Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
from the can-we-stop-spreading-the-myth? dept
One of the key talking points that we've heard from the "haters" of the new music business models is the claim that Spotify pays next-to-nothing to artists. This is really based on a few stories, taken totally out of context, concerning a few artists who received relatively small checks from Spotify. David Lowery actually used this as a key point in his screed against young music fans and their supposedly "unethical" behavior: to him, even if you are listening to a legal, licensed service like Spotify, you're "unethical" because he's heard rumors that Spotify doesn't pay enough.However, the more you look, the more you realize that Spotify actually pays out quite a lot. A few months ago, someone at one of the music collection societies told me about an analysis they had done concerning the amount of money paid per listen -- comparing Spotify to radio, iTunes and lots of other things. When you knock it down to a per listen basis, it turns out that Spotify pays a hell of a lot more than any of those other sources. It's just that it's incremental so it looks smaller. With iTunes, people pay per download, not per listen, so you basically upfront a certain amount of money and then no more money is ever paid for listening to those songs. With radio, there is (effectively) a per listen rate (outside the US if we're talking performances), but it's aggregated because it's effectively spread among all the listeners. So, Spotify makes it incremental, and it seems small. but when measured on a per listen basis, the amount is significantly higher (as in an order of magnitude) than other things. The other bit of confusion about this is that Spotify is still new, and it's growing. But start from a small base, and it's easy to be confused by small numbers.
However, the info is starting to get out. Evolver.fm has some interesting details, starting with a leaked report showing that the payouts from Spotify to labels (including indies) have been increasing massively. They also have an interview with Merlin's CEO (Merlin represents a bunch of indie labels, giving it a lot of clout in negotiations). And Merlin says the claims of Spotify not paying out are bogus:
Spotify’s payouts to Merlin’s 10,000-plus indie labels rose 250 percent from the year ending March 2011 to the year ending March 2012. More importantly, the revenue per user (RPU) “has grown significantly alongside the overall revenue growth and is currently the highest it has been since the launch of the service,” said Caldas. “We see consistent, ongoing growth on revenue per user, revenue per stream, and the total revenue the service brings.”So what's the real issue? Well, as Merlin's CEO says, Spotify pays labels, not artists. And labels aren't always great about paying artists. That's not Spotify's fault. It's what you get when you sign up for a major label that demands your copyrights (you know, the kind of system that David Lowery insists is better). There's also the issue with the growth of the service. Again, Merlin's CEO points out that Spotify has been growing a lot (helped along by its adoption in the US), but payments do take some time, first from Spotify to labels and then from labels to artists (if the labels ever do pay). So what artists are seeing is payments from quite some time ago, not what's actually happening today.
Meanwhile, Hypebot has a great interview with D.A. Wallach, who is both half of the very successful band Chester French (who we've written about for their amazing ability to connect with fans and their cool ideas like encouraging fans to share their music), and also the "artist in residence" at Spotify -- where he helps present the artist's viewpoint, and act as a liaison with other artists. In the interview, he points out that about 70% of Spotify's revenue is being paid out to copyright holders at this point:
Anyone who doesn’t think we’re paying a fair cut hasn’t seen the numbers we pay out. By far the vast majority of the money we’re making goes back to the owners of the music – about 70%. When compared to iTunes, the average listener spends $60 dollars a year into the creative community, whereas Spotify Premium users spend $120 per year. As “the pie gets bigger” so to speak, so do the royalty payments. The growth of the platform is proportional to the royalty pay out and since inception we’ve already doubled the effective per play rate.Of course, once again, the money is going to the labels, and it's the label's job to disperse it to the artists. But to use those small payments as evidence against the "new" system is wrong, since it's still the "old" labels hanging onto the money.
There are, still, some legitimate concerns about how Spotify splits up its proceeds between major labels and indies, since the majors have an equity stake. So there is a reasonable concern about fairness. But the claim that Spotify just doesn't pay very much to artists is simply unfounded.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chester french, d.a. wallach, david lowery, itunes
Companies: merlin, spotify
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just today, I came across this post by a Swedish label owner: http://blog.mediaevolution.se/2012/06/26/mythbusting-spotify-doesn�t-give-any-money-to-artists/
H ere's 2 quotes that stand out:
"Revenue per play has nearly tripled for us in the last 12 months.
For �Kalla mig� it means that we get more revenue per quarter from Spotify today than the single sold in its entire first successful year."
