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

401–410 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#401

Post by reducesuffering »

qnleigh wrote: post #400
reducesuffering wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's the end game here. People already mostly have parasocial relationships with artists. There's already famous AI personality Instagrams and Vtubers. With the advent of Generative AI video like Sora and Generative AI music like Suno, people will find their perfect generative AI niche and follow an artist story/interaction that they can't even tell is real or not. Generative AI will create millions of niches,…

I find it really hard to imagine people following famous AI personalities as much as real musicians if they know that the AI are AI. Humans are social creatures. I guess at some point there will be a popular "musician" who is relieved to be an algorithm, and we'll see what happens.

We're already seeing an explosion of people doing AI chatbot therapy and AI relationships. "Human-ness" factoring into someone's enjoyment of music is already below well below both of those.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#402

Post by chgs »

rchaud wrote: post #315
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…

It ain't piracy if the record I want is out of print and no longer commercially available. Most of the music I listen to is pre-2010, so there are a lot of records that fit that description. Same goes for live recordings, remixes and radio sessions. P2P has had this for 20+ years, Spotify doesn't and never will.

It’s still copyright infringement just like copying the latest Taylor swift album is.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#403

Post by joshuamorton »

rightbyte wrote: post #332
joshuamorton wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like 15% of spotify's revenue is from ads, and so even if you do that you have to address the ad-fraud problem. You also aren't even addressing one of the issues here, which is functionally "listen-time" related fraud on Spotify, but simple solutions don't really work, since yt has the same issue in reverse. As a general rule, if you think something like "No abuse possible.", you are unfamiliar with the pro…

> As a general rule, if you think something like "No abuse possible.", you are unfamiliar with the problem space. Ok. The gains for the abuse is capped at the subscription fee minus Spotifys fees, per account.

This is, functionally, already true.

The gains from a lot of the abuse vectors they've mention are either ad-fraud related (your suggestions don't help), or are ways you steal from other creators by taking a larger than intended share. That is true whether the pool is $N,000,000 dollars statically, or a larger fraction than intended of 10000 $2 pools per user.

The other alternative is a pay-per-listen business model, but this kills the company.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#404

Post by rchaud »

chgs wrote: post #402
rchaud wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ain't piracy if the record I want is out of print and no longer commercially available. Most of the music I listen to is pre-2010, so there are a lot of records that fit that description. Same goes for live recordings, remixes and radio sessions. P2P has had this for 20+ years, Spotify doesn't and never will.

It’s still copyright infringement just like copying the latest Taylor swift album is.

Taylor Swift albums are not out of print and she owns her record label. I am talking about recordings that were never released commercially, or released by labels that are long gone. This is closer to the videogame emulation legality argument than it is Metallica v Napster.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#405

Post by baby »

rchaud wrote: post #330
baby wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just about the money. It’s about the exposure! If you’re not a big band you’re making money from touring. More people listening and discovering you online = more people attending your tours and maybe reaching a threshold where you can make good money

It's the opposite. If you're not a big band, you usually cannot afford to go on tour. You have no manager, no contacts, you have to handle booking venues, lodging and transport yourself and hope that you can make some of it back in ticket sales. Most bands can't do this. They're not full time musicians, many have a day job. The ones that can are likely to come from rich families where they get time and money to pursu…

If not a tour you play in cafes and bars

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#406

Post by orangesite »

fundatus wrote: post #382
alexcannan wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers are very good at doing these calculations

Obviously, but as I said it's much more complex and therefore more expensive to do. With a negligible effect.

a) SQL queries are not expensive.

b) As I said, the effect for the vast majority of artists would be quite the opposite of negligible.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#407

Post by RCitronsBroker »

usrusr wrote: post #246
RCitronsBroker wrote: post #198

that’s BS and in no way solving their very real bot problem. This wasn’t reported on worldwide, but here in Germany, it got some press due to local hip-hop labels being involved. Malicious labels use click farms to push up the numbers on their artists, either by manipulating all platforms or locking their artist into Spotify. This, in addition to other forms of manipulation such as playlists-aaS, isn’t just a ploy to…

But would those cases remain in the sub-monetization bracket? If their goal is to get the double benefit, laundered gift card or identity theft money and taking popularity, then they'd surely want to focus farmed streams on fewer songs, not spread them. Or are Spotify popularity heuristics really so laughably bad that they consider a bazillion plays on a bazillion separate "tracks" as good (or better?) a signal for p…

you are absolutely right, that’s exactly my point in favor of Spotify being dishonest here. They are just looking for reasons to buy for less and sell for more, thats it.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#408

Post by iamacyborg »

kivle wrote: post #284
iamacyborg wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just cancel your Spotify subscription. I did, and now use a combination of Roon and Tidal. I have a much better listening and discovery experience through Roon and artists get paid more with Tidal.

Subscribed to Tidal for about a year until my patience ran out. It has to be one of the buggiest pieces of long living software ever. Pressing the next button would skip two songs ahead for playback and one song ahead UI wise, making the UI tell you the wrong song was playing. That's just one of a wall of bugs I struggled with while I stayed on that service.

The way I use it, I don’t interact with their app at all, it’s all streamed through Roon.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#409

Post by Shorel »

nmisko wrote: post #366
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.

What percentage do Tidal and Spotify each pay?

Tidal pays artists between $0.0125 and $0.015 per stream, with the potential to earn $1,250-$1,500 for every 100,000 streams.

Spotify pays between $0.003 and $0.005 per stream, with a 70/30 split in favour of the rights holders, which could include the artist, the label, or others depending on the artist's contract.

The actual amount artists earn per stream on Spotify is often less than these figures due to the distribution of payments to the rights holder and the artist's agreement with them.

https://www.lalal.ai/blog/music-streaming-payouts-2023/

https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a...

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#410

Post by croon »

_3u10 wrote: post #396
croon wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

They aren’t making you pay anything, there’s a wide variety of music services. A company offering an entertainment service is hardly forcing anyone to do anything.

In the context of Spotify customers, they are. They could have a separate tier including podcasts.
Post reply on HN