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

291–300 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#291

Post by coldtea »

tgv wrote: post #149
asdof wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd wager the income from playing gigs would be substantially lower if you weren't on Spotify.

Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment. People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Nor to big name concerts. And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays according to the numbers mentioned here.

>Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment

While it does, note that paying or doing stuff free "for exposure" is exactly how many artists got big and huge hits were made, from payola to DJs (starting way earlier than Alan Freed with radio DJs, and going all the way to EDM DJs being paid to break a track), all the way to paying for artist ads or record shop placement, buying fake streams, followers, and views to appear more popular and drive exposure, or doing for free (or, often, paying for) the support spot on a bigger band's concert.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#292

Post by brabel »

jfoster wrote: post #168
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked. This isn't an excuse for Spotify not paying much for plays, but I bet having music on spotify helps the gig revenue though. In some ways this is also true for Taylor Swift et al - they also make thousands times the amount from playing gigs than 'selling' albums, streaming, and radio plays but that drives ticket sale…

Indie: No one pays you. Popular: Gigs pay you. Taylor Swift: Governments pay you millions of dollars for regional exclusivity. (essentially, play 2 - 3 concerts instead of 10+) https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/mar/05/taylor-swift-s...

The music industry is the most vicious example of inequality.

While some artists are so big that governments compete to have you come to their country (and NOT to your neighbours), the vast majority has trouble even getting to play free gigs.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#293

Post by croon »

drstewart wrote: post #268
VS1999 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank you. I don't understand why Spotify licenses all this rock and rap music when I'm only interested in pop music. So ridiculous. Why can't they just exclude all the stuff I don't care about?

I assume you're sarcastic, but Spotify is spending hundreds of millions on Rogan alone (and many other podcasts on top of that), and I have yet to listen to a single podcast on Spotify. They're making you pay for branching out to other content than music. If I want podcasts I go to my podcast app(s).

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#294

Post by Manheim »

subroutine wrote: post #261
Manheim wrote: post #216

Paying a nominal amount for each stream is one matter; however, compensating nothing for smaller quantities while you pay for larger amounts presents a fundamentally different issue. This scenario is akin to an author not receiving royalties for the first 1,000 books sold in a bookstore, or a manufacturer not being paid for the first 1,000 candy bars sold at a grocery store. Such practices can be equated with theft.…

That's not quite right. If they do reach 1000 plays they will be compensated for the first 1000 plays (which is like $4 dollars), and all streams thereafter. What would you change about contract legislation to prevent this?

I'm not a scholar in law, but I would want the law to prevent someone to take someone elses property/ product and distribute it without compensation in their commercial services. 1000 streams is 1000 uses of a song. If you do not reach 1001 you get zero compensation, and that is in principle stealing in my opinion, and should also be that under the law.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#295

Post by coldtea »

cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #208
tgv wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment. People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Nor to big name concerts. And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays according to the numbers mentioned here.

Your absolutist claim is already false by virtue of the fact that I have gone to an “indie” show after hearing a track on Spotify. Next?

Next should be the advice to not take comments of that form as "absolutist" but understand them to mean as "in general"...

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#296

Post by coldtea »

basisword wrote: post #58
kredd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how it can affect those artists given it’s like $0.5 for 1k streams. I mean, I guess if they have 100 songs all at like 999 streams, that’s about $50 loss/year if they never pass that threshold. It sucks obviously, but not enough to for artists to pull out. My understanding is they’re playing a cat-and-mouse game with auto generated content, that syphons away some percentage of the royalties.

While it might not have a big impact on smaller artists financially, the idea of a multi billion dollar company deciding unilaterally to steal a few cents from you could be enough to drive you away.

>the idea of a multi billion dollar company deciding unilaterally to steal a few cents from you

So, like all the rest of them?

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#297

Post by yreg »

gcr wrote: post #290
yreg wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way this should work is that there can be some minimum earning threshold the seller has to achieve to be paid out by the platform. But! once the seller achieves it, they should be paid in full for all the units sold/streamed before achieving the threshold as well. E.g. App Store requires you to earn $100 equivalent to pay out earnings in Colombia. In many countries the threshold is currently $0.02, but it used to…

Why is this desirable? Wouldn’t it be more desirable to pay artists for everything? The implied comparison is with the status quo, and both Spotify’s and your proposals frankly kinda suck

Well, because at some point the processing fees are so high it makes no sense to distribute the earnings.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect to get "peanuts" paid out. Google AdSense is the same; you have to earn at least $100 to get it paid out, until then the earnings just accumulate in your account. Same goes for YouTube. I don't see it as unreasonable.

To be honest, I wouldn't care as a creator/a seller, unless the threshold is set high.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#298

Post by poszlem »

Manheim wrote: post #243
poszlem wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

true, I first wrote it in my own words, and then I used gpt to improve the English since I'm not English language native. So well spotted. However, what would you/ people prefer, lesser formulations, or precise GPT? Of course, I should improve my English skills. I'm always working on that. Here is the work process: https://chat.openai.com/share/648d0c85-9661-4096-afcc-f92779...

As I said, there is nothing wrong about using chatgpt, and I use it all the time (also not a native english speaker).

Just found it funny, that even with text is often very easy to tell.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#299

Post by fundatus »

orangesite wrote: post #223
fundatus wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that would be extremely complex and expensive to do for a negligible effect.

I'd argue this would be a lot simpler and cheaper to setup than the byzantine distribution system we currently have in place. It would also make the economics of streaming viable for the majority of artists rather than the small pool of folk raking in the bulk of the money.

How? The current system is super simple:

revenue * 0.7 = total payout total payout / no. of streams = payout per stream payout per stream * streams of an artist = payout for artist

In the proposed system you'd have to calculate the payout per stream on a per-account basis and have additional complexities like how to handle family accounts etc.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#300

Post by paranoidrobot »

dacryn wrote: post #13
paranoidrobot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find new music through YT fairly regularly - it's what got me into a whole bunch of artists I'd never seen/heard before. Unfortunately with YT I've had to cancel my Premium subscription on - they want $34/month, and I'm not paying that. I'll move to using third party apps/adblockers, and paying some of the creators I watch directly.

why do they want 34? I pay 12

Australia, and Family plan.

Also, I got it wrong, it's $32.99/month.

> To continue delivering great service and features, we're increasing your price to A$32.99/month.

Post reply on HN