You know what, this makes me feel a lot better about using an ad-blocker when using their site. Although, I would prefer if the artists I listen to didn’t exclusively use Spotify for some reason.
I’m all for ad blockers. But this doesn’t solve the creators’ issue with not getting paid. The internet is a severely underutilized resource. Creators should be able to sell their content directly to us without middlemen like these.
Creators should be able to sell their content directly to us without middlemen like these.
They can and do. Most are just lazy/uneducated/choose not to.
I agree with that and some of the artists I listen to actually do use platforms where you can purchase their music directly but unfortunately buying the music directly just really isn’t viable for me. Platforms that use ads for monetization are really the only way that’s viable but the artists I listen to only use Spotify, or if they do use other platforms, they just use them for demos and other promotional stuff.
How is that going to help artists getting paid?
I usually use them to discover music. Then I make donations or buy merch/disks of the artists I really like.
Small stuff and when I can afford it, but I try to make my part
deleted by creator
How much of this is Spotify’s fault and how much is the major record labels sitting between Spotify and the individual artists?
And is there a better place for us consumers to go and vote with our wallet? Ideally somewhere that isn’t one of the 5 major tech giants that control everything
We will never know, but somehow people think it’s our problem to deal with.
Cory Doctorow writes extensively about how it’s Spotify’s fault, as an extension of the common exploitation of musicians in the industry, in the excellent book Chokepoint Capitalism. Here’s a short summary of the Spotify argument by the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ5z_KKeFqE
The newest part, which is Spotify refusing to payout what small artists are owed if they don’t hit a certain streaming threshold, is 100% on Spotify.
For alternatives, Tidal allegedly pays better and at least doesn’t do this. Qobuz is not owned by any big tech company.
The record labels that own Spotify
I did, I cancelled Spotify and switched to Tidal because of this, and noted the reason in my exit survey.
I’m…not seeing the problem here. I’m fine with there being a minimum before a check is issued as long as the amount is reasonable, and $3 seems pretty reasonable.
That’s how it works with a lot of things, including advertising, referrals, etc.
Maybe I’m missing something?
It’s not a minimum before a check is issued. If you do not have a certain number of annual listeners on a track you never get paid out for it. If you had 100 tracks that were each streamed by 999 listeners who each streamed them 100 times per year every year, Spotify will no longer pay you a dime, ever.
I think a key point of confusion is in the way they presented it. They talk about how many songs have “less than 1000 listens” and that those would only make $3, but then their new policy is to deny payment for “less than 1000 listeners.” If each of those listeners streamed the song once per month, you’re talking closer to $40 than $3, and that’s on a per song basis.
People outraged by anything and not knowing enough to know to not be outraged.
Some context is that this is Spotify’s first profitable quarter in quite a while. Also, there are 11 million artists on Spotify. I won’t pretend to have any data on listening distribution, but even naively and stupidly going with a uniform split, that’s of course $5 per artist if you eliminated Spotify’s profit entirely. In reality, most of those will have next to no listeners, and the vast majority of streams are going to the top several thousand.
The deeper question to ask is where all the streaming revenue is actually going, and the answer to that isn’t to line Spotify’s pockets; it’s to the labels.
It’s a bit of a confusing situation. Spotify pays the labels for the rights, but also has to pay the artists? Do the artists not get money from the labels for the money they got from seeling their songs? Do artists that own their own songs get a larger cut from Spotify?
And yeah 56mil is nothing to a business like this, I’m surprised it’s not more profitable with all the subscriptions and ad money. It’s like THE platform for music nowadays.
This is one of the reasons I use soundcloud when listening to music.
If you want to do the maths, the maximum one can possibly earn in Spotify royalties is $0.003 a stream. It doesn’t add up to a living wage for most artists.
And now, to make matters far worse, starting in 2024 Spotify will stop paying anything at all for roughly two-thirds of tracks on the platform. That is any track receiving fewer than 1,000 streams over the period of a year.
Honestly, does the 1k floor matter much? Based on the above text, the most that such a track can possibly make is $3/year. It’s a safe bet that most aren’t sitting right at 999 views and the maximum revenue per track; most are probably well below that. I have a hard time seeing someone caring much about that.
