• athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    286
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

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

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not trying to glaze, but Trudeau had the same idea here in Canada, and Google and Facebook and most of the internet crucified him for it.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        The internet doesn’t tend to like to pay the actual cost for things. You’ll find very little sympathy for paid services, especially here on Lemmy.

            • spacesatan@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Is that for youtube videos not youtube music? Pretty sure YT music pays less than spotify by a wide margin.

            • umbrella@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              those choices of the minority won’t matter in the long run when the other service is cheaper and has the fatter marketing budget.

              just look at the refusal of normies to adopt something like mastodon just because you need a couple extra steps.

            • And009@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              True it’s probably going to become an outdated concept and what is really needed would be an universal basic income

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not really the same, this was more large Canadian companies trying to extort money from Google whilst google still gives them their traffic.

        Not trying to defend gogle, that company can burn to the ground as far as I care, but it wasn’t the same

  • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    200
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 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
      116
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      7 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.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        91
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        All of these complaints are nearly identical to the complaints about major labels prior to streaming. It’s almost like the core issue is still the same, but the scapegoat is changing.

        • Matte@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          47
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          ah, you got to the main issue of the question. the problem is not different from before, and Spotify has just been used as a tool from the majors. if you read a comment below, I wrote that it’s true that Spotify pays their 70% to the artists… but they don’t tell how that money is redistributed. what we earn as independent is absolutely not the same of what a Warner or Sony artist earn. Spotify made under-the-table agreements with the majors in order to grab their catalogue and avoid getting shut off.

          the majors saw spotify as a great tool to get themselves out of the hole they dug themselves into during the post 2000s, and kept doing their same shady kind of business.

          so well spotted, you’re absolutely right.

      • DV8@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        The physical market was long gone before Spotify happened, don’t make your legitimate complaints look silly by blaming Spotify for it. The music industry simply had no good answer to deal with digital media.

        Spotify did seem to force their hand and some artists improved and adapted. And it’s never had a true monopoly with many different services coexesting and competing with it.

        • Matte@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          sure thing, I’m not saying it’s not true. but we had two models to choose from: the bandcamp model, which is a marketplace where the artist can set their own price, the spotify model, where the distributor sets the price, and an in-between that was itunes, where the artist would suggest the price and the distributor could modify it.

          for some reason we went to the nuclear solution, and chose the terrible spotify business model, where three companies make money while killing everybody else.

      • Caesium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        what do you recommend a listener do to support the artists they love? I assume buying the music directly instead of streaming is the best, but I want to do what I can as a consumer

        • Matte@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          of course a direct purchase from bandcamp, either an album or a shirt/merchandise is the best. avoid amazon at all costs. purchasing from itunes is decent. if you want to stream, pay for an account on tidal, it’s the one that pays best of all the streaming services. the very worst is spotify and right under spotify youtube/youtube music. it’s better if you just grab the album from piratebay at that point, since youtube is the only one making money.

          • yojimbo@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            I am a Spotify user and I feel bad. Regarding Tidal - does it make any difference for you whether I am using the “Hifi” or “Hifi Plus” ? TY!

            • Matte@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m not sure if that changes anything. by logic I’d say if you pay more, more money will get redistributed but I can’t say for sure. what I can say is that I see my payouts, and Tidal is the one with the highest payout rate per streaming.

          • Matte@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            nope. majors have flooded the factories a couple years ago and cut off all the orders from small labels. we had a turnaround of 8 weeks, that from one month to another suddenly became 12 MONTHS. we tried looking for another factory but they were all booked. lots of labels died because of this. the majors played aggressively to kill ALL the competition, included small actors like me.

            have you seen the hundred thousand unsold copies of Adele’s last album last year? just to name one

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I work for a label and need to press that no artist would get actually big without their label. Nit because the artist isn’t good, but because if you can’t get deals with radio stations, deals with streaming services to get on curated playlists, interviews with Graham Norton/other shows, nomination/performances at award shows, promotions on tick tok, commercial/movie soundtrack deals, world tours, tradional advertising. Etc etc. Then you’re never going to be making good money in the industry.

      And music is infamously not very lucrative in terms of entertainment. Film, TV and video games companies are actually ordered of magnitude more profitable.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s clear that labels are acting as gatekeepers, but are they productive gatekeepers? Or just skimming off of the top — that is, rent seeking, profiting even when they provide little value themselves. It seems like there’s a lot of the latter going on.

    • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah they would cease to exist.

      And then nobody gets anything, not even the guys just running a white noise playlist, and making money off of it.

      • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I would love to go back to an artist release model and purchase model where non superstars (with big label circulation) can be successful again.

        As is, the same corps own the radio and the venues and the ads. Spotify harms Mariah Carey for example by undervaluing her songs on streaming, but at a fraction of the harm it inflicts to smaller artists.

        • money_loo@1337lemmy.com
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          …from Spotify going bankrupt, they definitely would stop getting money from Spotify, though, which is clearly what we’re talking about.

    • nnullzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is really neat. Never heard of it till now. As both an artist and developer I always felt that a decentralized and federated option for audio was the future.

      • CCL@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I hope you’ll check it out. I have an account on funkwhale.it as it allows up to 5GB of storage free of charge, which is the best I’ve seen for open registration instances (it also happens to be the first I learned of as I use several of the other features of the devol.it who operates that instance, simply because their cryptpad instance was the fisrt thing that showed up when I did a DDG search for Free and Federated Online Documents).

  • Ghostwurm@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Is this actually that Spotify doesn’t want to have to qualify value? Remuneration equal across regions? Oof being equitable could get expensive!

    • Auzy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      They’d rather pay 200 mil to people like Joe Rogan. It doesn’t matter how you look at that deal, he’s not worth that much, and there would be 0% chance of getting that money back (thats a lot of additional subscriptions)

  • sQuirrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 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!

  • nothingcorporate@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    7 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.

    • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      But life is boring without music. Anyway I try to buy my music through Bandcamp whenever I can, and stream it from my own server.

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      A life without music is a life not worth living. How about listening to the thousands of artists releasing 100% free, high quality works instead?

        • chriscz@iusearchlinux.fyi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Success! I mean I just found the comment funny. You need at least one sarcastic comment in a thread where everyone is super serious, more might be a bit too much.

          As a collectice we really have to pull together to solve things like this, but it’s often a problem of gaining traction, chicken-and-egg. I mean if everyone using Lemmy decides to switch over from Spotify to something else it will hardly make a dent, but it we could enable mass mobilization through offering free migration to a service undercutting Spotify we might make a dent, but even this is not ideal because it’s centralisation again.

          We need an effective mechanism to give big organization’s flak. One (somewhat impractical) technical solution might be to build a wrapper around all these platforms and then choose to play music through whomever is more aligned with the right goal(s), such as customer satisfaction and fair artist payouts.

          The idea of a DAO type organization comes to mind where our collective moral beliefs can be codified