"We will soon have 500 songs in our catalogue, and Spotify has become by far the most profitable stream for us � almost 80% of our revenue comes from Spotify. And payments are increasing all the time."
I recommend anyone skeptical about 'the streaming model' to get in touch with people in the Scandinavian music industry (especially Sweden and Norway) and hear about their experiences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think Sweden and Norway are a few years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to the streaming model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/how-much-do-artists-earn-online/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, except that story is over a year old, is only estimates based on (extremely biased) sources, and in general is the type of math that Techdirt's article is debunking.
Also, you'll notice that none of these stories compare streaming rates to radio royalties. That's for two reasons: 1. None of the sources even count songwriter royalties, which are the only royalties terrestrial radio pays (meaning that recording artists would get $0 under their calculations); and 2) terrestrial radio rates are far lower than royalties from Spotify.
So, the digital royalties may not be anything special (and certainly one shouldn't count on making a living through Spotify alone). But they're still far greater than any royalties that existed in the analog past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, the image on that graphic is listed as being from April 2010 (over 2 years ago!), and is deliberately misleading in ways that should be obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together. For example, it specifically refers to US earnings at the top but it's from well before Spotify launched in the US so it refers to a half-assed conversion from UK earnings for Spotify (and it was only available on a limited basis in the UK from February 2009, and for much of 2009 was only available there on a invitation basis).
So, we have a completely out of date information source for a company whose paying userbase has increased exponentially, is available in far more countries, and will have modified its payment structures in the intervening years - IIRC, they had to make a number of concessions regarding royalties before they were allowed to launch in the US. It also makes the utterly moronic comparison at the end to sales, not radio. I only skimmed the rest - such openly misleading stupidity isn't worth wasting too much time with.
Yet, ACs march in here pretending it must be the gospel truth because it fits their preconceived assumptions. What a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
this is what they are actually getting paid:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/streaming-price-index-123111/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can't find true comedy like this ANYWHERE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not Much To Say About It
- Than write seven full posts responding to david Lowery
Streisand Effect
- Than focus on the thing you want to go away
Censorship
- If you can't make it go away, Censor it!
Support RIAA
- Spotify is 18% owned Equity by the RIAA Labels!
Than claim confusion over "what happened last week"...
too funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting question. Let's find out....
"Not Much To Say About It
- Than write seven full posts responding to david Lowery"
Nope. Writing posts about other people's response to Lowery, which didn't exist at the time of your quotation. Strike one.
"Streisand Effect
- Than focus on the thing you want to go away"
First, learn to spell "then". And strike two, since the focus is on the response to Lowery, which we certainly DON'T want to go away, and that isn't the proper definition of the Streisand Effect anyway, so strike three. Next batter.
"Censorship
- If you can't make it go away, Censor it!"
Nope. Censorship is something a governing body does to disappear content. We're not a governing body and your uninformed childish tantrums are still there. Collapsing the comment with a red highlight so people can find it isn't censorship. Strike four.
"Support RIAA
- Spotify is 18% owned Equity by the RIAA Labels!"
So? This blog doesn't call for a boycot of the RIAA or their labels. Strike five....
"Than claim confusion over "what happened last week"..."
Confusion? You're the only one confused here, tardo. Strike six.
You know, if you have three more easily refuted points to make, we could make this a perfect inning....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Support RIAA
- Spotify is 18% owned Equity by the RIAA Labels!"
So? This blog doesn't call for a boycot of the RIAA or their labels. Strike five....
----
Of course you don't call for the boycott of the RIAA, YOU ARE THE RIAA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's a fun analogy, dumbass. Techdirt censors comments every bit as much as you're "shouting down" the article by posting your stupid comments. Granted, you can't really say you've shouted down the article when it still appears above for anyone undistracted to read, but then so do your "censored" comments appear for anyone who wishes to read them as well, so you can see the correlation.
Actually...you probably can't. I should try to make this easy for you.
Oy! Fuckface! Censorship make words disappear! Community flags still there to read. You like Jane, Tarzan?
Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just checked. There are no comments from you in our spam filter (unless you are also leaving comments trying to promote mortgage loans). So... not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you are just repeating the same thing so much that you are losing count of your own comments.
"Wait, no, I'm sure I frothed at the mouth thirty-seven times on that thread but I only see thirty-four!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
14. Do not argue with a troll � it means that they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
some people even apologized!
http://www.north.com/latest/an-apology-to-david-lowery/
An apology to David Lowery
posted by Mark Ray
A few days ago, our digital strategist, Dave Allen, posted opinions about the role of the Internet as a catalyst for change in the turbulent music business. It was in response to a popular piece posted by David Lowery on his blog, which in turn was a response to a post by Emily White, an intern at NPR.
