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

Why Spotify Pays So Little

lit.vulf.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 305 posts

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#171

Post by genericuser »

mark-r wrote: post #158
pfraze wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we had some kind of machine that was capable of computing these complex models for us... EDIT: my point being, if the model is fairer, we can deal with a little extra complexity.

It's a zero sum game. Spotify isn't going to pay any more in total, no matter how the rules change. That means for every winner under a new scheme, there will be a loser. If those losers are the popular artists that the service can't exist without, you have a non-starter.

Wow great catch on the the fact that any system that results in necessary artists being payed less, simply won't happen if Spotify wants to continue existing. Really applies to the entire scope of the article and not just the comment you replied to.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#172

Post by thedufer »

genericuser wrote: post #66

His proposition may sound simple to him, but it really isn't. It becomes very hard to ensure you are being paid properly in his proposed scenario, I would personally expect it would create even more controversy, or extremely long payment records every month for artists. For instance say we have 500 paid users. Lets call them user1 through user500. Each user listens to the same number of songs a month as the value fol…

> I also forgot to account for daylight savings time in which a day can have 25 hours.

Fortunately, the 25-hour day is in November, which is only a 30-day month. So you're okay on that front.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#173

Post by adamc »

KFW504 wrote: post #161
adamc wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it would be interesting to get some kind of historical fix on whether this is really an unfair rate per song, and if so by how much. I'm also curious as to whether "per play" is really the right metric: if I sold you a CD and it sucked, you'd almost never play it so that rate might seem high... but be unimportant because you'd sell so few CDs. How does that translate to the Spotify model? Maybe this is obvi…

One thing to focus on is that the rate per song in the CD era can't fairly be compared to the rate per song today - particularly for popular songs that have a global reach. I would agree that "per play" is only a partial metric, but would caution against trying to compare too much over time.

Then how do we evaluate musicians' claims of not being paid fairly?

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#174

Post by thedufer »

mkolodny wrote: post #157
ignostic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be complicated, but it's cumbersome as hell: "Hey, Rhianna, here's your 65-million line payment breakdown for the week! I know it used to just be one simple intuitive calculation, but isn't this great!?" > 99% of artists would prefer this model, even if it meant more complex accounting. What are you basing that on? Artists paid more might not complain, and those paid less (likely the more popular artists…

> 99% of artists would prefer this model I mean that objectively, based on how much money they would make. 99% of artists would make more money in this model. And, again, cumbersome accounting is a bad excuse for unfair pay.

> 99% of artists would make more money in this model.

You just shifted which number you pulled out of thin air, not the fact that you did so. Do you secretly have Spotify's streams database?

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#175

Post by snowwrestler »

6stringmerc wrote: post #52
afarrell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually the case that signing record contracts was always a bad deal for artists? I was under the impression that they reduced risk for artists who could then use money from the contract as a more stable source of income to pay for, say, childcare expenses.

No, whatever money is paid up front for the expenses (recording, shooting music video, child care while doing such things) must be repaid to the label. If you don't "recoup" enough through album sales, you have to pay them back out of touring...and on and on and on...Basically, just have a look at the following article by Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17

My brother has been a professional rock musician for almost two decades. Several of his bands have broken up after one or two albums, the recording of which was financed by their label. In those cases, the label simply takes a loss. They're not sending debt collectors out or something.

The recouping terms are set in the contract. It's not conceptually different from the term sheets that govern how and when investors will be paid back when they invest in Internet startups.

There are examples of bad labels screwing artists, and there are examples of good labels supporting artists. The terms, not the concept, of recouping are what it make it good or bad.

Ironically, the more exploitative labels are the ones that have done better under the pressure of piracy, because they are more willing to force bands into "360" deals where every revenue stream is subject to recouping: merch, sync, publishing, tours...basically they own the artist. So they're not hurt much by piracy.

But this is not how all label deals are done. Many smaller and mid-size labels have historically limited their deals and depended more on album revenue. These are the folks--the good, artist-supporting folks--who are being most hurt by piracy.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#176

Post by snowwrestler »

6stringmerc wrote: post #60
smackfu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And remember that artists do not go to the press with stories of, "the label gave me a big advance and then the record was a flop."

Haha yeah that's technically true, because if that scenario actually happens that artist/band is effectively ruined, blacklisted, radioactive, whatever. Practically speaking though, are you aware of the "Sophmore Slump" concept at all? It's well known that after the first big success the record company wants MORE SUCCESS and that rarely happens. There are outliers like Adele, but far more often things go the way of S…

> because if that scenario actually happens that artist/band is effectively ruined, blacklisted, radioactive, whatever.

If this were true, no one would work in music for more than a few years. No artist makes a hit every time.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#177

Post by Nemcue »

kazinator wrote: post #122

The proposition in the article only works because users pay a fixed monthly rate for unlimited listening, rather than a charge that is metered based on how much they stream. Jack Stratton's proposition is wagered on the proposition that the users who listen to his tracks are ones who don't listen to very much other stuff. His listeners pay $9.99 per months, but don't stream very much, and a big chunk of what they do…

Such bullshit.

How on earth is it a "zero sum game" that they are paid their fair share of the cut?

> There is little difference between 99% of the artists getting peanuts, and 100% of the artists getting peanuts.

You just pulled those numbers out of your ass.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#178

Post by Nemcue »

kudu wrote: post #162

This is a terrible idea, in my opinion. It would effectively cause users to "budget" the music they play, e.g.: "If I play that Rihanna song after playing 10 songs from my favorite indie band this month, it'll severely dilute the money going to them." The last thing Spotify wants is people not playing music for moral reasons.

I'd suggest that almost none of the users would be aware of this anyway, so their usage patterns wouldn't in any way shift.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#179

Post by rorykoehler »

Spotify should set aside X% of their equity and distribute it to artists. Each full play of a track would generate one 'artist' share. Then when they exit each artist gets their fair share. For example (to keep it simple I will use small numbers) let's say there are 100 plays in total on Spotify before they sell up, 1 of which belongs to Vulpeck (awesome band) then Vulpeck get 1% of X%. This way everyone gets paid fairly. The way it is now Spotify are basically monetising piracy. All the major labels have invested and are waiting for their pay day while the people who produce the content get shafted.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#180

Post by pfraze »

mark-r wrote: post #158
pfraze wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we had some kind of machine that was capable of computing these complex models for us... EDIT: my point being, if the model is fairer, we can deal with a little extra complexity.

It's a zero sum game. Spotify isn't going to pay any more in total, no matter how the rules change. That means for every winner under a new scheme, there will be a loser. If those losers are the popular artists that the service can't exist without, you have a non-starter.

It would be up to the smaller artists and their fans to pressure this change, and I'd bet there are some popular artists willing to join the cause at a small personal loss. It's good to consider the incentives, but people are invested in having an equitable society as well.
Post reply on HN