News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes. Parent comment

Re:Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for... by criddell on Thursday September 24, 2020 @11:52AM (#24579819)
Spotify is complicated because the big record companies are also big shareholders. They have a conflict of interest.

Also 70% doesn't mean anything without actual numbers. If they lowered their subscription to $1 / month and gave 80% to rights holders it wouldn't be an improvement.

I'd be more interested if they reported how many plays per month it takes to earn as much as you would in a minimum wage job.

Edit: I was curious about the minimum wage question so I looked it up.

Assuming $15 / hour for minimum wage it would take 750,000 streams on Spotify and 430,000 streams on Apple Music to earn the same in a month as you would working a minimum wage job.

https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for... by jeremiahlee on Friday September 25, 2020 @08:16AM (#24588925)
My understanding is that rights holders are paid by the percentage of all plays, not per play.

Deezer is trying to fix this, but it requires the major labels to agree to the change. Deezer's user-centric payment system would apportion royalties based on an individual customer's play percentage instead of the total customer base's percentage. So if you only listen to 5 artists, all of your subscription's royalties would go to those 5 artists.

More info on UCPS at https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/deezer-launches-initia... and https://www.deezer.com/ucps

[ Parent | on HN ]