Live data from Hacker News

Justice at Spotify

unionofmusicians.org

391–400 of 405 posts

Re: Justice at Spotify

#391
post #7

#abolishcopyright. Musicians if you’re listening, find a different way to earn a living than depending upon the enslavement of ideas (and by extension, individuals). Copyright is abhorrent, and needs to go. There are better ways.

dear Breck, I've been appreciating your posts on IP, and your campaigning for this cause overall.

I'm wondering if you knew that Karl Marx summed up the desire of communists in one sentence [in The Communist Manifesto]?

"...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." [1]

That's it.

That's what all the fuss is about. It was a revelation to me because it seemed too simple at first, yet that's all that communists desire to bring about. This desire includes abolishing 'intellectual property' (trade secrets, copyrighted material, patented processes etc.). As you rightly described, any human knowledge originates socially to start with: “We are all putting grains of sand on mountains built by our ancestors”. This inheritance is what we aim to communize. Even though the communist manifesto is over 170 years old, Marx' critique remains as relevant as relevant as ever: capitalist firms caused the opioid crisis in the US; all over the world there's a landlord crisis - with many suffering homelessness (despite there being vacant buildings) [2]; capitalists have moved much of the industrial production to the global south - e.g. clothes are produced in sweatshops in China/Bangladesh/Eritrea; Playstations are causing wars in Congo [3]; our smartphones are made with conflict resources [4]; and we have a toxic e-waste crisis that is blocking us from re-using black-boxed hardware/components (as well as trade secrets and patents stopping many from being able to learn about technology and science in the first place - artificial scarcity of expertise created by capitalists) - as well as well as this e-waste leaching chemicals and poisoning the land, predominantly in the global south [5].

With 'abolishing private property' we don't mean that we want to get rid of the idea of all property systems. We want to get rid of today's bourgeois property system, as it has allowed a small minority to exclude others and plunder the commons [6], resulting in the division of labor and alienation. It's not about having a big or small capitalist government (capitalist governments are the ones who grant monopolies in the first place). We want full democracy in the workplace. That is what we call socialism, communism, or a communist production system. We also believe that this system, communism, is humanity's true nature.

The reason we have been persecuted is because many capitalists are very happy with their 'haul' (and the power-over others domination that comes with it), and because we communists want to continually ask the question: "how we can constantly expand who benefits from new science and technology?" (which we refer to as communizing/socializing the means of production).

I'm a bit scared this might be something you already know, so please do let me know if I've overstepped. My yearning by writing this is to meet my needs for connection, clarity and cooperation, yet this might not be the best strategy.

I also want to share with you this awesome video I watched a few days ago, in case it interests you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--TsGaNyr0U

[1] The Communist Manifesto (chapter 2), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...

[2] Push (2019) - a short new documentary about venture capital and the financialization of housing. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLWpuZrd-I, full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWSVG9nsRa4 (you can easily download with yt1s.com if you're not currently in the US/Canada, if it's geo-blocked)

[3] Inside Africa's 'PlayStation War', https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-playstation-2/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7efsz_Y-c

[4] Blood in the Mobile, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv-hE4Yx0LU

[5] Agbobloshie, Ghana https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleQVO1Vd1I

[6] Professor Guy Standing on 'rentier capitalism', https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...

Re: Justice at Spotify

#392
post #227

So, if I listen to music for only ~2 hours (120 min) a day, and the average song is 4 minutes, that would be ~30 songs a day, which would be 30 cents a day. $0.30 * 30 days in a month is about $9/month...which is basically my entire subscription fee--probably more. Also, there's like 4 people per account if I remember correctly.

In US, Spotify Duo is two accounts for $13/mo. Family is 6 accounts for $15/mo.

So the point stands then, that the math doesn't add up to pay artists 1 cent a song unless prices go way up

Re: Justice at Spotify

#393
post #7

#abolishcopyright. Musicians if you’re listening, find a different way to earn a living than depending upon the enslavement of ideas (and by extension, individuals). Copyright is abhorrent, and needs to go. There are better ways.

dear Breck, I've been appreciating your posts on IP, and your campaigning for this cause overall. I'm wondering if you knew that Karl Marx summed up the desire of communists in one sentence [in The Communist Manifesto]? "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." [1] That's it. That's what all the fuss is about. It was a revelation to me because it seemed…

Copyrights and patents are the opposite of property. The term "intellectual property" is a complete lie. You could probably make a strong case that it is proof there is such a thing as a "Big Lie".

If you have copyrights and patents, you do not have property rights. Once you implement those, you then remove the rights people have over their atomic property, like computers and paper and printers et cetera.

You cannot have a logical conversation with anyone who uses the term "intellectual property", because at that point it would be like trying to talk to someone about "fire water". There is no such thing.

The reason why that term became so big is that because during the Cold War capitalism and property rights were all the rage, so the proponents of copyrights and patents jumped on the bandwagon and rebranded their issues to be about property rights, even though they were the opposite. It was a very shrewd move, and I'm amazed at how effective it was. It would be like the cigarette industry was able to convince people that cigarettes were actually "health sticks".

