1. Uhh, ok. So that means the artists are not getting used? I've got friends who work for Spotify, hence me getting super-early invite and they're making ridiculous money based on artists getting screwed. That's what matters.
I didn't say artists aren't getting "used." I said there is no profit. Spotify is not a public company; however, as I pointed out in this thread via a different link: they're not making
any money. I don't know what your "friend" is telling you, but if he is really telling you that the company is making "ridiculous money" then that is news that virtually every single tech website would love to have, and I recommend you submit that information to them. If this source is correct, you literally, will be breaking news.
|2. Oh, really? Wow. Never knew about that! Things change? Rad!|
What's the point of the sarcasm? Your post was to envision a market change and what that would do for someone's livelihood -- I simply pointed out that it doesn't take much to look through history and see this is far from the first time it has (and will continue) to happen. The argument that it disrupts the current market is not, in my opinion, sound enough to put up road-blocks to innovation. We have historical evidence that supports that technology will prevail. You can't put the ketchup back in the bottle.
|3. Jesus christ man, that's not the number your royalties are based on. |
Royalties are not based upon song plays? I thought they were based upon an artist's relative popularity/streaming compared to the service as a whole?
|They don't match up what so ever and it's all laid out in the contract. This is not an unusual thing. The royalties are so abysmal anyways that it's the least of our worries.|
The original statement was
that there was "no information as to which artist got how many plays" -- which is untrue. If royalties are calculated based upon something other than plays of a song, I'm curious what they are being based upon. Spotify's documentation seems to disagree
with your assertion.
In general, however, Spotify pays royalties in relation to an artist's popularity on the service. For example, we will pay out approximately 2% of our gross royalties for an artist whose music represents approximately 2% of what our users stream. A popular song or album can generate far more revenue for an artist over time than it historically would have from upfront unit sales.
Your additions to the first quote are completely off-topic as far as I'm concerned. My point is not that the artist should swim in 80's style royalties. It's about control. I opt for giving away everything for free instead of putting it on Spotify and so does a lot of artists who criticize them.
I'm not sure how that's a solution when you talk about avoiding the "devaluation" of music? I can understand an argument about control, however, you have to weigh the pros and cons. Do you want to give up some amount of control to reach a larger audience or not. Even giving away your music for free -- for the majority of people -- they'll never find it. A centralized database of music offers greater discovery mechanisms than piece-meal "free" offerings from bands spread all around the internet.