We fully support Dave�s positions regarding the Internet and the music business. We find no reason to fault Emily White and her generation for an inevitable business truth about the way music (and many other forms of creativity) are now enjoyed.
Dave is passionate about the issues, as we are. As a result, his post included some personal opinions about David Lowery that were less than kind. For that, we sincerely apologize and regret the distraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really think telling lies like this will help your argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remember, each of those points is per listen. For each song you purchase on iTunes, how many times are you going to listen to it over its lifetime? If it's greater than 140, then Spotify is a better deal for the artist than iTunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now you are not only aligned with Pirate sites ripping off artists but you've turned coat and are now SUPPORTING the RIAA... you guys are funny.
You'll go to any length to make sure artists get ripped off even if it means going against your own talking points and support the RIAA!
Hypocrisy much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One entity being a part of/assocated with another entity does not mean they will behave uniformly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They may critisize them, but that not the same as being anit RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TechDirt loves any model that screws artists even if it means supporting the RIAA... well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
.005 Cents Per Play = 140:1 Itunes Song Download
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's why it might seem different though -- if you spent $60 on iTunes, that basically means you bought 60 songs, and you're going to listen to those 60 songs A LOT. And if you're only buying 60 songs, you're probably going to focus on the top hits and not much else.
By contrast, if you spend $120 on Spotify, there's no limit on how many songs you can listen to. It's probably a lot more than 60 or 120. And you're also more likely to less popular and more esoteric songs.
So what happens on Spotify is that the OVERALL amount of money going to the creative community (per listener) is higher. But it's distributed much more evenly than with iTunes. If you're a Top 40 act, then it might appear that Spotify is screwing you over. And to some extent, it is, but it's screwing you over to help less popular up-and-coming acts. You can interpret that how you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh great. Now you've done it.
Giant thread of nothing, here we come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"there are no monsters here..."
AMIDOINITRITE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but what happened last week? why is tech dirt so focused on David Lowery? I mean... there's not much to say about it? But yet there's a post a day on Tech Dirt about David Lowery!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No replies. No playing his game. Yes I know I'm usually as guilty of this as anyone :) But let's give it a shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's who we're talking about. Nothing is served by attempting to call him out. His entire goal is to ensure that no real points get made, and no real discussion happens, by getting everyone to focus on him even though he's probably not even reading what they say in their comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1- You have even less of a life that we do (which is sad)
2- You are the person in question (which is sadder)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
CENSORSHIP! Here we come! It's you guys who can't handle answering questions. What happened last week? I dunno? No much to say about it.... Uhm... OK... let's write SEVEN posts about David Lowery...
Goof...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Two Words: Streisand Effect.
You guys seem really, really confused and misinformed. As usual...
Here comes the CENSORSHIP right? Can't stand to actually have the truth and the light upon you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What you resist; persists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And for fuck's sake (not aiming this at your Leigh), REPORTING SPAM (WHICH IS WHAT THAT GUY DOES) IS NOT CENSORSHIP! Especially not when the comment has NOT magically disappeared, which is basically what censorship does. Makes things magically disappear forever. And that is me simplifying it like crazy, in the hopes some ACs (you know who you are) will stop repeating that same talking point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What happened? Why are there seven posts about a non-issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now will you please go away?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... Oh Of course, NOW Censorship makes sense! Of course it does. When freedom of expression is not what YOU agree with than CENSORSHIP is OK.
You guys are a bunch of hypocrites. Back to your echo chamber circle jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I feel a need to have that printed on a banner and hang it over my work area in my cubicle, for moments when I'm not in it and people come looking for "the IT guy". I love that "Internet" is capitalized too. Makes it sound alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.jegerlehner.ch/intel/opcode.html
Why can't the English language have a compiler at runtime that shows the problems with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of the anti brigade seem to assume that Spotify replaces sales, and thus panic at the naturally lower revenue. But, it doesn't for many people. If anything, if replaces radio. Personally, I use Spotify all the time, but not to listen to music I would otherwise buy. Sometimes I use it to check out new music, or classic albums I've never listened to (but would never blind buy).