I’m not saying that there isn’t possibly some kind of business model for which a track making $1/year or something this might make sense (massive numbers of cheap machine-generated tracks targeting very specific tastes, that all get a few views each). But for conventionally-produced music, I think that if you’re making a song that’s generating 50 cents or 10 cents a year or something, it’s basically not on your radar financially.
There’s bands I listen to that have <10 monthly listeners. They still deserve their $3 a year IMO.
I have some questions about the royalties and the collective bargaining:
- Are the payments from streaming in addition to payment for being a songwriter via ASCAP or whatever royalty facilitator is used?
- If you have not signed to a label, or had a previous contract, is there anything stopping that person from collective bargaining? It seems to me if there is no contract, then they are not a supplier unless they want to be.
I don’t use Spotify or any paid service, they rarely have the music I listen to anyway. I do give donations to SOMA FM for groove salad, but I imagine they too are paying the bare minimum - a radio type royalty. But I also tend to buy physical music from the musicians I like and I do go out to see performances. By the way, although I don’t know Galaxie 500, I do recognize the Ornette Coleman reference; I do listen to Ornette live music from time to time.
There are a lot of issues here. I think you should have the right to own the company (streaming service) if you could be allowed to collectively get musicians to create a co-op or something like that. On the other hand I find it confusing when compared to my own work, where the company owns the code I write. I do not get paid every time it runs for the rest of my life, so why should you? But I get that the music industry corporations are ruthless, exploitive and chew up talent and spit them out, and are using the streaming services for their own benefit.
Some people might say what are you complaining about? You have a platform that is freely advertising your music, it is up to you to convert that to money. Other people might say that without your music, there would not be a platform. So once again, it seems the only way out is to have your own musician ran platform. So I support that, thanks for the shout out to the issues you face in collective bargaining, and the current legislation in the US.
I do not get paid every time it runs for the rest of my life, so why should you?
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but this feels rather easy to answer: because you are being paid to write the code. Spotify doesn’t pay anyone to write music (well maybe they technically do for some ads or something, but it’s definitely not how they acquire more music to add to the library), they just pay for streaming rights on music that was somehow already independently produced. And tiny unknown musicians have no leverage to negotiate better terms than what Spotify offers.
If you want to do the maths, the maximum one can possibly earn in Spotify royalties is $0.003 a stream. It doesn’t add up to a living wage for most artists.
And now, to make matters far worse, starting in 2024 Spotify will stop paying anything at all for roughly two-thirds of tracks on the platform. That is any track receiving fewer than 1,000 streams over the period of a year.
So if my maths are right, this means people not getting paid…are people that would make less than 3 dollars in a whole year?
Which really illuminates how fucked it is that they aren’t paying those people.
These tiny artists earning barely anything are evidently a major enough cost sector that it’s worth Spotify just telling them to get fucked. Playing their content is evidently significantly important to Spotify, but not enough to justify an annual check that isn’t even enough to buy a beer.
With hits that low, youre basically just advocating for UBI at that point, you cant expect pay for every little amateur hobby folks have.
People want to listen to it tough, don’t they? Don’t these amateur musicians provide a service that people value?
Thats just it, number of hits is the metric for that, if its low then folks dont want to listen to it.
To be clear, what I said is Spotify should be sending them their annual several dollar checks. They shouldn’t be allowed to just trim away that cost entirely because the artists are small and Spotify wants more profits.
And what you’re saying is that they shouldn’t get anything because it’s “just a hobby”.
Fuck you, seriously.
Like, i dont think i deserve any money for getting some thousands of views of my art. I think im getting paid about how much money im making the platforms its on, which is nothing. Im not yet good enough to get a job making art, or to sell my art instead of making it freely viewable.
Well thank god you arent in charge of any company worth a damn, you little scammer
Lol thats a lunatics take. You absolutely can be expected to pay every person who gives you content to farm users off of.
