This was a good response, though I don't really agree with a couple of statements. 1. I think that the analogy between spotify and radio is too flawed to be us

This was a good response, though I don't really agree with a couple of statements. 1. I think that the analogy between spotify and radio is too flawed to be useful "If a song has been listened to 500 thousand times on Spotify, that’s the same as it having been played one time on a U.S. radio station with a moderate sized audience of 500 thousand people. Which would pay the recording artist precisely … nothing at all. But the equivalent of that one play and its 500 thousand listens on Spotify would pay out between three and four thousand dollars." Huge difference between a play on spotify and a play on radio. Radio you take what you get. If you think "hey, I'd like to listen to that new Taylor Swift song", you can scan through the channels and I suppose you may eventually, after 30 minutes of scanning, come up with it. No guarantees, though. If you want to listen to that song exactly when and where you want, you can't get it from the radio. So I don't think this is a reasonable comparison. Spotify doesn't replace radio plays, it replaces purchased or pirated music. 2. I think that Mr Ek relies too much on the piracy argument Yes, it's better to be paid something than nothing. But I'm not 100% sure this is a good reason for a recording artist to agree to legal terms that result in poor royalties. Taylor Swift's agent (I think it was the agent) described it this way - a fan pays $15 for the album, and her friend says "why did you pay for that? you could have just gotten it off <pirate site>." Contrast that with "why did you pay for that? you could have gotten it legally for free off <legitimate site>." There's a difference in kind here.