2-$50 per withdrawal), and banks charge a fee for the transaction (usually $1-$20 per withdrawal), this money often doesn't reach the uploaders. And these small payments are often forgotten about. > But in aggregate, these small disregarded payments have added up to $40 million per year, which could instead increase the payments to artists who are most dependent on streaming revenue. > Spotify will not make additional money under this model. There is no change to the size of the music royalty pool being paid out to rights holders from Spotify; we will simply use the tens of millions of dollars annually to increase the payments to all eligible tracks, rather than spreading it out into $0.03 payments. https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-system https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-...
  - basisword 2y ago
    It shouldn't be their decision to make. If someone makes $5 a year and wants to let that accumulate with their distributor until they get $50 why should Spotify get to come in and say "sorry, we're taking your earnings and giving it to someone else"?
    - jamespo 2y ago
      Is that Spotify making that decision or the big recording companies?

by jppope 2y ago

Not sure you remember where we were in 2012. We've come a long way from listeners not paying at all to $10B. The system is far from perfect but it is better than it was

basisword 2y ago

Of course, and streaming was always going to be the best solution. But unfortunately it's a market where there are a few big players and they can use that power in an abusive way. Spotify can do better. And puff pieces where they brag bout 'percentage of revenue' or speak in absolute numbers are bullshit and should be called out as such. I mean this should be criminal given their market power: > their new policy to not pay artists who get less than 1000 streams on a track in a 12 month period It may not be much to the individual artists (at most a few hundred $ a year in the extreme cases) but it's a nice chunk of change for Spotify to pocket.

freetime2 2y ago
Spotify doesn’t “pocket” the money. Here is their justification, which seems reasonable to me: > Tens of millions of them have been streamed between 1 and 1,000 times over the past year and, on average, those tracks generated $0.03 per month. > Because labels and distributors require a minimum amount to withdraw (usually $2-$50 per withdrawal), and banks charge a fee for the transaction (usually $1-$20 per withdrawal), this money often doesn't reach the uploaders. And these small payments are often forgotten about. > But in aggregate, these small disregarded payments have added up to $40 million per year, which could instead increase the payments to artists who are most dependent on streaming revenue. > Spotify will not make additional money under this model. There is no change to the size of the music royalty pool being paid out to rights holders from Spotify; we will simply use the tens of millions of dollars annually to increase the payments to all eligible tracks, rather than spreading it out into $0.03 payments. https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-system https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-...
- basisword 2y ago
  It shouldn't be their decision to make. If someone makes $5 a year and wants to let that accumulate with their distributor until they get $50 why should Spotify get to come in and say "sorry, we're taking your earnings and giving it to someone else"?
  - jamespo 2y ago
    Is that Spotify making that decision or the big recording companies?