• athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If your business can’t pay it’s workers (artists) fairly, your business doesn’t deserve to exist.

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Spotify already pays nearly 70% of every dollar it generates from music to the record labels and publishers

    Sounds like the issue might be with the record labels…

    • Matte@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m a small label owner and I guarantee you that it’s a red herring. they set the price of the service, and you can either upload your music on spotify, or not upload it.

      compared to the market before digital platforms, where YOU set the price according to several factors, Spotify is the judge and the jury. they choose what the subscription cost is. they choose what your music is worth. they choose the amount of payout you’re gonna get. this is completely backwards! WE should be the ones, labels and artists, to tell spotify what our cost is, and THEY should be the ones setting their subscriptions on the according price for them to be able to cover all their running costs.

      but they put themselves in the dominating position on the market, and contributed to the destruction of the physical market. we got left with no choice but to upload our music on their service and eat shit.

      we passed from earning thousands of euro per year in physical and digital sales, to getting 100€ every three months for royalties on spotify. this is unsustainable whatever the way you look at it.

      they’re the pirates, and ruined the market much more than what pirate bay ever did.

      • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m curious if you know how this works for other streaming services?

        Presumably there’s a market rate that users are currently willing to pay and as such an increase of pay from Spotify to artists would mean they need to increase the fee to their users. This would make them less competitive and possibly lose subscriptions.

        I’ve already jumped ship from Spotify over to YouTube music for example because in my country it was a better deal.

        • Matte@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          of course it’s a better deal, Youtube Music barely pays anything. it’s even worse than Spotify, and most of their streamings come for free, which is enraging to say the least.

          anyways they have two paths: they either suck the costs in and increase the subscriptions (and lose customers in the meanwhile, so they’ll earn less in order to give more money to the small artists) or they cut the share they’re giving to the majors, which is the biggest percentage of the pie. but majors will simply boycott spotify and create their own platform, just as it happened with netflix.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I work for a label and need to press that no artist would get actually big without their label. Nit because the artist isn’t good, but because if you can’t get deals with radio stations, deals with streaming services to get on curated playlists, interviews with Graham Norton/other shows, nomination/performances at award shows, promotions on tick tok, commercial/movie soundtrack deals, world tours, tradional advertising. Etc etc. Then you’re never going to be making good money in the industry.

      And music is infamously not very lucrative in terms of entertainment. Film, TV and video games companies are actually ordered of magnitude more profitable.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s clear that labels are acting as gatekeepers, but are they productive gatekeepers? Or just skimming off of the top — that is, rent seeking, profiting even when they provide little value themselves. It seems like there’s a lot of the latter going on.

    • nnullzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is really neat. Never heard of it till now. As both an artist and developer I always felt that a decentralized and federated option for audio was the future.

      • CCL@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I hope you’ll check it out. I have an account on funkwhale.it as it allows up to 5GB of storage free of charge, which is the best I’ve seen for open registration instances (it also happens to be the first I learned of as I use several of the other features of the devol.it who operates that instance, simply because their cryptpad instance was the fisrt thing that showed up when I did a DDG search for Free and Federated Online Documents).

    • Free Palestine 🇵🇸@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or just stop giving these shitty corporations money altogether and start pirating.

      Take a look at these amazing guides:

      https://ripped.guide/Audio/Music/

      https://rentry.org/firehawk52

      And join [email protected]

      Personally, I use deemix with Deezer Premium ARLs to download my Music in full 320kbps. Works like a dream. You can accomplish the same thing on Android with Murglar. This section of the Firehawk52 guide explains it pretty well.

        • qwazpoi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          It kinda does in a way. A Harvard study from 2004 showed that most artists actually get a profit from piracy (when they broke it down pretty much all but the 25% most popular artists sold more records and had more concert attendance).

          Basically most legitimate music streaming services have ways of screwing over artists. Most services use a pro rata model that will screw over most artists.

          As it stands for right now one of the biggest things hurting artists are the streaming services.

