I really hate when people pretend that you can just go sell your stuff on your website and that would settle the debate. Unless you're already extremely popular, not being present on streaming services is almost akin to not existing at all. Even though streaming services aren't a monopoly, as a whole they have a huge percentage of the market and what they pay out famously is very little and (at least in the case of Spotify) skewed towards the big artists.

Yes, fair is complicated, but the decision of what's fair and what isn't is something a society can take and it seems that Uruguay did take that decision. Good for them, I guess.

Is minimum wage also twisting the arm of business? How much would be fair for minimum wage?

Yes. I a way it is.

Businesses that can't afford to pay a minimum wage can't operate.

Imagine a record label/streaming service had to pay every artist or actor a minimum wage weather or not thier work generated money more than the business invested. I doubt it would be sustainable.

Also, should businessmen making less than minimum wage be compensated by the government to make ends meet?

I think trying to improve the economic situation of the poor by twisting the arms of businesses is bad.

I think the issue of poverty is a serious one and should be addressed by strengthening social safety nets & providing a form of Universal Basic Income.

> Imagine a record label/streaming service had to pay every artist or actor a minimum wage weather or not thier work generated money more than the business invested. I doubt it would be sustainable.

If it's not sustainable without exploiting the artists, then it shouldn't exist in my opinion. Either prices have to rise or something else has to happen to make things more "fair" (again, I agree that fair is a complicated term and it's hard to put a value on it). Artists aren't employed by streaming services, so the service shouldn't pay minimum wage, but setting a minimum payout or some other measure is something that can be argued for.

> Also, should businessmen making less than minimum wage be compensated by the government to make ends meet?

If the business owner makes less than minimum wage, it's ok by me. Their business, they have to find a way to make it profitable. But it shouldn't be made more profitable by exploiting the people that sustain it.

The government shouldn't compensate the business imo.

> think the issue of poverty is a serious one and should be addressed by strengthening social safety nets & providing a form of Universal Basic Income.

You are arguing against a government giving money to business owners that struggle to make ends meet, but giving UBI without minimum wage does exactly that. You subsidize businesses that don't pay a living wage that otherwise would go bankrupt.

I think things would be different if the power balance wasn't so extremely off between artists and streaming services (or employees and employers in the minimum wage example). But since power is extremely imbalanced, I argue protections should be in place.

>You are arguing against a government giving money to business owners that struggle to make ends meet, but giving UBI without minimum wage does exactly that. You subsidize businesses that don't pay a living wage that otherwise would go bankrupt.

Yes exactly. What protections and for whom? Protecting the business or protecting the customers?

Well, the market has spoken. You can no more blame anyone for artist not being able to make money than someone who majored in Ancient Chinese Art History for finding a job.

There are plenty of ways of marketing yourself outside of the streaming services - Facebook, ads, playing at live venues, giving out cards with QR codes that link to your website etc.

Rappers were famous guerrilla marketers back in the day.

There’s no such thing as fair. Whenever anyone uses that term they are just trying to obscure self-interest.

Everybody needs to eat not just CEOs

Then don’t choose to do something that people aren't willing to pay money for.

There are some jobs that people don’t have a choice but to work. Being an artist isn’t one of them.

The first problem is some people are meant to be artists, it’s what they’re good and excell at. Placing them in engineering domains won’t do anyone any justice, they’ll suck.

Second, people will consume and like and pay for what’s available to them. If their government decides that an entity like Spotify disadvantages their local artists they can simply add legislation to fix that.

I really don’t like the idea that artists should just give up because some SV types just rendered them useless. Artists are like a glue to the fabric of community, it’ll be a huge loss to have everyone doing stem instead.

If no one was going to listen them anyway, how were they loss to anyone?

With the fragmentation of media in society today, artists aren’t bringing any “community” together.

So now you’re saying the government should come in and save certain types of music? What pray tell do you want the government to do against Spotify?

And how would the government feel today if Spotify top song were NWA’s “Fuck the Police” or Ice T’s “Cop Killer”? would they support those artists?

> The first problem is some people are meant to be artists, it’s what they’re good and excell at. Placing them in engineering domains won’t do anyone any justice, they’ll suck.

How are you so sure that some ppl are "meant" to be something. What does this even mean.

What are you meant to be and how do you know?

If the problem is poverty I think the solution should be creating a proper safety net for people and offering the a Universal Basic Income.