this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
413 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37800 readers
415 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sub_@beehaw.org 79 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I remember when Joe Rogan was getting giant paycheck from Spotify promoting antivax stuff, and people talked about moving to Apple Music, but it feels like many just stuck with Spotify.

I came across a post on instagram that says that Al Yankovic's 80 million stream on playlist only netted him enough money to buy a sandwich.

Also, Spotify underpaying artists, making fake playlists with cover artists to undermine artists, are not new. It feels like the mainstream crowd just doesn't care, which pushes me further into depression.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I personally don't care because if a company isn't paying you for your time/work, that's their problem to sort out, not mine. I will go where the music is. If artists start leaving Spotify and it becomes a wasteland of nothing but trash, then I'll find new places to get it from. Why should I worry about their income? I'm paying for a service, I get the service and use it. I have my own income issues to handle, I don't need theirs too.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 year ago (8 children)

What Spotify does affects the entire music market. Why should you worry about their income? Because Spotify's strategy makes it harder and harder for musicians to have the income to keep on making music. If you care about having music to listen to, you should care about this. Also, Spotify and music is just one example of the overall exploitation of workers. If you don't stand for artists when it's their livelihood at stake, why should anyone stand up for your rights when it's your livelihood at stake?

[–] CalamityBalls@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Buy concert tickets if you want to support musicians, streaming income doesn't really factor into it afaik.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the point, though. Spotify is rigged specifically so that they don't have to pay small artists. Spotify splits the pot with the Big Three and everyone else can go fuck themselves. I would much rather my monthly payment go toward the artists I actually listen to. Instead, most of a monthly payment goes to the most played artists-- which Spotify rigs to be whoever nets them the most money (low royalty artists, high dividends for Spotify and the Big Three who are highly invested in it)

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I think Tidal scores the best among music streaming services in terms of compensating artists. I switched from Spotify to Tidal several months ago and have no regrets

[–] morry040@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

It's estimated that Tidal pays $0.013 per stream, Spotify pays $0.003 - $0.005, and Apple pays $0.01 per stream.
https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-tidal-pay-per-stream/

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago

Found the egoist!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Skua@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reporting on Spotify's payments to artists typically puts payments at 0.003 - 0.005 USD per stream. 80,000,000 streams at 0.003 is just shy of a quarter of a million dollars. And it's totally fair to still argue about whether that's enough or whether it's fair to the many small artists than Weird Al, but his video is definitely a joke and not reflective of the actual income unless he's getting unbelievably shafted by his label

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When pay is basically non existent is there a reason to be on spotify? Or is it for "exposure" in hopes of finding new fans.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

The same reason merchandise sellers are on Amazon even though Amazon forces them to lower prices and make less: if you're NOT on Amazon, people just won't find you. If you're not on Spotify, you don't exist in the music world to some people. Because otherwise where else will they search for you? Youtube Music or Apple Music, both pay sites. Otherwise you're having word of mouth or searching manually.

[–] Masimatutu@mander.xyz 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=fNjQG7y9aoQ

I love Weird Al! But pretty sure this was hyperbole. The point still stands, though. It really is depressing that people just follow "everybody else" when giving abusive megacorporations money. Same with social media, especially when there are great, healthy, ethical alternatives to be found is the Fediverse.

Edit: I'll just link pixelfed just because...

[–] cwagner@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

I came across a post on instagram that says that Al Yankovic’s 80 million stream on playlist only netted him enough money to buy a sandwich.

It was hyperbole, unless his sandwich costs 200-300k. Which is the reason why his statement was very questionable.

[–] nix@merv.news 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apple Music isnt much better and giving even more power to such a huge corporation sucks. Regardless though, there’s this thing thats been understood with services/products where most people don't switch unless the competition is 10x better.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blazera@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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?

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

With hits that low, youre basically just advocating for UBI at that point, you cant expect pay for every little amateur hobby folks have.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People want to listen to it tough, don't they? Don't these amateur musicians provide a service that people value?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 1 year ago (14 children)

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

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Neato@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] spwyll@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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:

  1. 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
  2. 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"
  3. 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"
  4. 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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scytale@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is anyone still using Spotify?

They have money to pay Joe Rogan an absolutely obscene amount of money which could have made hundreds of artists life awesome apparently (which feels more like a bribe). So it is clear, they have the cash to pay others too. They just choose not to

[–] twei@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I hate the company but I haven't found another streaming service with a similar amount of music, sound quality and algorithm. I have a jellyfin instance, but it lacks the choice and algorithm.

Edit: I am currently in the process of switching to Tidal. It has pretty much all the niche artists that I usually listen to, the algo is pretty good (at least thats what other ppl say), the audio quality is very good and it has a really nice UI. Also, it pays Artists twice as much as Spotify.
It doesn't have a native App for Linux, but there is https://github.com/Mastermindzh/tidal-hifi, which is an electron wrapper for the web-ui that is also available via Flatpak and works well so far.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BurningRiver@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like you’re doing everyone a disservice when you don’t tell us the most beneficial way for us to hear your music.

[–] Masimatutu@mander.xyz 18 points 1 year ago

The best way is always to buy the music directly from the artist, in this case:

[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bandcamp and Tidal. Please everyone, we need to kill Spotify, they hate artists.

[–] SheerDumbLuck@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

https://www.thefader.com/2023/10/31/bandcamp-united-files-unfair-labor-practice-violation-claim-against-songtradr-and-epic-games

[–] dallo@lemmy.kiois.net 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] klangcola@reddthat.com 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] x3i@lemmy.x3i.tech 13 points 1 year ago

Would love to know if this is better at Tidal than at Spotify. After all, that is the main reason I switched.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 13 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I haven't used Spotify in a while. I buy stuff on Bandcamp (Bandcamp Friday usually).

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Plume@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I don't know what to do honestly. I'm fully aware of the situation. Artists deserve better then the shit they're always getting, I'm not disagreeing. But here's the thing, buying music is nice and all, but one: Bandcamp is going to shit. And two, I just can't afford it.

I'm poor and I listen to a lot of things. Buying all that isn't possible for me. Right now, I'm using Deezer, because they offered 3 months for free. And you know what? Just the 10 bucks a month that I'm saving is making a huge difference in my life.

Not to mention that discovering music without streaming services is quite hard. I left Spotify a long time ago, when the home page started recommending me more Podcasts then music. I tried a lot of things and I came to the conclusion that I hate all music streaming platform but they're still, by far, the best way for me to listen to and discover music.

If I love an album, I'll still buy if I can afford it (which I often can't).

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] furycd001@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Fuck em..
Just buy music directly from the artist whenever possible....

[–] raptir@lemdro.id 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I did, I cancelled Spotify and switched to Tidal because of this, and noted the reason in my exit survey.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›