          Things that help are services switching over to a fan centric model (SoundCloud is the only service I know of that has done this and I haven’t actually seen too much info on how it’s actually affected artists) and organizations like MAC and ARA that can affect policies and regulations in the music industry.

        • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Go see them to support them. That’s the only way most bands make their money anyway. I’m friends with a member of a successful bluegrass band and they get just about zip from streaming and just about all their money from merch and ticket sales.

        • SpookySnek@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I buy their albums on vinyl 😄 Often comes with a code to download the album digitally too if you wanna skip the pirating, but sometimes it’s just easier and less effort to pirate

    • only0218@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tidal has some pseudo quality (MQA) which they claim to better than lossless but isn’t at all and just costs more. If you want a streaming service, maybe take a look at something like qubuz where you can buy the tracks to download drm free. Might also wanna take a look at Bandcamp.

    • Madison_rogue@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a letter sent to Uruguay’s Minister of Education Pablo Da Silveira, a spokesperson for Spotify said: “If the proposed reform became law in its current form, Spotify’s business in Uruguay could become unfeasible, to the detriment of Uruguayan music and its fans,” claiming that the amendment would force it to “pay twice” the amount of royalties.

      Spotify currently pays out at 70%. Doubling royalties would cause them to pay out more than they make in subscription and ad revenue. This is why they’re shutting down.

      • Matte@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        they don’t. spotify says they’re paying 70%, but they don’t tell how they redistribute that revenue. they have under-the-table deals with the 3 majors who grabs most of that money, and leave the crumbs to everybody else.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        70% of what?

        If that’s subscription revenue in Uruguay then the business model is just not feasible, unless they up the subscription fees to adequately cover costs.

        This is the risk when the revenue model doesn’t scale with th cost model.

        • verysoft@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          70% per dollar apparently. It’s mostly large record labels taking the lion share though I think, independent artists make pennies.

          • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            95% of the royalty pool goes to 200000 artists who generate 15% of the content. Sounding less fair the more you look at it.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But it’s based almost entirely on actually streams. So they only get the majority of royalties because they get the majority of streams.

              • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Which is mostly due to Spotify’s playlist and algorithms. Which fall victim to the positive feedback loop issue. Those popular artists are suggested, promoted, and played more frequently so more people hear them and thus play them more. It’s not a level playing ground. It’s a self generating walled garden of artists.

            • blueson@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              On a platform like Spotify I don’t really see the issue here.

              Have you ever looked through the other 85% of the content? Excluding finding some obscure hits, most of it is trash.

              Unless we want to argue that any art in our current economical system should be of equal value no matter what.

      • moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doubling means rising the price and not shutting down or giving less to some and more to others. The new price may be too expensive for the customer. In this case, the service or the business model is the issue.

        An other regulation may be to pay egally all artists per listen with this point regulated as well.

        Spotify didn’t turn a profit yet. I would be pessimistic on the business model knowing the Majors take the majority of the 70%. Spotify is de facto a monopoly and so the Majors. With a fair price, the issue is to see the Majors quit the service and launch their own service. Spotify would be useless with only the indep (this is sad). They are protecting their money and the Majors. They don’t care about the smaller artists.

  • nothingcorporate@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fuck Spotify. If you don’t want to be a 40 year old and buy albums, Deezer and Tidal pay much larger royalties than Spotify.

  • sQuirrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Free market… always look for more ethical options that still fit your music. An ideal platform would be Audius. It’s built on blockchain technology but is limited with music content. It would be the perfect way to allow artists to make a living and get rid of the record label kingpins and Spotify pimps forever!

  • Ghostwurm@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Is this actually that Spotify doesn’t want to have to qualify value? Remuneration equal across regions? Oof being equitable could get expensive!

    • Auzy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’d rather pay 200 mil to people like Joe Rogan. It doesn’t matter how you look at that deal, he’s not worth that much, and there would be 0% chance of getting that money back (thats a lot of additional subscriptions)