Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice at Spotify

unionofmusicians.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 405 posts

Re: Justice at Spotify

#31

Post by petey283 »

juancn wrote: post #23

Penny per stream? That's an awful lot in most countries. If I stream a record twice I cover my spotify premium fee (US is more expensive than Argentina or India, because people can pay more). Copyrights create artificial scarcity, if you don't like it, just don't put your music on the platform, you have an effective monopoly. Most music is not that valuable, prices used to be high due to cartelization of the publishe…

But isn't this part of the negotiation process? Start with a higher demand and work your way to a more reasonable position.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#32

Post by Hamuko »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #6

As a creator, relying on these platforms is problematic because they are the #1 target for Government taxation. Depending on the country, 20% of customer spend is swallowed up immediately by sales taxes. Another 30% is potentially swallowed up by Google and Apple. The solution is really to go direct-to-consumer, through things like Crowdfunding (unfortunately Patreon now charges VAT). Though of course this adds a lot…

>The solution is really to go direct-to-consumer

How do you go direct to consumer without collecting VAT (while not breaking tax laws)?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#33

Post by kjakm »

3saryHg6LP2e wrote: post #24
Macha wrote: post #10

The ask is 1p/stream. I'm not sure that that's actually sustainable without a massive rise in spotify prices, given the proportion of free users and even paid users that listen to more than 1000 tracks a month. If spotify raises prices, consumers go back to piracy. I'm not sure this will have the effect they want. Let's imagine a radio station. Something medium sized, about a million listeners. They play a track. Are…

Let's do some back-of-the-envelop calculations: Let's say people stream for 4 hours a day on average. 4 * 60 = 240 minutes Let's say a song is 3 minutes. 240 / 3 = 80 streams == 80p/day 80p * 30 days per month = 2400p 2400p == £24 So that would be ~2.4x increase in price for end users without including Spotify cut or taxes. Doesn't seem possible to me.

It's also still remarkably cheap for unlimited access to all the music ever recorded.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#34

Post by emilecantin »

They only hint at this, but I think a user-centric distribution model would be much better: define a percentage split (let's say 30% for Spotify, 70% for artists), and split that percentage of revenue between the artists THAT THE USER LISTENED TO.

I think that they currently use a global split, which over-represents "users" like stores, gyms, etc.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#35

Post by toyg »

jmercouris wrote: post #15
breck wrote: post #7

#abolishcopyright. Musicians if you’re listening, find a different way to earn a living than depending upon the enslavement of ideas (and by extension, individuals). Copyright is abhorrent, and needs to go. There are better ways.

You'll have to enlighten me. What are the better ways? Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce?

> Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce?

You don't want to use that line of argument, since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege. As much as I agree with you (and actually think that privilege to be expanded to all workers), you won't find any solidarity from the common public on that line.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#36

Post by jedimastert »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #21

Does anyone know if this so-called union is an actual union? As in, do they collect dues, do they represent a substantial % of artists, and do its members already collectively bargain with Spotify and similar publishers? If Spotify says no, do these demands have any teeth?

Actually, I believe it would be a guild, as artists are not actually employees of any particular label or service, but just contractors. I also thing Guild is a far cooler name, but that's beside the point!

As for your actual question, no I don't think they are. They seem more like an advocacy or lobby group

https://www.unionofmusicians.org/#about

Re: Justice at Spotify

#37

Post by juancn »

jmercouris wrote: post #15
breck wrote: post #7

#abolishcopyright. Musicians if you’re listening, find a different way to earn a living than depending upon the enslavement of ideas (and by extension, individuals). Copyright is abhorrent, and needs to go. There are better ways.

You'll have to enlighten me. What are the better ways? Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce?

Copyright and patents creates artificial scarcity. The things protected are not scarce, they are abundant. Ideas and information are easy to copy/reproduce.

So we built a fake framework on top of something plentiful and cheap to copy, to make it more expensive so some people can make money out of it.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#38

Post by meiraleal »

Milner08 wrote: post #30
101008 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is not sustainable for the artists, how is this different than piracy? I'd say it is even worse, because people is paying but the money goes to a middleware company that is not paying the right price. It is like buying CDs from the street sellers.

Right, but the money has always gone to a middleman, be it record companies or Spotify. If Spotify gets any more expensive I can guarantee people will go back to privacy, music will become less accessible and those niche bands that Spotify knows I may like will never get found. I understand the need to get paid more, but I am not sure killing Spotify is the solution.

> I understand the need to get paid more, but I am not sure killing Spotify is the solution.

If Spotify doesn't compromise, killing it would be the only solution, but this union doesn't have the power to do that initially. But this will never work because you have a infinite stream of new musicians wanting to be listen without receiving money for that.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#39

Post by mchusma »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #18
breck wrote: post #7

#abolishcopyright. Musicians if you’re listening, find a different way to earn a living than depending upon the enslavement of ideas (and by extension, individuals). Copyright is abhorrent, and needs to go. There are better ways.

I think this is a bit like the 2A argument. There's a really happy medium that neither side ever talks about. Just dramatically reduce the legal length of copyrights. One year maybe?

The US Constitution set copyright originally as 14 years, extendable by another 14. This sounds about right.

I think artists would not be dissuaded from working and would monetize the roughly the same with 20-30 year copyright terms.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#40

Post by DocTomoe »

Meanwhile, I have spent quite a bit directly to bands using band camp, buying music and vinyl there.

In the end, if Spotify is not a sustainable business model for you as a musical artist, maybe it is time to look for alternatives, especially those where they do not directly compete with mega-acts?

Post reply on HN