Live data from Hacker News

Justice at Spotify

unionofmusicians.org

341–350 of 405 posts

Re: Justice at Spotify

#341
post #304
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsigned artists don't sign anything with labels but we do agree to Spotify's terms, and those terms take from us and hand it over to major labels. If a user pays $10/mo and listens to nothing but indie streams, those indies are getting far less than $7.50 (more like pennies) due to the way they calculate their payouts. The major labels pocket the majority of that money. Spotify have the ability to change this, but n…

If you are an indie artist (no record label deals) and agree to Spotify's terms, how are major labels involved at all? How are they getting the payouts meant for you?

Deezer explains it well here:

https://www.deezer.com/ucps

Re: Justice at Spotify

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Music rights are split into two traditionally, the songwriting copyright and the mechanical reproduction right. Previous to the internet, media sales mostly went to the labels who held hte mechanical rights and songwriting copyright was earned directly to the artist. So if you bought a CD the label gets paid, if you play a song on the radio an artist gets paid. The music industry lawyers were incredibly smart when th…

Can you, or someone, share a source for the first paragraph? It completely changes my perception of music royalties and I'd like to be sure before I repeat it :)

https://www.royaltyexchange.com/blog/mechanical-royalties seems like a decent explanation, though I'm not an expert in this area...

Re: Justice at Spotify

#344
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unsigned artists don't sign anything with labels but we do agree to Spotify's terms, and those terms take from us and hand it over to major labels. If a user pays $10/mo and listens to nothing but indie streams, those indies are getting far less than $7.50 (more like pennies) due to the way they calculate their payouts. The major labels pocket the majority of that money. Spotify have the ability to change this, but n…

"due to the way they calculate their payouts": yes, I'm sure that's the real issue, but the solution isn't a penny per stream. The solution is definitely to redistribute money according to what people listen to, but I doubt the big labels will accept these terms: they are the ones who negotiated, they are the ones stealing from indies. Best case scenario: indies will get enough pennies so they stop complaining, big l…

I totally agree, the penny per stream focuses entirely on the wrong thing, further entrenching the real issue by derailing the whole discussion. It also makes it less likely the real issue will be taken as seriously later on after we've just "cried wolf" over this one.

On the plus side, services like Soundcloud and Deezer are adopting the payment scheme that is the solution to this, which opens a potentially more promising avenue through which to pursue the issue ("if they can do it, why can't you?").

Re: Justice at Spotify

#345
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…

The pricing section seems incredibly naive. Why should streams be valued at a penny? Why not a tenth of a penny? I don't care how many streams it takes to buy a cup of coffee. What is the argument that 786 streams per cup of coffee is unfair? (I don't think it is)

Being a full time professional musician has only been a means to wealth for a handful of people through history. Most professional musicians, even successful ones, are unable to earn their lifetime expenses from their profession: they make some good money if they have a hit and then fade away and have to get another job. Or they have capitalize on their brand externally to the music market. Has there been any time period in the past several centuries when the average musician earned a living wage?

The goal of a million full-time professional musicians seems arbitrary and I'm not sure why it is necessarily desirable.

Music is a passion, so people are willing to spend time making music below market labor rates. With modern digital reproduction and ease of recording, demand will never exceed supply. I believe the cost of music can and should asymptotically approach zero over time as an ever-growing public domain becomes good enough for most uses.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ignoring all other costs isn't great. Their revenue per subscriber is also substantively lower - including free users, discounted EDU users, and family memberships. Excluding free users, it's probably ~$5 per user. That being said, Apple Music pays .75p/stream, Tidal is 1.25p/stream. They can probably figure it out.

> Yes, ignoring all other costs isn't great. > Their revenue per subscriber is also substantively lower - including free users, discounted EDU users, and family memberships. Excluding free users, it's probably ~$5 per user. > That being said, Apple Music pays .75p/stream, Tidal is 1.25p/stream. They can probably figure it out. Their rates are per country, they differ. So these calculations gave to it into account, bu…

The amount they pay per stream differs per country too, I think.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#347
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument is not that it's the 10 vs 20 hour listeners, but rather the 10-40 hour listeners (workday) vs the 700 hour listeners (radio playing in the corner of a breakroom somewhere). The 700 hour listener has no audience and no human curation, and yet it's got 10x the influence on who gets paid by Spotify. The article I linked also makes a really good point about this model motivating artists to encourage…

It’s not inherently clear to me that one play should be paid more than another play. In fact, having a different fee per play dependent on the user is a pretty opaque and unclear metric. “How much are 1 million plays worth? It depends on your audience - if your listeners listen to lots of music you get paid less per play, and you will just have to trust us to compute an appropriate fee for you correctly.” No matter h…

I don't think it would be that hard to show a small histogram which had your plays bucketed across different levels of commitment, engagement or some similar metric. Or instead of doing it that way, you'd bucket the users, so say "for song X, you had 30k unique users listen to it in the royalty time period, and here's a histogram of how engaged they were, with the left side being a small number of users who listened to it a lot or didn't listen to much else, and the right side being the large pool of users who heard it once and listened to many other things.

The reason this is good for artists is that it rewards them for what many want to be cultivating anyway: a relationship with enthusiastic fans, rather than faceless "plays" which could have come from anywhere.

In any case, obviously the conversation is DOA if you start it from a foundational assumption that "a play is a play", but if we acknowledge upfront that artist compensation has always been weird and often quite unfair (see radio royalties, for example— they sure as hell aren't getting compensated by how many people were tuned into a radio station playing their song), then there's room to discuss better options in a new medium that sits somewhere in between the old roles filled by FM radio and private collections of physical media.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#348
Reminder that Spotify have forced paying customers to beta test a new UI with significant features outright removed without the ability to opt out. There's 130 pages (1300 comments) of negative feedback and they don't care. I had been paying monthly for a decade and have since stopped until they revert my client: https://community.spotify.com/t5/Desktop-Windows/New-Desktop...

Re: Justice at Spotify

#349
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait - how are you responsible for the fact that the artists sign away their rights to shitty big labels that take the majority of the money that work generates? How are you responsible for dumb decisions musicians make?

Artists have literally shown up in the comments here explaining that it's not that simple, and that these rates are issues for people who sign to small/indie labels and even artists who own their own labels. Also, "if you're abused it's your own fault for being dumb" is usually a take you want to be pretty careful with.

Being unable to monetize a hobby is not abuse.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"And Spotify is already paying out 75% of it's revenue to royalty holders' "Royalty holders" is not even an actual term. Copyright holders are the owners of master recording - often a record company. Streaming services license entire catalogs for a fixed price for a fixed period of time. Streaming service don't pay record labels royalties. Royalties of which there are two in the context of streaming are a) performan…

> There is an alternative model that many artists are pushing for which is a the "user centric' distribution model. In that model the calculation of payments is based on the listening habits of each individual user. A simplified examples is that I only listen to one artist in a given month. In the user centric model the entire 10% of record labels 70% usually allocated to the artist cut is paid to that artist rather…

They push for whatever they feel is right. I was simply pointing out that Spotify's distribution model is not the only one. It also has nothing to do with "heavy users" vs "light users." A heavy user can listen to the same artist or same small handful of albums.
Post reply on HN