Re:Open source Spotify client that doesn't require Premium n...
by unnamed76ri on Saturday January 20, 2024 @11:34AM
(#39069305)
You are correct. This isn’t really about income. It is the principle of the thing. Spotify is redistributing subscriber fees and ad revenue from the struggling artist to the record labels and superstars.
As I said in another comment, I’ve cancelled my account so in my case it is costing them more than they are saving. I’m also no longer sending fans to Spotify and this year not all of the music I release will make its way to Spotify.
Re:Open source Spotify client that doesn't require Premium n...
by crazygringo on Saturday January 20, 2024 @02:02PM
(#39071051)
> redistributing subscriber fees and ad revenue from the struggling artist to the record labels and superstars.
That seems a little harsh. They're also redistributing it to anyone with just 1,000 streams a song, right? And many (most? nearly all?) of those less-popular artists aren't even signed with a record label, correct?
It seems like more of an anti-spam measure than anything else. And possibly about reducing overhead fees associated with the skinniest part of the long tail.
So if you've got 2 albums of 10 tracks each, then you need 1,000 listens of each album to reach a minimum payout of $80, which you've got an entire year to accumulate. So Spotify isn't on the low side -- it's comparable with AdSense's minimum payout of $100.
But honestly, compared to the effort involved in producing an album, that's... nothing. $80 is not the difference between making or breaking your music career. It's under $7 a month. A slightly more expensive coffee.
I just don't understand how that can be upsetting. If your streams on Spotify are that low, then you're doing it as a hobby anyways, for the love of it. Which is wonderful. But it isn't your source of income.