More importantly, I use it to listen to music I haven't got on my device. That's half the joy of using the service. I'm not limited to whatever 10 albums I happened to have synced to my phone a few days ago, I can listen to any music I want right now as long as the morons at the label haven't blocked them from offering it to me. That is, every time I listen to an album, the artists get paid *even if I've already bought the album*. I'm never going to buy another copy of Hybrid Theory or Black Holes And Revelations, but the artists in question still get paid when I listen to their music.
That's part of the joy. I pay a monthly fee to Spotify, I get access to more music than I could possibly buy, my listening experience is improved and there's no reason for me to resort to piracy to preview or relisten to an album.
Apparently, this is somehow a problem... Probably because Spotify hands more control over to the user, and thus revenue gets generated for music that hasn't been pre-approved by a major corporation. They can't control a user's listening habits through Spotify like they can through radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Nearly two thirds of those participating in the research, who admitted to illegally downloading music, said using Spotify had encouraged them to reduce the amount they used pirate sites or kick the habit altogether."
You'll never see Lowery point to this article, then again he think Spotify is run by a greedy corporate shill despite the fact the company loses money from operational costs after paying out to the labels.
Also, on the subject of conversions. I also use Spotify to check out new music instead of giving into the desire to download.
The other funny thing they don't mention is what if you continue listening to an artists tunes from Spotify instead of your own library? Recently, I purchased the new Keane album (after trying it out on Spotify), but the version on Spotify offers bonus songs so I am more inclined to just deal with the advertising (I don't find it very intrusive at all) just to listen to the extra songs.
So basically, Keane made revenue from a sale and from streaming. Maybe if Lowery spent less time whining about not getting paid and actually making good music, then he could see the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where Spotify fails...
But, what I still can't understand is why Spotify won't take their product further and actually sell me the CD's. Get a deal together with Amazon or some other large worldwide distributor and let me buy the fricking CD's with a mouse click. And sell me t-shirts and other merch while you're at it. Let every band have a portal for merch and CD'sales inside Spotify. Monetize, people... monetize!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time to remove power from the labels and give it to the musicians. Cut the labels' cuts and give it to the musicians. They do the hard work so they deserve at least 60% of money from sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TechDirt loves any model that screws artists even if it means supporting the RIAA... well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By the way, the major labels make up the RIAA, so you're last sentence is redundant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One of your many, many failings is the inability to look at anything in shades of grey, only seeing them in simplistic black and white.
In this example, it's perfectly possible to be critical of the RIAA's stupid tactics and question their business models, while still being supportive of their more sensible approaches. In fact, the so-called anti-RIAA folks can get their message across better by doing this because the pro-industry folk then lose the "waah piracy" excuse when faced with yet more evidence that their business models are the problem.
No hypocrisy required, just a more nuanced understanding of reality than you're capable of. It's just a shame that such opportunities to support their correct moves are rare.
"TechDirt loves any model that screws artists even if it means supporting the RIAA... well done!"
Amusingly enough, here you're implying that supporting the RIAA necessarily involves screwing artists. Well done!
(Oh, and look at that, I replied to a reported post. Almost as though it wasn't censored. Hmmm...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DIY Good
Big Labels Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No you don't. Spotify is not a download service. If you don't know the difference between a stream and a download, you're too ignorant of the business for any criticism you get to be taken seriously.
Why is every self-proclaimed "musician" who responds to these points not only ignorant of what the services they attack actually do, but have the emotional maturity of a toddler and are afraid to identify themselves?
Seriously, just once, can we have an adult with some reasonable argument to address?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, many artist, and Label's issues with Spotify come from their lack of transparency when it comes to the actual creation of value of their content (wares) within their system.
As you know, Spotify sells access, not spins. However, that's how we as artists and labels get paid per spin. This is no way as cut and dried as Itunes where there is a set value of a barely durable good, Apple takes 30% and the rest goes down the line.
Spotify creates value based on a 90 day cycle of income from various revenue streams. Paid subscription, and advertising. Now, apparently once they have that number they take out "operation costs" and develop what we see as a per spin value on our statements from our distributors or aggregators.
At this point, it's getting fuzzy, because we're seeing cash influxes from enormous corporate sponsors like Coke, more private cash injections in the hundreds of millions (which would feasibly cover expansion and operation costs) however the per spin rate is moving at a slugs pace, and there is absolutely zero info given as to how we are to speculate when or how it will get better. It would behoove them to truly who how the "pie" will get better with hard numbers, which they haven't. It's easier to perpetuate ambiguity without that.