Imagine applying your take to any other business. “Sorry john, I loved the soap, but you only have 4 people a week asking about you, so Im going to be keeping it for free.”
“Love the scarf, really, but you only sold what, 25 this year? 50? Nah, Im just going to keep this. Let me now when you shift real sales, maybe then you will deserve being paid.”
Nah dude thats lunacy
the product isnt being taken and needing replacing, this is like people coming to look at the soap you made. And if enough people come and look at it, an advertiser might give you some money to put an ad by the soap.
Now, there’s nothing stopping you from selling the soap instead. There are avenues to sell your music instead of having it on a freely accessable platform.
Except thats incorrect. Spotify is a store, asking musicians to give them the rights to sell their songs as a package deal in exchange for a cut based on popularity. All music gets ads. There is no “low popularity ad free” section.
And now you, and spotify, are saying “yeah I know we agreed to pay you based on how many customers came in here for your stuff, but I think what you rightfully and legally earned is chump change, so I wont be giving it to you.”
You are advocating scamming people because you, personally, think the money owed is a pittance. Thats an evil, black hearted mentality.
It’s sort of a sliding scale between: making content that is popular enough for a platform to make considerable revenue from it and wants to pay you a portion to keep you there, because your content is competitive and could be making other platforms money. Or, it’s a free hosting site for data you’re uploading that’s funded with ads. Every other platform I know with this model, like Youtube or Twitch, have a cutoff between the two, it’s a hosting site for users until they’re popular enough to become business partners with a monetary agreement. It’s two way freedom between each party, spotify doesnt have to pay anyone anything, and no one has to host their content on spotify.
This isnt a retroactive change of terms, it’s new terms starting next year. Everyone’s getting what was agreed to this year. If they dont support the new terms, they can leave the platform. They wont, because they’re using it as a free hosting platform and not a money maker, maybe with hopes they’ll be popular enough someday.
“Its a sliding scale, we want your content but we dont want to pay you for it, so if we think youre not popular enough to take us to court over this we are sliding the scale of how much we pay you for the content to zero”
You sound like an evil cartoon robin hood villain, do you get that? Are you floating about in chains and a nightgown, in preperation for scaring jeff bezos this christmas eve?
“Nah its like youtube bro, the other super evil and morally bankrupt company!” Thats not a defense, why are you saying that like its a defense
What they’re actually advocating for is dividing each user’s pot by their listens.
If a user primarily listens to a handful of small bands, why shouldn’t their cut go to those bands, rather than being thrown into a big pool to be diluted? At first glance they’d be similar, but they’re arguing that if you do the math out they aren’t.
Your math assumes those people only have one track on Spotify. I currently have 25 tracks on Spotify. Without advertising or promotion of any kind, I earned about $12 this year. The big problems are:
- New rules apply per song, so if ALL my songs got 999 streams, that would be $75 they wouldn’t pay me–if ONE song hit the magic 1000 streams they would pay me $3 and I still wouldn’t get the other $72
- They are still making money off my streams, they are just coming up with ways not to pay me for it while still claiming to be “artist focused”
- They claim the “small payments” usually don’t get claimed anyway so they don’t see the need to make them–this is ideologically “paying with exposure”
- By your logic, since $33,975 annual income is the federal poverty level, anyone making less than that should not complain about not getting paid at all–you can obviously insert any arbitrary amount here to support the “logic” of “that’s not much so nothing at all is just as good”
I have no delusions about ever making a living off Spotify (or my extremely niche music in general), but the idea that a corporation should be able to monetize my work and not have to pay me anything for it is sort of distasteful
you dont have to let them monetize anything. host it yourself, or sell your music on other sites.
Any track, not any artist. You could have a hundred tracks getting hundreds of streams a piece. Maximum before cutoff would be about $3/track. Not a ton but could be hundreds of dollars. And combining that from dozens to thousands of artists potentially in that boat.
And it’s likely a good bit less than 3
I haven’t used Spotify in a while. I buy stuff on Bandcamp (Bandcamp Friday usually).