That is why you will never see me ever ever use that term, and instead I will refer to them as "Imaginary Property" rights, and encourage everyone else to do so (I read the "Imaginary Property" term for the first time right here on HN).

So all that said, I am a strong believer in property rights. I believe Marx was wrong, and that property rights are an engineering solution to the problem of "how do we assign decision making power over scarce atoms in an efficient way".

I believe the real problem is copyrights and parents. Abolish those and you will eventually unchain the minds of billions of people, and we will be living in a lot more intelligent and prosperous world.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is an alternative model that many artists are pushing for which is a the "user centric' distribution model. In that model the calculation of payments is based on the listening habits of each individual user. A simplified examples is that I only listen to one artist in a given month. In the user centric model the entire 10% of record labels 70% usually allocated to the artist cut is paid to that artist rather…

They push for whatever they feel is right. I was simply pointing out that Spotify's distribution model is not the only one. It also has nothing to do with "heavy users" vs "light users." A heavy user can listen to the same artist or same small handful of albums.

> It also has nothing to do with "heavy users" vs "light users." A heavy user can listen to the same artist or same small handful of albums.

Currently, a heavy user (i.e. above average) controls the distribution of more money to artists than a below average user since they control the amount of money in proportion to how they stream.

A user-centric model that splits the revenue from a user means that those who listen to more music will generate less revenue to each artist per stream, and those that listen to less music will generate more revenue per stream.

An above average user that listens only to the same artist provides more money to artists now than in a user-centric revenue model.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, and users would prefer completely free music over cheap music too. That doesn't mean it's sustainable, though.

I mean, short of government legislation the market isn’t going to stop driving the price of music down. The marginal cost of additional “performances” of the song is almost zero and people are constantly making new recordings for free because they love doing so. I don’t see why making a living off digitally recorded music has to be sustainable, and I don’t see how it can be when the supply is so endless.

It very well may not be sustainable. But I guess my point is that Spotify's business model might turn out to not be sustainable if artists decide it's not worth it to have their music on it.

If they don't decide that, then of course, maybe you just can't make a living selling music through Spotify.

You could probably make a living as a musician in other ways, though.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#396

The hard truth in music (and in many creative industries) is that there's a huge oversupply (many musicians are willing to make music for free or very cheap) and demand has a low willingness to pay. The result is that there isn't much money to be made for musicians. In my mind, there's really no way around this fact. You can argue (as these folks are) that Spotify could take a smaller cut and give more to musicians.…

Yeah I think it's easy for up and coming musicians to blame Spotify for their financial woes, but as someone who was an aspiring musician in the 90s I can tell you it was no picnic back then. Everyone I knew was broke, so the only way to make a record was to get signed, and that involved playing shows in front of A&R people which meant finding venues etc - all on your own dime. If you did manage to get signed and get…

It upset me to hear that Fabian Sanglard only makes 77c per copy of his Doom book, and $2 per Wolfenstein book

https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbdoom/ https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbwolf3d/index.html

Re: Justice at Spotify

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't your listens to an indie artist still driving up their listens across the platform? It's an interesting point that Spotify's algorithms probably drive more listens to popular artists, but I think overall listen-count it still the most equitable metric.

The point is that it's about valuing the content which actually makes or breaks people's decision to subscribe to the service. Spotify is convenient, but it wouldn't survive on top-40 content because people would just go back to their MP3s or listen to it on YouTube. I'm pretty sure that Netflix understands this, by the way— they know that deep-pocketed competitors like Amazon are going to eat their lunch if they try…

Netflix understands this as they have become content creators.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#398
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that they're showing up at Spotify's offices then shows even more why they're not making money. They seemingly don't understand the business they're in... at all. They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing".

> They seemingly don't understand the business they're in... at all. Do you know any musicians? Like, real musicians, for whom music is their life and their life's work, not dabblers? Typically these are not shrewd business types. They don't hold a lot of negotiating power; if they're lucky enough to get a chance with a label deal they often don't push back on the terms very much at all. Labels are notoriously predat…

Think you got down voted as you were actually caring about people and not discussing the ins and outs of tech and pricing structure theory. #sadness

Re: Justice at Spotify

#399
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet you also think grocery workers are dumb for agreeing to work while demanding better working conditions and fair pay. They are not dumb decisions. An indie artist HAS to sign with labels if they want to make it in the industry. That's the way it's been and we've accepted for decades that that's the way it will be. Mistreating workers is not okay. Workers joining the status quo to make a living is not dumb. Calli…

It's something that's changing drastically every day. An indie artist is more and more able to record and upload their own song to spotify today than any time before.

Do you know you have to pay the distributors to upload? Its not like YouTube. From the getgo you are paying someone.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#400
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you become a musician and try to make it before laying it out like this? They hardly have another choice. Do you immediately assume 95% of artists are entrepreneurial fools?

There are lots of musicians who aren't producing a living-wage's worth of value to listeners. They do have a choice: they can get a better paying job if they don't like the amount they can earn from music. Society should not be responsible for funding someone's passion when there isn't demand. And yes, the expectation that you can earn a good living just by being a recording artist is foolish. The vast majority of mu…

You sound like my Dad (who was right).

Get a better paying job is very easy in this business. The lowest of the low would be better paying.

Post reply on HN