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

341–350 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#341

Post by dkn775 »

sanketskasar wrote: post #288
danpalmer wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the reason I have stuck with Apple Music so long (and previously Google Play Music). I have a fair number of sentimental tracks that I've carried with me in my collection for decades which aren't on streaming sites. Spotify doesn't have an answer for this. Just don't listen to things outside the Spotify library. Apple Music (and GPM before it) lets me upload my own tracks and sync them between my devices.

Finally, someone else who feels the same pain as I do. Believe me you, I keep subscriptions of both Apple Music and Spotify. Apple Music for the better in general catalog and better syncing, Spotify for better discovery. I plan on creating a tool that would allow me to download all the songs in my library so that I don't lose on them when Spotify or AM decide to remove it from their catalog. Apple Music, at least, sh…

There’s an app called song shift that works 90% well. It’ll transfer the music over from one service to another. Also you can export Apple songs to CSV using desktop iTunes

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#342

Post by boxed »

Lewton wrote: post #139
boxed wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems silly. The reason they have that problem is that their logic for funneling subscription revenue to streams is broken. This won't fix that fundamental problem. You can still use Spotify to scam money out of the system.

> The reason they have that problem is that their logic for funneling subscription revenue to streams is broken Changing it to splitting out a users monthly payment to what they're actually listening to, would make the abuse they're trying to stop easier and not harder (as it would mean all the money they're trying to launder will go to the correct artist instead of just some of it) Not saying that that's a good argu…

Laundering would be easier yes. But extracting money from the system would be impossible. I was talking about the latter where you pay for an account of 10 usd/month and extract > 10 usd/month in stream revenue.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#343

Post by packetlost »

bitcharmer wrote: post #331
yreg wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, unl…

What processing fees? This is a digital platform. It's not like there are dozens of bureaucrats stamping tonnes of papers here.

Moving money around is way more expensive than you think it is, even digitally.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#344

Post by fuzzfactor »

pvorb wrote: post #240

It really amazes me how tech companies like Spotify manage to disrupt an entire industry, but fail to find a sustainable business model that makes them profitable. This is far from sustainable and it makes the world worse. There really should be laws that limit how much losses a company may generate during their "disruption" of existing markets. Yes, I'm aware that I'm commenting this on HN.

Disruption, or even fully destructive complete tear-downs are a lot easier than building value.

May not be quicker, but definitely easier for the less-skilled to pull off.

One requires a demolition mindset, the other an engineering mindset.

In some capitalist cultures there has been a tendency to value disruption as if it was the thing that added value, just because it was a noticeable component of a few high-profile bonanzas.

It's like a prevailing superstition can take hold, and a belief spreads where "if it's not disruptive, it can't be good".

The less-recognized builders who don't divert energy to disruption do have to operate with much less visibility, since there's not some established structure crumbling (usually under its own weight) that looks like a result of their efforts.

The engineering-focused creative builder that can make something out of nothing, without having to tear down anything at all, ended up hopelessly outnumbered by weaker-performing substitutes having far-less-unique qualities.

Imagine what it would be like if something capable of applying that kind of leverage to resources had access to scaling capital.

Among some classes of performers, anybody can build a viable business if they started with $1 Million, and barring undue disaster, all will grow & prosper.

Even without any failures, each one will obviously have differing performance.

I guess you could say that one who ends up with a $1 Billion operation would be so rare, might as well be a unicorn.

That's about a 1000x return one way or another.

How does that compare to someone who can build anything viable at all from basically nothing to start with?

Makes 1000x look like a small number.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#346

Post by s1artibartfast »

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.

The part that's missing from that is is Spotify doesn't just take music and put it up. The music owner agrees with Spotify beforehand.

If you give me a free taste of ice cream, that doesn't mean I'm stealing from the farmer.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#347

Post by sunir »

bitcharmer wrote: post #331
yreg wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, unl…

What processing fees? This is a digital platform. It's not like there are dozens of bureaucrats stamping tonnes of papers here.

Instead of being incredulous, assume good faith the other person is speaking with best intent. Try to understand first.

There are no free payment transfer mechanisms. Whatever is free is a loss leader.

If you don’t know anything about payments, start by reading stripe.com’s documentation to understand how complex this is.

Pymnts.com is the industry blog if you want to go deep.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#348

Post by UncleMeat »

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.…

My wife is a professor in a field where they regularly publish books. "Zero royalties for the first N copies sold" appears to be common in the academic publishing contract world. It's a mess.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#349

Post by danpalmer »

dkn775 wrote: post #341
sanketskasar wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finally, someone else who feels the same pain as I do. Believe me you, I keep subscriptions of both Apple Music and Spotify. Apple Music for the better in general catalog and better syncing, Spotify for better discovery. I plan on creating a tool that would allow me to download all the songs in my library so that I don't lose on them when Spotify or AM decide to remove it from their catalog. Apple Music, at least, sh…

There’s an app called song shift that works 90% well. It’ll transfer the music over from one service to another. Also you can export Apple songs to CSV using desktop iTunes

That's solving a different problem. If you have a track that is not on any service, Apple Music will still accept the song file being added to your library and sync it for you. Spotify will not as it does not do cloud file sync.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#350

Post by jaculabilis »

rglullis wrote: post #321
anentropic wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's already possible to do pay-what-you-want in Bandcamp always good to have more options though!

But does it provide a way for them to stream all of the artists catalog?

Yeah, most artists let you listen to the whole album before you buy it. Sometimes there are songs that don't have previews, and I think there are sometimes hidden songs included with the album but not even listed, but in general you can stream a few times before buying, and then stream as much as you want afterwards.
Post reply on HN