4 ms·

Cozy secondary relationships with music labels. Payola goes one way and industry demands go the other. Since "owners" take such a big chunk (50%) of paid roya

Cozy secondary relationships with music labels. Payola goes one way and industry demands go the other. Since "owners" take such a big chunk (50%) of paid royalties for streaming there is a strong incentive to only play music that is "owned" by labels and not directly by artists and performers. Controlling the number of "spins" an song or album of theirs gets is still a huge concern of the labels.

troupo 9mo ago
> here is a strong incentive to only play music that is "owned" by labels and not directly by artists and performers. Spotify has exactly zero music "directly by artists and performers". Even indie artists have to go through distributors and labels. Because without "owners" that own 60-80% of all world music, and that Spotify pays 70% of revenue to there would be no Spotify (or any music streaming service).
- crtasm 9mo ago
  You don't need to hand over any ownership or % of earnings if you self-publish and pay a distributor to put your album on the streaming platforms.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - troupo 9mo ago
    You don't many do. And, again, Spotify doesn't pay money to artists directly, but to rights holders and distributors.
    - crtasm 9mo ago
      In this situation the artist is the rights holder.
- themafia 9mo ago
  > Even indie artists have to go through distributors and labels. Is it impossible for an artist to own their own label? > or any music streaming service That doesn't seem to follow from any part of your argument.
  - troupo 9mo ago
    > That doesn't seem to follow from any part of your argument. What happens when the Big Four pull their content from your platform because you started bypassing them?