dpwtr
u/dpwtr
Q&A subreddit to understand Trump supporters, their views, and the reasons behind those views. Debates are discouraged.
Q&A subreddit to understand Trump supporters, their views, and the reasons behind those views. Debates are discouraged.
If you don't like the GOP, why do you support Trump? Hasn't he decided their general direction for the past 8 years?
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
There's no exact increase. It depends on the user country and subscription type, and through which distributor an artist releases. Companies like major labels and Merlin (which represents tens of thousands of indie artists) have higher rates. My point throughout this whole discussion has always been the same: Spotify does not make any more from this, it just increases the amount for artists who actually have fans.
We're talking about artists not being paid fairly. You're pinning pretty much all of the blame on the company that's taking 30% in exchange for a platform with 500m users, while the company that just sends your music to them is taking 80%. When you say we're not talking about record labels, even if Spotify increased their payout by 1000%, the label would still take 80% of the increase. Spotify has no control or influence over that. If we don't focus on fixing that part of the problem, the amount streaming services pay per stream is inconsequential.
Look at what UMG is doing with Deezer, where more popular artists get "double boosted" because UMG thinks they're more valuable. Spotify have run these tests internally and told UMG no because it's worse for independent artists. I guess that doesn't matter because Daniel Ek has a good salary so they must be evil. Have you seen how much the CEO of UMG gets paid?
I can tell you have good intentions but your outrage is misplaced and your moral superiority is giving you way too much confidence to speak on a topic you don't know enough about.
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
But it doesn't sound like you do get it. You keep saying "we don't know" but the reality is YOU don't know because you don't know how Spotify royalties work. The royalty pool stays the same but the payout per song becomes bigger because less songs are eligible to earn royalties. Every song above 1,000 will receive slightly more money than before this change.
Stop saying they haven't "outlined how they actually plan on distributing these royalties" because you're just wrong. I've explained it multiple times above. They don't need to specify this any more than they already have because most people in the industry (those who are affected by this change) understand exactly what it means. There are also other things in the announcement, like longer minimum play times for non-music content and fines for distribution companies that don't crack down on streaming fraud. These changes aim to give more money to artists. It's very clear what they're trying to do.
Your problem is you're so brainwashed by the idea that Spotify is an evil corporation that you can't accept the reality of simple business decisions. It sounds like you're getting all your info from clickbait headlines and Twitter threads and your only argument is you don't trust them, which in itself is evidence of nothing.
I don't agree with everything they do but the idea that they don't want to pay artists is silly. The only way artists will get paid more is by raising subscription prices and enabling more options to monetize within the platform, with things like merch, donations and events. All of those things are focus points for Spotify and they are making progress. They take approximately 30% of the royalty pool. If they increase subscription prices, the pool gets bigger and everyone makes more. Both Spotify & the rightsholders. Do you think a public company with consistent yearly loses doesn't want to raise their subscription prices? Of course they do, but Apple & Amazon are keeping their prices low (at a loss) to hold Spotify back. All you have to do is look at the timing of subscription price rises of Apple, which was directly after Spotify. Let's also not forget their App Store commission which takes money that is meant for the royalty pool. What do you think they'll do to royalty payments and subscription prices if Spotify dies and they get market dominance?
I don't want to get too deep into defending Ek but he didn't blame artists for anything. He was suggesting that the way people consume music has changed and it's beneficial to release more often. This wasn't a scheme to exploit artists, it was a genuine observation of an industry-wide change that was already well underway. I concede he is somewhat incentivised to encourage artists to release more, but why is that such a terrible thing and what do you expect him to say? Everyone should release less? It was blown way out of proportion. Artists still have a choice and people were already doing it long before that quote.
All this talk of artists not being paid fairly and you haven't once mentioned a record label. Read up on how much royalties they take, how they fund marketing campaigns (recouping) and all of their contractual terms like re-recording restrictions. Spotify is not perfect but they are not the devil everyone makes them out to be. They're an easy target to deflect from the actual industry-wide problem that has existed long before streaming: lazy, greedy and incompetent middlemen.
Probably because it's SO important to a huge portion of their base and they've spent the last few decades making that the case. Politics (these days) is about pitting two sides against one another. Some issues, like abortion, are too ingrained in their overall strategy they can no longer back out. They need to gain votes, but if they flip flop on abortion, they'll lose way more than when they stick with it but they won't win much from the other side.
So homeless people are your guinea pigs now? What makes you think they have the energy to relive their struggles to an entitled nosy student? See how that can easily be turned into a negative? People react differently to stuff. She can speak to people, sit outside, visit homeless shelters, read books... there's no perfect way to properly understand being homeless.
Also, it's a bit strange to assume she's just keeping any money? Based on the caption she's clearly interested in the topic and not looking to scam people. It's pretty easy to pass on any donations you receive.
To get a glimpse of what other people experience on a daily basis? It would be much better if she didn't post about it on Instagram, but I don't see a big issue in her trying to emphasise with homeless people. Of course she won't get the full picture of what it's like, but I can imagine it offers some perspective.
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
This is the original source for the information in the thread. It is the second confirmation after what was leaked a couple of weeks ago.
You're overcomplicating what is a very simple statement. The first 1,000 streams will not be monetised. This, by default, increases the amount of royalties available to pay out to the songs that do surpass 1,000 streams. It's not new cashflow. It will do the exact same thing it used to do, which is pay out to songs based on their share of streams per country. Only now they will exclude certain songs. Spotify's 30/70 split remains the same.
It's not trickery that will secretly make them more money. They just made a (somewhat cold) decision to draw a line somewhere. A decision that lots of people in the industry have wanted them to make for a long time. It's the same reason they finally increased subscription prices. The side of the industry (artists included) that actually generates engagement on the platform wants this, hence why that original source is saying it's a good thing. It's not enough but it's the right direction.
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
Reddit's #1 Music Community — Enjoy the tunes, join in discussion, and share your favorites tracks.
It costs $20 to distribute everywhere. I don't think you have a choice at this point.