Recent news revealed that Spotify’s CEO Daniel Ek has been investing heavily in military tech companies, which adds another ethical layer to a platform already criticized for how little it pays musicians !

Spotify only pays artists about $3–5 per 1,000 streams, using a pro-rata model that directs most money toward major stars… By contrast, Qobuz (≈$18–20 per 1,000 streams) and Tidal (≈$12–13) pay far more fairly!

However Tidal is far from ethical. Most of its revenue is controlled by private investors and founders and small artists still earn very little…

More fair-minded platforms like Bandcamp, Resonate, Ampled, or SoundCloud’s fan-powered royalties prioritize musicians over investors.

With these more ethical alternatives available, why do we keep using Spotify?

  • Mihies@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Sure, but that doesn’t give you rights to pirate their music, does it? There is also the problem who gets paid what when you buy their merch.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Ask any artist: they make most of their money from merch and ticket sales (depending on venue).

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I assume that depends on the contract they have with their label, but usually it’s a way for them to earn more.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Its standard across the industry. Artists get paid very little in per unit sales of media.

          The bulk of money they earn comes from tours (which they cover the bill for, and cut some of the profits from), and merch (which they take the largest cut from).

          • Mihies@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            That’s the standard, yes. And the solution is to pirate their music instead? But seriously, why do they even bother with labels then? Don’t get me wrong, I’d like for them to be better paid and for streaming services to allocate bigger cut to them, however, piracy doesn’t help with this at all. Usually it’s just an average Joe excuse to not pay anything at all.

    • ober@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m not really worried about whether a label or corporation deems me to have the “right” to listen to their music. The only thing I’m concerned with outside of consuming the art is the artist who made it. I highly doubt any artist would genuinely care if someone pirated their music but still payed them through other means (like buying merch, tickets, etc).

      I think the argument of who gets paid what when you buy merch is irrelevant when you consider the alternative being the artist gets virtually nothing. I would have to listen to an artist 200 times for them to maybe get a singular dollar from spotify. If whoever is handling their merch store is giving them less than that for each sale of a shirt then it’s the artists fault at that point for still working with them.

      • Powderhorn@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I highly doubt any artist would genuinely care if someone pirated their music

        That’s literally what happened with Napster. Metallica were rather pissed, and Napster shut down, leading to the fun P2P days of Whac-a-Mole.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Fuuuuuuuuck Metallica of course it was one of the grotesquely wealthy ones that tried to kill sharing. Maybe the entire industry eat itself and collapse !