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

411–420 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#411

Post by richrichardsson »

rohansingh wrote: post #358
richrichardsson wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly it's each and every track needs 1k plays. As an artist over all my tracks I'd meet the threshold of 1k plays, but I don't think that's how it works.

Yeah, good point. This would probably be better received overall if it were a per-artist minimum rather than a per-track. On the other hand, that would make it pretty trivial for garbage/AI content distributors to circumvent.

If they really cared about musicians they would have just left it at fining the aggregators for allowing crap on the platform. Just a tiny amount of KYC from the aggregators would solve the problem, but instead the aggregators were just as greedy as Spotify and were happy to allow any old shit in, so they could grab another slice of the pie.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#412

Post by thirdsun »

noirscape wrote: post #127

IMO the problem is that Spotify is fundamentally breaking the "spirit" of the deal that allowed them to get in the position they are right now. Spotify's entire promise was "we solve the music inequality problem by just pooling all subscriber money together and then we do an equal(-ish, record labels iirc got slightly different deals) split depending on how many people listen to your music." It kinda sells the idea t…

Did anyone really expect 10 dollars a month to be enough to be sustainable? That's the price we used to pay for a single album and it seems way too low for a sustainable flatrate music service.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#413

Post by iggldiggl »

Monory wrote: post #387
jdeibele wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: have you ever run a business? You're talking about setting up millions of accounts to pay them $.02 or $.20 or even $2.00. ACH payments cost an average of $.29/each https://gocardless.com/en-us/guides/ach/ach-fees-how-much-do... You're dealing with a bunch of people who will try to rip you off, so you need to have anti-fraud protections. Then you need to be able to override the anti-fraud protections…

SEPA seems to have no problem moving sub-euro amounts. I am not an entrepreneur, but I did send single euro amounts to my friends. Is it more difficult in USA?

My impression from Germany is that while private accounts often have no transaction fees (and are either completely free, or charge a flat monthly fee), with business accounts it's not that unusual to have transaction fees of up to ten or even twenty cent per transaction.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#414

Post by chgs »

rchaud wrote: post #404
chgs wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still copyright infringement (assuming it’s not so old to have left copyright). Doesn’t matter if it’s a song that was last printed on a 78 in 1945 and the artist decided to burn all copies, or the latest album from some k-pop band that you can get free with your cornflakes.

Being in print or not makes no difference

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#415

Post by rightbyte »

joshuamorton wrote: post #403
rightbyte wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

I am not concerned with ad fraud, since it is more or less futile to prevent fraud in pay per impression setups.

My suggestion would however work, if ad money were distributed for plays proportional to how paying users listen, as long as Spotify's fee is larger than the ads share of revenue. I.e. each paying user don't "decide" more than a dollar of royalties per dollar paid.

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/great-big-spotify-sca...

They argue a guy in Bulgaria set up 1200 premium accounts. However, they don't have proof.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#416

Post by rldjbpin »

i see the ethical arguments against this decision. at the same time, we got testimonials from up and coming artists saying that their current pay is literally a few cents per month for getting similar streams as the threshold.

i am no artist but have been making youtube videos on and off for the past 5 years, with only one video breaking 6 figures in views. yet i never reached the threshold in the platform to monetize my content, while youtube is free to play ads on my hundreds of (non - spam/short) videos.

if not receiving a couple dollars per month for my videos is what stops me from my passion, then i need to ask myself more pressing questions.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#417

Post by joshuamorton »

rightbyte wrote: post #415
joshuamorton wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I am not concerned with ad fraud, since it is more or less futile to prevent fraud in pay per impression setups. My suggestion would however work, if ad money were distributed for plays proportional to how paying users listen, as long as Spotify's fee is larger than the ads share of revenue. I.e. each paying user don't "decide" more than a dollar of royalties per dollar paid. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/gr…

> I.e. each paying user don't "decide" more than a dollar of royalties per dollar paid.

Yes, you still run into the issue where 30 second whale songs get a larger than intended share of the royalties from whale-song-listening users.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#419

Post by consf »

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.…

[dead]

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#420

Post by consf »

UncleMeat wrote: post #348
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.

It's actually really pitty to hear. I think there are authors who contribute valuable research and knowledge to their fields and still not able to get royalties...
Post reply on HN