Of course they don't pay artists. That's not the people Spotify has contracts with. Spotify pays labels, and Spotify pays them a lot. That nothing emerges on the other side is not Spotify's fault.

Right but the label is the equivalent the publisher in this case aka the institution that adds no value.

They pay more than radio per listen.

The are serving songs on demand where radio is not, so what they pay shouldn't be compared with radio.

So instead of the record firm chosen top 50 and the nostalgia 200 it gives the long tail radio play payments too.

It isn't clear what this means. Are you saying that radio isn't as valuable because we can't be sure that anyone is listening? That isn't the way that radio sells its advertising: "We charge less for ads because much of the time nobody is listening!" Beside the study that GP presumably references [0] specifically controlled for audience size.

[0] http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1155395/business-...

Radio isn't as valuable because you don't get to choose what you're listening to. Your favorite artist may never be on the radio.

No, I'm saying Spotify is more like owing the records -- you can play whatever you want, replay it as many times as you like, etc, than radio, which offers a lesser service.

So artists should get more from Spotify than they do for radio plays anyway.