News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by red-iron-pine on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @09:53AM (#48570598)
spotify still pays artists. it's just a shitty deal.

most big ai will never compensate anyone

Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by happymellon on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @09:59AM (#48570668)
Is it really much different to how much artists got from radio?

Most artists never got radio money because it went into a label slush fund and was spent retaining the tent pole artists.

Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by mukbangpervert on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @10:48AM (#48571307)
The overall economics are wildly different.

Radio didn't pay much, but it was promotion for the album.

Spotify doesn't pay much, and it _replaces_ the album.

Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by happymellon on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @05:30PM (#48577202)
CD sales didn't pay much, because it all went to the labels.
Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by mukbangpervert on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @10:26PM (#48579866)
A million album sales generates $2-3m for the artist under a typical label deal.

150,000,000 streams typically generates $560k _before_ the label cut.

Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person -- not just because you repeatedly lie and distort to defend your position -- but the crux of your argument is "artists had a mediocre deal, so it is fine that the new deal is dramatically worse".

There's no way to respond to that.

Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by happymellon on Thursday June 18, 2026 @03:50AM (#48582186)
> but the crux of your argument is "artists had a mediocre deal, so it is fine that the new deal is dramatically worse".

No it's not. I'm saying that artists have always had a shit deal, singling out Spotify doesn't help the systematic problems. I don't use Spotify, I purchase via Bandcamp but that's also because long term its cheaper for me.

> Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person

I'm immoral because I don't think that artists have ever had it good? Alright Mr. RIAA.

https://sociallifemagazine.com/the-archive/90s-record-deals-...

Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by mukbangpervert on Thursday June 18, 2026 @09:16AM (#48584829)
"Is it really much different to how much artists got from radio?" is a weird way of stating that artists should be paid more.

If you actually want to defend artists... I suggest _not_ drawing equivalence between the old (bad) deal, and the new (much worse) deal.

Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by jasonlotito on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @10:29AM (#48571066)
The big difference was radio wasn't on-demand. You couldn't just listen to a complete album. If you wanted to listen to your favorite artist, you couldn't do that on the radio without listening to a lot of other stuff.
Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by happymellon on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @11:28AM (#48571843)
Most artists didn't make money from album sales.

They received some money up front in a contract to record the album, and the label make the money from sales.

There is a reason the bands toured and sold teeshirts.

Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by afavour on Wednesday June 17, 2026 @10:02AM (#48570712)
For a lot of artists they’re paid a rounding error. The core question is whether they’re paid enough to make a living from and the answer is no.
Re:Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging... by inigyou on Thursday June 18, 2026 @07:51AM (#48583967)
Spotify pays artists the smallest amount they can possibly get away with without getting sued. Which is a tiny amount. Spotify is owned by music industry giants who needed a new money-grabbing scheme when the older schemes of the 70s-90s failed in the internet era.