this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
406 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37717 readers
370 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
Im an artist trying to make a living with my art. Its not like a normal job where youre profitable from the beginning. Shit is competitive, people dont want to spend money on stuff they can get for free, unless its really good. A thousand free views doesnt amount to a dime for anyone. I can and do outright sell some art, but its taken like hundreds of thousands of free views before i was good enough where anyone would give me money for it. You could also compare like patreon subscribers to twitter followers, it is a huge ratio, way more than 1000:1. You can sell your art, you can go a subscriber model, you can be hired for your art, there are plenty of avenues to profit from your art, but the bottom line is people have to willingly pay money for it.
Cool story bro, it has nothing to do with spotify ripping off artists.
Good for you that youre okay with being ripped off by spotify? I guess? But we arent talking about what immoral actions you are willing to ignore to further your potential career.
People are willingly paying spotify either monthly or via ads to listen to these artists. They have paid for the art. Spotify doesnt want to give the earned cut. Your willingness to give up your fair share in the hopes of future recognition is a personal decision, but that doesnt make it right. It just means you, personally, arent willing to fight off the boot on your chest.
Which is the mentality spotify is counting on to get away with ripping off you and everyone else who cant afford lawyers.
so take your music off of spotify, no one is making you give them your music.
Damn, dude, you are insanely self obsessed, huh?
I dont have any content on spotify, but thats neither relevant nor the point.
This isnt immoral or wrong because it is negative for me, directly and specifically. Its not okay to rip off artists until Im the one ripped off. Its wrong to do to anyone.
Did they stop teaching that in schools, or something? What brain rot is this? Do you stand by and twiddle thumbs when you see someones purse get nabbed? Do you cheer, cause the theif got a windfall?
Aint shit been stolen. it's willingly given. Spotify doesnt have to buy their music, they dont have to let spotify use their music. They paid for it this year, they're letting artists know ahead of time, hey we're not paying that price next year. And there is zero obligation for the artists to continue letting spotify use their music next year.
I now completely understand how artists get ripped off.
Youre almost gleeful in it. You sound damn near excited not to be paid for your work. Its like you think your work isnt worth the money.
Is it, like. A fetish thing? Some domination kink?
I do get paid for my work and am well aware of what my work is worth. Not what I'd like for it to be worth, but the reality of people spending money on what I make.
Thats an odd lie, as youve already stated that you do not value art paid for on spotify if it isnt popular enough.
People have spent money on this art, that spotify is now refusing to pay for. You have repeatedly stated you think that money isnt deserved, despite being paid.
Why are you changing the story now?
His point is legitimate, though. Content people aren't willing to pay for is a net cost.
There's some line where permissive ability to upload costs them money.
That cost is paid 100000000000000x over from the other artists they are underpaying. If this was really such an issue of cost, and not penny pinching, they would have a filter for content that isnt played enough and remove it from the service.
Why dont they? Because they cost is almost nil, its covered a thousand times over by the money gained from the platform, and they just want to keep more cash from the people they know cant fight back.
His point doesnt apply to spotify. They arent a struggling indie service trying to cover server costs. Massive super star artists frequently complain about penny pinching from spotify. Theyre just greedy.