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

361–370 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#361

Post by maronato »

yreg wrote: post #297
gcr wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, unl…

Isn’t that just part of the cost of doing business? Not all transactions need to be lucrative. The only reason Shopify thinks they can get away with it is because they’ve grown enough that small artists don’t have a choice but to suck it up.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#362

Post by atoav »

petecooper wrote: post #176
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.

Reading this has made me buy the last two physical items on my Bandcamp wishlist. Bandcamp isn't perfect, but it fits well with my listening habits and I'm glad it earns _some_ money for you in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks for supporting your local artist : )

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#363

Post by nsteel »

epolanski wrote: post #164
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.

> People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track Do you have numbers behind this claim? I definitely got aware of some unknown artists thanks to Spotify and YouTube, some of them had low hundreds views/listens. Ended up supporting them, going to concerts and buying merch.

Same. I see a show advertised and I want to hear what the bands sound like, the easiest way (for me) is to search for them on Spotify and check out the top few tracks and the new release. If I like what I hear then I'll buy a ticket and go. I probably could have found the tracks other ways if I really tried, but this way just works, almost always.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#364

Post by nmisko »

megalomanu wrote: post #132

I highly recommend trying Qobuz! Artists are paid more, the catalog is rich and comprehensive (I recommend to early users who might have felt a lack of content to give it another try, as it's now much richer), most albums are available in Hi-Res Audio, the UI is nice, there is no fluff (just music, nothing more), and most importantly, content is curated, with many articles written by critics and journalists, artist i…

Could you explain how artists are paid more? The subscription fee is roughly the same.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#365

Post by fuzzfactor »

Shorel wrote: post #282

Let's demonetize Spotify. Cancel our accounts and campaign to others to do the same. I cancelled my Spotify account, and now I am using Tidal, which pays the artists a higher percent.

No reason to get in a hurry.

With greedy record companies as part of the structure from the beginning, looks like they are fairly consistently demonetizing themselves.

When a business depends on a resource that's so well-heeled it can truly afford to waste substantial amounts, you really hope that resource will not run out.

If the balance tips toward dependence on consumers who can not afford much waste if any, that portion could very well be subject to collapse under the strain.

As for demon-ization, looks like that's already in progress quite a bit too.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#368

Post by nmisko »

nicholassmith wrote: post #95
lawgimenez wrote: post #60

So which platform pays the highest royalty?

I did some research on this recently and it's a bit tricky to pin down as some of the information is out of date or doesn't include certain services, but the three that appear to be the best on payouts are: Tidal, Quobuz and Napster.

Can you explain how these platforms pay more royalties if the subscription cost is the same?

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#369

Post by nonrandomstring »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #214
nonrandomstring wrote: post #205

According to this artist [0] Spotify will be irrelevant soon because infinitely streaming generative AI music will cater to all your "ever changing" desires. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39967745

Cool prediction, but false; AI generated music will be added to the pile of genres. Honestly there's an existing factory of low effort music being churned out already, AI will become part of that existing pipeline. There will be more music produced, but it won't become mainstream. Music isn't only about music, it's about the creators and their stories as well. Anyone claiming AI will replace traditional music creatio…

> It's the same type that exclusively drinks soylent and wears black turtlenecks to avoid having to think about things or taste anything.

Nice.

"Technology is a way of not having to experience the world" -- Max Frisch

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#370

Post by rmdes »

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.…

Feels like Spotify is restructuring systemic issues instead of trying to solve them. It's almost amazing how little, since the advent of Internet, the music industry changed, it did change, for established names more than small artist but the fundamental issue remains the same : fair & stable redistribution of value generated from artists.
Post reply on HN