This doesn't sound like anything new to many of us. It sounds like old school, back door dealing that takes value away from what's powering the service itself, the content and people who create that content.
As far as DA Wallach, he's a quasi celebrity press correspondent on their payroll, who is as evasive as the next employee. As well spoken as he is, I just can't take him any more seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If somebody thinks they can do better (maybe similar model to Spotify but with more transparency) that would be great. More competition could potentially lead to two better services.
Spotify has gotten quite aggressive with their goals of acquiring lots of music content, and I applaud them for that. I pay for a premium subscription and I am completely happy with everything but how "offline mode" works. I can't sync mobile devices nearly quickly enough.
Before this last year I had probably not spent any money on music in around 6 years besides shows. And to be clear, I wasn't pirating music in that time period. I was a student who had slowly stopped listening to music (relatively).
Spotify has probably increased the amount of music I listen to by 500-1000% and has monetized that with me paying for a 120$ year subscription. And regardless of what slice of the pie they are taking before "paying out" labels and artists, I'm willing to bet their cut is more generous than the major labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have they been successful in acquiring the near ubiquity they'll need to dominate the marketspace? Almost. But as it's been brought up before, great music and art is forever, the nature of technology is fleeting and we'll see how things progress as we move closer to what to me is a reasonable endgame, a potential IPO.
As an artist, I completely embrace the streaming concept and am a paying Spotify subscriber. It's changed so much for me, and my family. However, as someone who's worked in this industry for years, there are too many reminders of the way things used to be, which contrary to what Mr. Lowery says, was not that great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
Oh Yeah... I agree Spotify is powerless as controlled by the RIAA and the labels that have an 18% equity stake. Yeah it's so awesome that TechDirt has FINALLY come around to supporting the RIAA and it's labels. What took you so long?
TechDirt all for screwing artists even if it means supporting the RIAA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
appreciate the thought though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shakes fists at the sky: "LOWERY! LOWERY! DAMN YOU LOWERY!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shakes fist at the sky: "MASNICK! MASNICK! DAMN YOU MASNICK!!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it's just ironic and sad how you guys have to resort to censoring on your own board From dissenting opinions when people are pointing out your own hypocrisy.
seven posts later on tech dirt about david lowery and there's still "not much to say about it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, numb nuts, are you having a stroke or something? This quote you keep putting out from Mike was about responding to Lowery's post. He isn't doing that. He's writing about the RESPONSE to Lowery's post. Case in point, this article is NOT ABOUT LOWERY'S post. It's central theme is the response of details about Spotify to the bullshit spector Lowery raised....
Seriously, not only is your boring mantra irritating, it's also WRONG....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep grasping at straws there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
GARGLE-BARGLE GARGLE GARGLE.
Seriously, dumbass, where am I wrong? Do me a favor and tell me how Techdirt isn't writing about the RESPONSE to Lowery's bullshit, or go figure out the quickest way to acquire cancer so we don't have to deal with your uninformed, neandrathalic nonsense any longer....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup. Mad at you. Mad at your inbred parents for wanting a family. Mad at your school teachers for passing you through the educational system when you clearly didn't qualify for advancement.
But mostly...and I mean this truly...I'm mad at every car, truck, and motorcycle that passes you on the street without having the common courtesy of running you over....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How's that feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, if only you could start talking about our actual opinons backed by citations, rather than the distorted strawmen you erect, that would be something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which means, you either need to get more people to help you, or you need to write a bot to do it for ya, or you need to get administrative privileges to access the control panel of the blog, or find someone who has that access.
Please report this one too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is a spammer for Trichordist. He is trolling to get attention to the site. Don't play his game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think your confused. I don't see lowery claiming 1) that there's not much to say about it and 2) writing two posts a day about mike.
it's just ironic and sad how you guys have to resort to censoring on your own board From dissenting opinions when people are pointing out your own hypocrisy.
seven posts later on tech dirt about david lowery and there's still "not much to say about it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
oh look, it's Mike Masnick's daily rant against David Lowery.
Shakes fists at the sky: "LOWERY! LOWERY! DAMN YOU LOWERY!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So a well thought-out post debunking some misleading myth being spread about is a rant? On what planet?
Shakes fists at the sky: "LOWERY! LOWERY! DAMN YOU LOWERY!!!"
As explained yesterday, not too many around here are shaking fists at the sky because The Sky Is Rising!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Magic! *
* Please note that I'm using the definition of the word where 'magic' means adjusting to the realities of the digital age, primarily non-linear (networked) communication, and building business models on top of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact: Hollywood accounting hardly pays artists story is truth.
There, fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has quotes about how Spotify payments have risen tremendously in comparison to a year ago. It has quotes about the *average* iTunes user being $60 per year and spotify Premium users being $120 per year. But it doesn't have any information giving solid, absolute comparisons of how much money any artist is making off of Spotify.
If Spotify revenue grew from $0.01 to $0.05 per artist per year and had a single Spotify premium user, this article would still be factual.
I'll hold off until I see numbers that are easier to comprehend in absolutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
too funny...
TechDirt Finally Realizes the RIAA Was Right Along joins the notorious Major Label Trade Group in supporting Spotify Ripping Off Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike does not hate the RIAA. He has made it clear he hopes they succeed.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/004218/why-i-hope-riaa-succeeds.shtml
Of course if they continue to do stupid and nonproductive things then they deserved to be called out on it each and every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"the RIAA Was Right Along joins the notorious Major Label Trade Group in supporting Spotify Ripping Off Artists"
Yep, looks like you think that the only reason someone would side with the RIAA is to rip off artists. Meaning that you admit that they were rip-off artists all along. Interesting, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 26th, 2012 @ 8:56am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dream on
" it's easy to be confused by small numbers. "
Especially in the middle of an article celebrating how we shouldn't be fooled by these small numbers because the idea that Spotify barely pays is bunk. In other words, don't believe what your eyes tell you when you read the numbers, believe what the Kool Aid is telling your brain.
And I generally like Spotify but I think Mike is dreaming if he believes that everyone is going to rush off and pay them $120 a year to be premium members. They're not. And until they do, Spotify isn't going to pay much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dream on
Somehow, this is inherently wrong to certain people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dream on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dream on
"And until they do, Spotify isn't going to pay much."
More than piracy, and infinitely more than you think if you believe that the only revenue generated by Spotify for artists is whatever royalty they get directly from streams.
"Kool Aid"
I've never seen any regular posters outside of the troll contingent to stick to a single party line. It might seem like we do when all we get from your "side" is repeated lies and distortions, but there's real debate being had when your spambot brothers aren't in operation.
Which is fitting, given what ended up happening to those who did actually drink the Kool Aid (actually Flavor Aid) in Jonestown. I just wish you guys would hurry up and follow them, so that we can debate real issues in peace. While enjoying the new art and access to said art that people like you are trying to destroy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dream on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dream on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline June 10, 2035
smh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline June 10, 2035
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Headline June 10, 2035
All of this repeating of phrases like "you guys do realize you are now supporting the RIAA as the Major Labels have an 18% equity stake in Spotify." which is well known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify Payout Debunked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
buzzing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: buzzing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: buzzing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: buzzing?
Starting tomorrow: Masnick using euphemisms for Lowery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: buzzing?
I mean, like I said before, it's a sweet gig because it means you don't have to do ANYTHING. We all know that's Lowery best talent, since he's sitting on so much empirical data and not talking about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TechDirt + RIAA = Screwing Artists Like Never Before
Well done boys! The inconsistency of your arguments never fail to amaze!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's trying to communicate, but I have no idea what it's trying to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't want to be one of those crazy people who detaches himself from reality and thinks that everyone is out to get him. Or something really crazy like thinking everyone is a pirate.
Ninjas are cooler anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leigh, I think you may be on to something. I say, kudos to everyone just going about their day/business and ignoring the one idiot. The comments thus far have been relatively interesting to read.
I'm a former Spotify user. I tried it when it was free, but when they switched to the "use a Facebook login" I basically bailed. Did they get rid of that yet? Anyone know? I'd heard they were, when and if they do I'll use their service again. I genuinely liked it. Of course, I've been a Pandora user for much longer, so I prefer that (or even Slacker), but Spotify is growing and gaining traction. Something I enjoy seeing in general. A new competitor entering the rather small market and making a place for itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
We learned that Mike censors opinions he doesn't agree with. Shocking, I know, and I hear some of you crying "But AC, what proof do you have of this heinous act?". Well, my proof is so irrefutable that even the sceptics will be forced to accept its validity.
See those red sentences in the comments that say "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."? That sentence, written in ancient script, is a mark that has for long (since around 2009, If memory serves me right) been used to denote comments that have been censored. It roughly translates to "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it.".
Not convinced yet? Well, then I dare you to click on that red text (NoScript users, skip this step). If you do, the full horror of Mike's censorship mechanism will be revealed: the full text that Mike was censoring will appear, as if by magic. You can read all of it for yourself, and see that I do not lie.
