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

301–310 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#301

Post by subroutine »

Manheim wrote: post #294
subroutine wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Spotify isn't taking anyone's property. Spotify is saying "here's how our payment system works" and then bands can decide whether to put their songs on Spotify.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#302

Post by subroutine »

FireInsight wrote: post #138
atoav wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in a small and new band. In 2023 we earned roughly 500 Euros via Bandcamp (digital, physical and merch) 300 Euros selling merch on gigs 2000 Euros playing gigs 20 Cents on Spotify There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked.

This is exactly the reason why my preferred method of music consumption is piracy + Bandcamp. Every Bandcamp Friday (when Bandcamp doesn't take a cut) I buy about 2 to 6 albums I've listened to in the past month or a few. If an artist is not on Bandcamp, I'm less likely to listen to them, but if I do, I eventually pirate their stuff. All the music I buy and pirate is in FLAC and funneled into my local library, where…

Your process sounds a lot like this new change by Spotify... Anything you don't listen to very much doesn't get paid for.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#303

Post by Manheim »

subroutine wrote: post #301
Manheim wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Spotify isn't taking anyone's property. Spotify is saying "here's how our payment system works" and then bands can decide whether to put their songs on Spotify.

True enough, the law should consider market control/ dominance as a factor. A market dominated by a few, should maybe be treated different than a highly competitive marked

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#304

Post by [deleted] »

chgs wrote: post #120

I spend £17 a month on Spotify. If all I do is listen to “Bob Bobson sings Bob Bob Bob”, then my £17, minus commission (1%, 5%, 30%, whatever), should go entirely to Bob Bobson That’s not how Spotify works. Instead a lot of it goes to Taylor Swift, who I don’t listen to.

[deleted]

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#305

Post by subroutine »

Manheim wrote: post #303
subroutine wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Spotify isn't taking anyone's property. Spotify is saying "here's how our payment system works" and then bands can decide whether to put their songs on Spotify.

True enough, the law should consider market control/ dominance as a factor. A market dominated by a few, should maybe be treated different than a highly competitive marked

It does in some circumstances. See apple's app store lawsuit in the EU. However this seems fundamentally different. It's more like youtube (which actually pays far less per stream $.1 - $1 per 1000 streams)

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#306

Post by Draiken »

I get that people just want to save money but I absolutely cannot understand how we keep screwing over artists like this.

We pay a small amount, the middlemen gets all the money, 0.01% of the artists get more than a few hundred bucks, everyone else gets nothing.

Piracy is entirely justified. We should pay the artists and stop paying these leeches. The only real value created is from the artists themselves.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#307

Post by whstl »

magicalhippo wrote: post #273
whstl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar experiences (but from a few years ago). Even people who have Spotify end up buying stuff in Bandcamp, anyway. I never had merch but had CDs, and sometimes people would buy two physical copies, one to gift. For me there was never any difference between Spotify and piracy.

I use Spotify because my SO wants it for podcasts and stuff and family subscription is just tad more, and it's in my car and similar which is convenient. I also buy the music I listen to a fair bit on Bandcamp or at concerts. As an example, last fall a song from a band came up in the randomized post-album "radio" on Spotify as I was driving, and I added the band to my favorites. A month ago Spotify notified me the ba…

Those are fair points, and I agree.

I think I should have said that Spotify is the same as piracy from an artists POV.

It's definitely not illegal for users, and it definitely helps with "exposure", but it's not really a platform for making real money with your music, except when it's listened to in massive quantities.

For me, it's no different than putting a free album link in Instagram, or when Nine Inch Nails put it on PirateBay as a stunt...

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#308

Post by whstl »

smallerfish wrote: post #271
whstl wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify allows people to self publish. Not to mention people can set up labels themselves, it's just a company like any other. I'm sure we don't want big labels being gatekeepers. They have their own set of problems, and make streaming even more difficult for everyone but very large artists/groups (and sometimes even for those, as they eat a big chunk of royalties).

Spotify does not allow you to self publish. However, you can pay a distributer like DistroKid an annual fee in order to upload to the platform (and all other majors).

Ah thanks for the correction. I also used DistroKid.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#309

Post by 10729287 »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #222
FireInsight wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the reason why my preferred method of music consumption is piracy + Bandcamp. Every Bandcamp Friday (when Bandcamp doesn't take a cut) I buy about 2 to 6 albums I've listened to in the past month or a few. If an artist is not on Bandcamp, I'm less likely to listen to them, but if I do, I eventually pirate their stuff. All the music I buy and pirate is in FLAC and funneled into my local library, where…

If bands are not on Bandcamp, I buy them on mp3million.com, which is legal but feels like piracy given their pricing.

Well. It doesn't seem that legal, and certainly not a good solution is your primary goal is to help artists : https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/1045/do-those-...

Very shady at best.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#310

Post by 10729287 »

Ringz wrote: post #237
Helmut10001 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If bands are not on Bandcamp, I buy them on mp3million.com, which is legal but feels like piracy given their pricing.

Wow thats cheap! How is that even possible?

https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/1045/do-those-...
Post reply on HN