• SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    “Spotify already pays nearly 70% of every dollar it generates from music to the record labels and publishers

    Sounds like the issue might be with the record labels…

    • Matte@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m a small label owner and I guarantee you that it’s a red herring. they set the price of the service, and you can either upload your music on spotify, or not upload it.

      compared to the market before digital platforms, where YOU set the price according to several factors, Spotify is the judge and the jury. they choose what the subscription cost is. they choose what your music is worth. they choose the amount of payout you’re gonna get. this is completely backwards! WE should be the ones, labels and artists, to tell spotify what our cost is, and THEY should be the ones setting their subscriptions on the according price for them to be able to cover all their running costs.

      but they put themselves in the dominating position on the market, and contributed to the destruction of the physical market. we got left with no choice but to upload our music on their service and eat shit.

      we passed from earning thousands of euro per year in physical and digital sales, to getting 100€ every three months for royalties on spotify. this is unsustainable whatever the way you look at it.

      they’re the pirates, and ruined the market much more than what pirate bay ever did.

      • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m curious if you know how this works for other streaming services?

        Presumably there’s a market rate that users are currently willing to pay and as such an increase of pay from Spotify to artists would mean they need to increase the fee to their users. This would make them less competitive and possibly lose subscriptions.

        I’ve already jumped ship from Spotify over to YouTube music for example because in my country it was a better deal.

        • Matte@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          of course it’s a better deal, Youtube Music barely pays anything. it’s even worse than Spotify, and most of their streamings come for free, which is enraging to say the least.

          anyways they have two paths: they either suck the costs in and increase the subscriptions (and lose customers in the meanwhile, so they’ll earn less in order to give more money to the small artists) or they cut the share they’re giving to the majors, which is the biggest percentage of the pie. but majors will simply boycott spotify and create their own platform, just as it happened with netflix.

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    If your business can’t pay it’s workers (artists) fairly, your business doesn’t deserve to exist.

  • sQuirrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Free market… always look for more ethical options that still fit your music. An ideal platform would be Audius. It’s built on blockchain technology but is limited with music content. It would be the perfect way to allow artists to make a living and get rid of the record label kingpins and Spotify pimps forever!

    • Madison_rogue@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      In a letter sent to Uruguay’s Minister of Education Pablo Da Silveira, a spokesperson for Spotify said: “If the proposed reform became law in its current form, Spotify’s business in Uruguay could become unfeasible, to the detriment of Uruguayan music and its fans,” claiming that the amendment would force it to “pay twice” the amount of royalties.

      Spotify currently pays out at 70%. Doubling royalties would cause them to pay out more than they make in subscription and ad revenue. This is why they’re shutting down.

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        70% of what?

        If that’s subscription revenue in Uruguay then the business model is just not feasible, unless they up the subscription fees to adequately cover costs.

        This is the risk when the revenue model doesn’t scale with th cost model.

      • Matte@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        they don’t. spotify says they’re paying 70%, but they don’t tell how they redistribute that revenue. they have under-the-table deals with the 3 majors who grabs most of that money, and leave the crumbs to everybody else.

  • nothingcorporate@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Fuck Spotify. If you don’t want to be a 40 year old and buy albums, Deezer and Tidal pay much larger royalties than Spotify.