I use Bandcamp instead of Spotify now, because that’s what most of my musician friends use to sell their music and recommend as the best way of supporting artists directly, and some of my favourite current artists are active on there. Yeah I can’t just stream and make playlists of whatever I want, and it’s more for new music than older stuff, but I can scroll through and play the suggested tracks which are far more interesting and diverse than anything Spotify would suggest to me, and then I can buy the stuff I really like. I’m slowly building up enough stuff that way to have an interesting collection on my phone to listen to, and it’s also introduced me to some really cool music that I wouldn’t have heard about from Spotify.
It’s looking like Bandcamp is going to get axed: Bandcamp lays off half its staff after buyout by Songtradr
Capitalism is a machine for producing tragedies.
The only silver lining is even if Bandcamp goes away, I can keep the music I bought on it. It’s all drm free. If a streaming service shuts down, you’re typically left with nothing despite having paid every month.
I hope Bandcamp survives, and somehow regains independence.
Do you know if this still gives artists the most cash after Epic’s purchase(and recent sale to songtradr)?
I believe on Bandcamp Friday the artist gets 100% of the sale. I’m not sure if they’re going to keep doing it after the sale to songtradr.
The loss of bandcamp’s independence is a tragedy
Agreed. There is an emerging trend among Fedi artists to use Faircamp, but it doesn’t exactly fill the same void.
https://get.bandcamp.help/hc/en-us/articles/1500006084082-What-are-Bandcamp-s-fees-
They charge a 15% fee. So the artist (if independent) or record label (if not) gets 85% of whatever you pay.
Sounds like they’re still one of the best. That’s good to hear.
Fuck em…
Just buy music directly from the artist whenever possible…I have around 48k streams on spotify and I’ve earned a whopping $172. Their new payment model would bring that down to essentially $0.
Honestly, 56 million profit is really not much. How many artists are getting next to nothing? 100,000? Splitting that profit between them leaves each with 560 per year. There’s even less when you include more.
And if Spotify raises the prices to pay more per play people will leave, leaving Spotify with less money to hand out. Having asshats like Rogan getting millions or the deals huge artists, who are already filthy rich like Taylor Swift, make with Spotify are what’s hurting small artists. I think Spotify has the same issue as the rest of the world. There is enough for everyone, it’s just not equally distributed.
Also no fair competition from Apple and google
I don’t even like using Spotify or Pandora, it’s full of ads and I can’t play what I want to play. I just go to YouTube or download what I want. Their structure sucks.
Spotify doesn’t really have ads. Only the horrible free plan does and you are obviously not supposed to use it. It’s designed to be as bad as possible to make people switch.
While YouTube is alright for music it’s very inconvenient compared to Spotify. The same multiplied by 100x applies to downloading all your music.
YouTube music is actually very good.
But you need a subscription… And unless you also use a lot of YouTube and would benefit from a lack of ads it’s not very good value.
I’m not into too much music, but whenever I do want to listen to some, I open a YouTube music client which is more than enough for my needs. they don’t require subscription, or are ads-riddled.
like, at the moment, I’m using vimusic
Bandcamp and Tidal. Please everyone, we need to kill Spotify, they hate artists.
Bandcamp was sold off without the unionized employees. If you’re doing this to be pro-labour, you can’t really support Bandcamp right now.
As a fellow Bandcamp enjoyer I am quite sad about its enshittification. Someone made Faircamp as an alternative. I hope that Funkwhale will fill the soundcloud/bandcamp niche.
Install some software on your server […]
I’m afraid that this is a big no-go for most artists, which just want to make music and don’t want to be server administrators.
This is why you can have local or label instance. People have email and website without being server administrators.
One important thing the centralized sites like Bandcamp enable, is discovery of new music and artists. I’m afraid that this is such a big deal that Faircamp won’t be able to take off until that problem is addressed and solved somehow.
deleted by creator
It’s unfortunate that this has to be a bad thing.
I know, but so far, it’s still the best way to give money to the creators. It’s basically 9:1 in favor of the artists when you buy an album… Hopefully a fair alternative will come up in a near future. Funkwhale is slowly getting better . Anyway, anything is better than Spotify.
