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

41–50 of 405 posts

Re: Justice at Spotify

#41

Post by 101008 »

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.

Those niche bands will put their music for free online until they are well known to get their fans pay for the music, as they did in the 90s and 00s.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#42

Post by blfr »

What is the average number of streams per user on Spotify? According to Last.fm, I listened to 55k songs last year, vast majority of it through Spotify.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#43

Post by simion314 »

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…

I was thinking that musicians could create a platform themselves and avoid the parasites but at this moment you still have the mobile store parasites that will tax you even more for each sale so before musicians can do soemthing about it we need to fix the mobile app stores or make the PWA music apps have same features as native ones(I have a feeling that Google and Apple will fight hard against losing this big source of money)

Re: Justice at Spotify

#44

Post by philderbeast »

many of the demands listed, while well intentioned, are ill considered at best.

Take the first demand for instance, pay $0.01 per play. on the face this sounds fine, until you look at the economics of this. Spotify Premium is $9.99, that means for every premium user there is only 999 plays per month at BEST if you don't consider any other overheads, before that payment is exhausted (not including things like discounts for 12 month plans, student and family pricing).

This is not to say artists shouldn't get paid more, but how many people would take say a 10x price increase to fund this level of payment?

That's not to mention they also want to remove the income stream of artists paying for increased plays on the platform (pushing more cost to the user)

again, the demands may be well intentioned, and many should just be adopted such as crediting all labour for a recording, but obviously no-one has looked at the economics' it would take to actually realise the level of payment being asked for here and thought about if consumers would be willing to pay that price.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#45

Post by RHSeeger »

> Pay us at least one cent per stream

> Spotify generally pays between $. 003 and $. 005 per stream

Is Spotify making so much money that paying 3 orders of magnitude more money per stream is a realistic option?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#46

Post by falcolas »

kjakm wrote: post #33
3saryHg6LP2e wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nit: It's nowhere close to all the music ever recorded. It's barely most of the mainstream artists.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#47

Post by toyg »

breck wrote: post #25
dpatterbee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting take I haven't heard much before. Could you expand on what the alternatives are?

It's an exciting time for alternatives. Patreon, Twitch, Cameo, OnlyFans, et al, are providing ways to connect with your community and earn a living through their support, which is not only very important during shutdowns when live events are harder, but will be a long term trend. On the production side costs continue to drop, and if we #abolishcopyright cost of living across the world will drop dramatically, so will…

> if we #abolishcopyright cost of living across the world will drop dramatically

I sincerely doubt that. Food and shelter won't magically cost less because there is no copyright.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#48

Post by ArkanExplorer »

Hamuko wrote: post #32
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)?

International sales are counted as exports (not subject to VAT) and domestic sales thresholds for VAT are typically $80,000+/year

Of course, this varies by country, but its possible to incorporate your business in a country where this is the case.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#49

Post by illuminati1911 »

101008 wrote: post #19
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…

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.

Clearly it is as artists are not starving and can pay for their rent, lifestyle etc.

They just simply ”want more”, and who wouldn’t, but free market and supply/demand disagrees with them. If artists don’t like Spotify’s offering they can pull their music out of the service.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#50

Post by lettergram »

kevincox wrote: post #20
3saryHg6LP2e wrote: post #8

The record labels are a bigger problem than Spotify; they set the streaming prices and take a big cut.

Exactly. If the record labels thought the price was unfair they wouldn't see the rights to Spotify. The unfortunate part is that the artists have basically no power when bargaining with the record labels.

Let's be honest, you aren't required to use a record label. Record labels just advertise, which definitely blow up some musicians.

In contrast, take the rapper Tom McDonald, his music actually hit the top 100 charts[1][2] and he's not signed to anyone. Just him and his girlfriend creating music. Was trending as the #1 download on iTunes for a couple weeks, etc.

Artists make a deal with the devil, make more money, then complain. Yet, with today's ability to distribute - it's not required.

I do think there should be an update to the spotify payout system, but Spotify doesn't have negotiating power; they need the record labels. With the record labels Spotify can get improved music, etc. Spotify is paying for the privilege that's why the smaller artists aren't making very much (the premium payments go to record labels).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_Woke\

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l6JUNFAJ9o

Post reply on HN