This clear censorship of dissenting opinions should be frowned upon, and I suggest that we unite as a community, and look sternly at Mike Masnick. Maybe then, he'll learn his lesson and probably put that text in all caps, since people still don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
We learned a few somethings today. Number 1: You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "censorship". Number 2: Mike DOES NOT censor people he doesn't agree with (proof of that is evident by you being allowed to post). Number 3: The COMMUNITY (meaning the majority of people reading this site) think people like you making "censorship" claims and spamming threads is unacceptable and are reportig them accordingly.
"Well, my proof is so irrefutable that even the sceptics will be forced to accept its validity.
See those red sentences in the comments that say "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it."? That sentence, written in ancient script, is a mark that has for long (since around 2009, If memory serves me right) been used to denote comments that have been censored. It roughly translates to "This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show it.".
Not convinced yet? Well, then I dare you to click on that red text (NoScript users, skip this step). If you do, the full horror of Mike's censorship mechanism will be revealed: the full text that Mike was censoring will appear, as if by magic. You can read all of it for yourself, and see that I do not lie.
This clear censorship of dissenting opinions should be frowned upon, and I suggest that we unite as a community, and look sternly at Mike Masnick. Maybe then, he'll learn his lesson and probably put that text in all caps, since people still don't get it."
I see, so your "proof" of "censorship" are those comments that are still viewable? See "Number 1" up above for my response to that. There is nothing wrong with having a dissenting opinion, I'll tell you like I told the other idiot making the same things yesterday. Have one all you want (a dissenting opinion that is). No one has a problem with that. It is when you start spamming threads, insulting others, and that sort of thing that comments will be reported. I've had mine reported once or twice. Why? Well, honestly, I was parodying people like you and apparently did too well a job of it. But in no way was I censored. Also, like I said yesterday, see the article about the facts that debunk Lowery's claims and you'll realize there were quite a few people with dissenting opinions, the one that comes to mind easily was Hmmmm's comments. Go have a look. Clearly dissenting, but presented in a respectful and reasonable fashion, with attempts to support his/her comments/claims. Not a single one was reported. Thus, your "proof" is quite obviously negated. But thanks for playing.
I'll say to you what we all regularly say to bob, "Get a clue and then think long and hard before you click 'Submit' and post. Otherwise we're going to call you out on your BS."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
No, he doesn't. But, that would require not only intelligence but a certain level of intellectual honesty to understand. You have neither, so we'll forgive you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the use-a-fking-dictionary-to-lookup-the-meaning-of-word-'censorship' dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know! My reading experience here at TechDirt has vastly improved since the fly swatter's been used! It's like I ate cheese! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reported.
How's that feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You see, I DID NOT call someone an idiot for having a dissenting opinion. That's your first mistake. I called one particular AC (or group of them) an idiot (or idiots) because said AC is spamming certain threads on a daily basis with the same nonsense over and over. He/she is NOT having a dissenting opinion but attempting to derail the threads and/or trolling in general.
If the AC in question would just voice an opinion that was dissenting I would have no problem with it. However, since all said AC is going to do is repeat the same thing (of course with minor variations) multiple times and not actually say anything, then I feel it is acceptable to report the comment for spam. But thanks for proving a wonderful point. Some of you ACs seriously suck at reading comprehension. I honestly don't know how you made it through school. I do have my theories though. Perhaps before you report someone you should make sure you actually understand what they're saying, otherwise you look like an even bigger idiot than the idiot I called an idiot in the first place. And while it is admirable to defend another, it is not admirable or at all logical to defend the guy who is quite clearly spamming this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
um... ok... sooo who's the idiot again?!?
*looks confused* o.0
[/jk]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think so, however...
"Of course, I've been a Pandora user for much longer,"
I'm not permitted to use Pandora. Or turntable.fm. Or Hulu. Or Netflix.
"A new competitor "
If only there was such a thing here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, tell me... what is the point of this posting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Payment to indie artists?
It stands to reason that for labels with many artists, the Spotify revenue stream would add up to something more reasonable. But what about the individual artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Payment to indie artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Googly, googly, googlypants...
So not only do you waste your time here spamming us with useless links, you get the FOUR GUYS it takes to run your blog and post TWICE as much useless links?
