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

Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

djmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#41

Post by ansc »

cranberryturkey wrote: post #15
snailmailman wrote: post #11

I don’t know much about how music licensing works. But would this cause smaller musicians to decide to pull their stuff off Spotify? I listen to a lot of music on Spotify. And some of it is from smaller indie artists. Not a huge amount, but I’ve definitely listened to songs that are in that It surprises me how much of my Spotify library is no longer available. There’s at least a few dozen songs in my Spotify library…

Back to torrenting I guess. If I’m not mistaken snoop said he made 45k off 1 billion plays. Thats ridiculous

To be fair, that's because the label siphons the rest. Spotify pays $4 per 1000 streams.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#42

Post by 7bit »

rightbyte wrote: post #6

"Additionally, Spotify now requires a minimum number of unique listeners for royalties to apply. This attempt to stop "further manipulation by bad actors"" What a load of manure. The only reason manipulation of royalties even works is that they pool the streams such that the consumer wont pay the artist he listens too. Just tie the royalties to what each user listens to and what they pay. Solved. No abuse possible. B…

Free Users don't pay anything. But Spotify still wanna money from ads. So tying royalties to what users pay would be unfair to the musicians.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#43

Post by Dylan16807 »

rain_iwakura wrote: post #32
hmry wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this as splitting each user's monthly payment only across the artists they themselves listened to (like how YouTube premium works) instead of pooling everything together. So artists with more paying listeners would get more, while artists who only get listened to by free bot accounts wouldn't get anything.

how would this work if i listen to 1000 bands? the split would be miniscule.

If you listen to one or two songs each from a thousand bands, the amount each band gets is minuscule with either method.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#44

Post by esafak »

rain_iwakura wrote: post #32
hmry wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this as splitting each user's monthly payment only across the artists they themselves listened to (like how YouTube premium works) instead of pooling everything together. So artists with more paying listeners would get more, while artists who only get listened to by free bot accounts wouldn't get anything.

how would this work if i listen to 1000 bands? the split would be miniscule.

The split would be fair, and if the same algorithm applied to every subscriber, popular musicians would get paid more.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#45

Post by cuu508 »

rain_iwakura wrote: post #32
hmry wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this as splitting each user's monthly payment only across the artists they themselves listened to (like how YouTube premium works) instead of pooling everything together. So artists with more paying listeners would get more, while artists who only get listened to by free bot accounts wouldn't get anything.

how would this work if i listen to 1000 bands? the split would be miniscule.

Do you mean, how do you handle $0.001 monthly payouts? Spotify could set a payout threshold. If the threshold is not passed in a given month, the balance carries over to the next month.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#46

Post by rain_iwakura »

I think they should basically turn it into Twitch, where I can "sub" to an artist and maybe get their tracks earlier than others or some other additional content that costs artist $0 to produce for the most part (podcast, making of, e.g. a la Patreon). In addition, if you add "donate" button you'd see a lot of artists being showered with cash. It's a shame that these hacks (streamers) become multimillionaires while real talents make pennies off actual art.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#47

Post by HenryBemis »

snailmailman wrote: post #19
HenryBemis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want, and never wanted, Audiobooks or Podcasts or News or other crap on the music app. Regarding Spotify, which I use daily, I also dislike their updates. I remember some months back I could disable/hide "Recommendations". Now in all my (personal & private) playlists I get a list of Recommendations. It's an annoyance because when I scroll fast to reach the bottom "to listen to that one song" it end up surfi…

My Spotify app almost daily shows me a full screen advertisement for some new album when I open the app. It is clearly labeled sponsored content. I can then click a tiny 3 dots menu, click “stop showing me this” and “I don’t want to see sponsored content” and it will say “sure thing! We will no longer show you these” and the next day it will show me a new advertisement and I repeat the process. So annoying. The whole…

"NoRoot Firewall" and I have allowed IPs and URLs that I've trialed-and-errored to Allow. Then . to block everything else. Fun fact: most of the garbage/ads/albums/pushes/etc, as well as your Annual Wrap-Up (or whatever it is called) it is provided by a tracker (I can't remember/see because I haven't individually blocked it - it's blocked under the . rule)(first 10-15 IPs & URLs are allowed, all else is blocked).

I believe that using an Android phone without a Firewall must be a horrible experience/it increases the positive experience by A LOT.

It also helps to see which apps are sneaky and run on their own - even if you disable the 'background run' (e.g. TuneIn Radio starts itself bypassing battery/power settings)

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#48

Post by VS1999 »

_3u10 wrote: post #37
VS1999 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an issue I've seen with every platform that primarily exists online. They buy every digital service and increase prices with or without the customer's consent. Aside from being annoying and largely pointless, it's anti-competitive because if you subscribe to Spotify you are discouraged from subscribing to some other, better podcast service you actually want because you're already paying for one. It gets even…

You’re free to cancel, and I’m sure customer service would give you the refund on the extra cost for the first month. I’ve noticed this in restaurants too, they just change the price like a normal business in an inflationary environment. I bet you get raises too, or ask for them and move on if you don’t get them.

I have no idea how that relates to what I wrote.

Edit: Actually I see now, you're replying to where I said they bought services and raised prices without the customer consent. If we're using a restaurant comparison, it'd be like your local burger shop raising prices because your meal comes bundled with discounted carwashes. Consumers generally don't want bundles, they want to buy the thing they're interested in.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#50

Post by rain_iwakura »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #43
rain_iwakura wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how would this work if i listen to 1000 bands? the split would be miniscule.

If you listen to one or two songs each from a thousand bands, the amount each band gets is minuscule with either method.

this was basically what I was asking. would this scheme actually make more money for the musicians? thanks for a reply.
Post reply on HN