Justice at Spotify • Hacker News Board

Re: Justice at Spotify

#61

Post by capableweb » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

Eridrus wrote: post #27

So I wanted to try put this into perspective since "a penny per stream" is intentionally meant to sound insignificant. This seems like it would roughly double Spotify's costs: https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/apps/how-much-... And Spotify is already paying out 75% of it's revenue to royalty holders: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/spotify-pr... So unless you believe that Spotify is bad…

I seem to understand that they want "a penny per stream" to go to the actual artists, which sometimes are not the royalty holders. So paying out less to the royalty holders and more to the artists sound like it could work.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#62

Post by moistbar » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

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.

And what do you expect to happen to Spotify when the musicians leave for someplace that pays them appropriately?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#63

Post by RHSman2 » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

It's just crazy. Musicians are getting the equivalent of an ad per stream. As a musician/composer that does it for the love I put it many, many hours on each song. Its frickin' outrageous that people get as good as nothing and it seems as the more successful you are the better the deal you get #pyramid Also, the CEO of spotify is just horrible.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#64

Post by s0xTester » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

meiraleal wrote: post #38

Milner08 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Killing Spotify would be terrible.

New musicians want their work out there....without Spotify(or similar) it will be back to just blasting out your music for free online everywhere so you can get bug.

Spotify at least gives them some revenue while they increase their fandom.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#65

Post by justynadorsz » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

ccsnags wrote: post #29

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.

Artist and Dev here. Yes to this. Having an imagination means you can think of different ways to monetize your work that isn’t trying to put an imaginary wall around ideas and information.

Also, artist and dev here. I don't agree. First, ideas are not copyrighted anyway. Second, you are both vague about those "different ways" of earning. Please expand on that.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#66

Post by barbazoo » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

Eridrus wrote: post #27

So I wanted to try put this into perspective since "a penny per stream" is intentionally meant to sound insignificant. This seems like it would roughly double Spotify's costs: https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/apps/how-much-... And Spotify is already paying out 75% of it's revenue to royalty holders: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/spotify-pr... So unless you believe that Spotify is bad…

It makes me sad to time and time again learn that the low prices of services I love are unsustainable and instead subsidized by treating someone unfairly downstream.

I wish I could be told what the ethical price for something is and I might actually pay it.

And if that price is too high, then maybe that service shouldn't exist in the first place.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#67

Post by ccsnags » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #39

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most artists work for free. Some of the best artists I know have day jobs.

The promise of fame and fortune is a product of an industry that is based on physical media being the only way to share information. The bit has liberated music for everyone yet we cling to the past.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#68

Post by falcolas » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

juancn wrote: post #37

jmercouris wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, they're easy to copy and reproduce. But more importantly, they are not easy to produce in the first place.

How do you suggest an author (artist, musician, etc) make a living, if it takes them 6 months of normal working hours to produce a book and they get an expected $0 of revenue from that book?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#69

Post by brobdingnagians » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

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…

I listen to far more than 1000 tracks a month, but quite a few of those are duplicates; though the music changes every month. With that listening pattern, it wouldn't make sense for me to pay for 1p/stream.

If the prices increased enough to offset a 1p/stream, I'd jump ship and buy used CDs again, since that would become more cost effective, even with buying a CD a month or so. There are cheaper substitutes to music listening, even if it would be less convenient to discover new music.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#70

Post by fooqux » Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

kpmcc wrote: post #5

There are some folks trying to build an alternative that is better for musicians. https://resonate.is/ Last time I checked it was still pretty niche but the idea (graduated pricing to stream to own) is solid.

I'm not sure I'd call it solid, but it's an interesting take. However, I believe there's a very good reason that the various markets have went to the subscription model- there's a difference mentally between paying to stream all you want for a month and paying for each song, even when its fractions of a penny. Whenever a song you don't like starts playing on your stream, you realize you just paid for it. That's a negative experience, and those stack up.

It doesn't matter if it can save you money in the long run. Remember, we're dealing with the masses here- the same lowest common denominator that caused A&W's 1/3lb hamburger to fail because people thought it was smaller than McDonald's 1/4lb hamburger.