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

241–250 of 305 posts

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#241

Post by jakejake »

geoelectric wrote: post #193
lclarkmichalek wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that use be both against Spotify's EULA [0] and be illegal without a PPL [1] (in the UK at least). [0] https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 [1] http://www.ppluk.com/

Yes, but at worst bars and venues like this end up paying the flat fee to the recording cartels to basically have unlimited plays of whatever they want and none of that really goes to the artists in any significant way. And in most cases, it doesn't really come up until they're audited at least once, which might be never.

I know that calling them recording cartels is making a certain point, but the licensing companies in the US are ASCAP and BMI and they don't really have anything to do with actually recording music. They collect royalties on behalf of the artists.

I happen to know because I was once in a band and the only money I really ever received for our recordings after the label advance was from ASCAP. Even years later I get a check every few months for a few bucks, whereas I get nothing from spotify or any other music service (even though my music is on there).

So at least for me, I appreciate ASCAP and BMI, even though it is not a lot of money, they are the only ones who have ever paid me royalties as an artist - and their service is free to all artists no matter how small.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#242

Post by eru »

jakejake wrote: post #241
geoelectric wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but at worst bars and venues like this end up paying the flat fee to the recording cartels to basically have unlimited plays of whatever they want and none of that really goes to the artists in any significant way. And in most cases, it doesn't really come up until they're audited at least once, which might be never.

I know that calling them recording cartels is making a certain point, but the licensing companies in the US are ASCAP and BMI and they don't really have anything to do with actually recording music. They collect royalties on behalf of the artists. I happen to know because I was once in a band and the only money I really ever received for our recordings after the label advance was from ASCAP. Even years later I get a…

In Germany, you'd have to pay the cartel for performing YOUR OWN music.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#243

Post by genericuser »

halfcat wrote: post #240
genericuser wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I believe humanity in general wants things to be beneficial to them AND simple. Hell most Americans (being one myself) don't just 'want' they feel entitled to. Because of that, I believe a huge number of artists would not bother to make sense of monthly records which could reach 1800 pages, and would complain even though they were presented with such records explaining why their 50000 plays this month were le…

> I believe a huge number of artists would not bother to make sense of monthly records which could reach 1800 pages I don't understand this argument at all, which suggests that reviewing a monthly report is an O(n) task. Spotify, if they chose this route, trivially solves this with a simple open source app that analyzes your monthly report making it, basically, an O(1) task.

And gets every artist to happily learn how to use that app to examine 90000 entries in it? My whole argument is that his solution is not simple, while I agree designing, making, and getting artists to use this app which could be made, is indeed possible, would you not acknowledge it makes his solution just a tad more complicated than 'simple' to accomplish that design, creation, and acceptance?

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#244

Post by genericuser »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #217
genericuser wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it was a reason to. I simply said this method is anything but simple, as the author called it. Your method would require even more potential lines on the monthly report than the nearly identical method I described above. As yours would require a per user line, even though many of them would have duplicate rates. Keep in mind things would still need to be split per song also, as rights holders vary per so…

The model is extremely simple. The number of formulaic, near-identical lines on an arbitrary report has nothing to do with complexity. Splitting per song already has to be done. This just gives you a different amount of money to split per song with the existing mechanisms.

Implementation and adoption are part of the complexity of a solution, in my book at least. I assume those who do not consider implementation and adoption part of the complexity have either come up with genuinely simple solutions to problems or never had to complete those portions of the task when they were not simple.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#245

Post by imissmyjuno »

kowdermeister wrote: post #156
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, even if it meant more complex accounting. > What are you basing that on? Simple, artists who are paid penauts would prefer getting paid more. We just released an album but we are not putting it on Spotify. Why bother.

i treat rdio like a collection of full length previews that allow me to discover a lot of new music. stuff i like gets my money for tickets, merch and vinyl. i do not understand why anyone would pay $10 a month to listen to the same shit they have on their ipod.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#246

Post by imissmyjuno »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #212
lambeosaurus wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another checking in. Guilty as charged. My main gripe is that because of this stupid model, it pushes a lot of the artists I would listen to away from spotify because it doesn't connect them directly with the revenue stream they should be getting from their true fans. Artists have a hard time surviving without that.

That's because the indie artists aren't looking at the big picture. They would be getting less than they hoped for from the Spotify model, but now you will likely never even hear about them. They're significantly hindering their growth potential and ability to sell concert tickets.

It doesn't negate the validity of wanting compensation for Spotify plays. Not being on a music service is one way to let your listeners know that the system is fucked and maybe make it change.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#247

Post by dasil003 »

eric_h wrote: post #237
dasil003 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what is the total market size of businesses versus individuals?

Agreed, but a business that plays spotify likely plays it for the entire time said business is open. Very few individual users will listen to spotify for 15 hours a day like a business (bar) that plays spotify would. [Edit] just read the earlier sibling comment. I'm informing my theory based on my own very occasional usage of spotify. I suspect I'm in the long tail of their business, and I would imagine that the aggr…

The problem is it's all speculation. We don't have any hard numbers to tell us how any given revenue split policy would affect payouts to different artists. My instinct (and I'm the Co-Founder of a streaming service that does revenue share FWIW) is that the reason so little is paid is because there are just a lot of streams period, and changing the algorithm around to try to make it "more fair" might shift the distribution a bit, but it won't really move the needle for anyone. The fact is that when people had to buy music they were spending a lot more on it than they do on Spotify for the same quantity. It's just like Netflix vs cable—you can play shell games all day long, but the minute you go to raise the price from $9.99 to $11.99 the entire customer base flips their lid. So you'll never monetize like you could in the past, and this is a permanent change because there is no limit on supply anymore.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#248

Post by ericdykstra »

If you want to support your favorite music artists, send them money directly. That's basically the only way you can ensure a reasonable portion goes into their pocket.

Services like Spotify don't support independent, awesome musicians that you love enough to give them even a bad living. If someone creates art that touches you and improves your life, figure out a way to support them in a way that actually makes a difference.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#249

Post by tim333 »

mbesto wrote: post #42

Two things: 1) I think Ek is right - there isn't much money in the consumption of music. I do believe music is extremely effective at getting people's attention, but outside of that, it's value is much lower than we currently give it credit for. 2) I'm reminded of the TED Talk by Clay Shirky on institutions vs collaboration[0] where he explains power law distribution (watch from 6:01 onward specifically) with regard…

> there isn't much money in the consumption of music

Depends how you consume it. I had to pay nearly £100 to see the Stones live. Online of course you can download it for nothing.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#250

Post by megaman821 »

dublinben wrote: post #89
kochthesecond wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify has me and all I know spending 9x12=108 per year on just music. If anyone expected any of us to ever spend more than this, they are very wrong. Even if we go back to the golden days of CD sales, I doubt the average consumer spent more than this, but I might be terribly wrong. I'm sure I wouldn't.

The average consumer only spends $48 on recorded music per year.[0] At $100+ per year, services like Spotify are much more expensive for all but the most prolific music collector. [0] http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/

Thanks for that link. I always assumed that the music subscription services charged more than what the average consumer pays for music in a year.

It appears that the artists aren't getting paid enough because there are not enough subscribers. And there are not enough subscribers because the price is too high for the average music consumer. So lowering the price $5/month might actually drastically increase the artist pay.

Post reply on HN