Have you guys seriously considered marketing your spit as shoe polish? Because for all the whining you guys keep doing you don't seem to be too interested in feeding your families. Unless spamming trichordist links actually - gasp! - feeds you with ad revenue! OMG AD REVENUE BIG SEARCH EVIL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working for the record companies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working for the record companies
As for how long Pandora and Spotify can 'hold out' under the current fee schedule is a business decision for their shareholders to decide. Currently however it seems like they are likely to 'hold out' indefinitely as they are either profitable or have growth the indicates that they will be profitable in the near future. Barring new technologies, better competitors, or changes in copyright law significantly increasing fees I expect I will still be using them in 15 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify Pays
A few weeks ago a tweet by Mercury-nominated artist Jon Hopkins caused a stir on music and technology sites. "Got paid �8 for 90,000 plays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do the math
Popular songs on youtube are easily watched 20 million times. that would mean over a 193,000 dollars on Spotify. Not that bad coming from just one medium / channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two sides...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This article is complete nonsense."
No, your comment is complete nonsense.
"Congratulations to the folks over at Spotify as they have found a legal way to rip off artists"
Bullshit.
"I'm an artist"
Probably also bullshit, but feel free to prove it, and promote your music on this free forum in the process. All you've shown so far is that your ability to advertise your product is equal to your lack of ability to understand Spotify, or explain what it is you have a problem with. Except:
"Itunes is a much fairer way to get your music by making sure the money goes to the artists themselves"
Oh, this rubbish again. Two things - first Spotify is rental, iTunes is purchase. Of course you'll get more money via the latter, just as no movie gets the full theatrical revenue when it's on TV. Compare your revenue from them to your revenue from other per-play venues like radio, club or similar streaming service. Spotify might still not come on top, but at least you will be comparing apples to apples somewhat. As it is, you're comparing completely different products. On top of that, iTunes takes 60% of the revenue from their sales, and labels take the lion's share of the rest. Realistically iTunes isn't "fairer" unless by "fairer" you mean" I might make more money" - but of course you will since it's a completely different venue.
In other words, here we have another whining "artist" whose anger is not only misplaced but based on outright fallacies from the beginning. A shame it took you 7 months to come up with such a poor comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No wonder I see people butting heads with you. I figured they were just idiots, but it turns out that you're kind of an asshole. Seriously, think about where you are in your life and ask yourself if you might not be accomplishing something more productive?
Meanwhile, I'm going to get back to making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. I'm sorry to shatter the half assed assumptions you made about me, but you're an asshole for making them. I tick the box marked "email me when there's new comments". That means that if someone comments - even on articles that are old - I get an email. If someone says something stupid, I may respond. Especially when bored - as I sometimes am when I comment here, usually during downtime during my sys admin/development job that often requires waiting for things to install or compile.
Oh, and learn the definition of a troll. "Making comments on old threads" and "correcting people when they make blatantly untrue statements" (as per the lies I was responding to) do not fit.
"I'm not one for ad hominem"
Yet, that's all your comment was. Nice.
"Meanwhile, I'm going to get back to making money."
I'm being paid as I write this, plus my other projects outside of work are passively making me money as I sit here. It's a shame when reality doesn't match up to stupid assumptions, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Spotify pay fairly?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqe2P9sYhZ2ndE9iZHhWc0pMcDlCdmxNdmFRQXRPY 3c&hl=en_GB#gid=0
I notice the statistic source for Spotify doesn't exist anymore so if anyone has a working link, I'd appreciate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an artist
Hope you all like DJs cause bands will not be around for much longer under these condition.
Cost about 10,000 to record with a great producer in a quality studio. Spent about 6 months writing the songs. Then everyone will get it for free on Spotify and not need to buy it. .38 cents for 89 plays. Think about that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As an artist
Yes, it costs money to produce an album. No one disputes this. But, just like any other business venture there is risk involved.
Then everyone will get it for free on Spotify and not need to buy it.
You are not seeing the whole picture here. A record/8-track/cassette/CD purchase is a one time purchase that includes unlimited replays forever. Spotify pays you every time your song is played from now on. Think about that...
38 cents for 89 plays. Think about that...
Isn't the idea for that play number to be in the hundreds or thousands? Seriously, how much money are you receiving for selling 9 CDs that get played 10 times each which is more than 89 plays?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop Stealing Music Makers Money
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop Stealing Music Makers Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify Does not Pay Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spotify Does not Pay Artists
Well, I'm so glad you decided to post an anonymous bunch of crap with zero citations, on a nearly 2 1/2 year old article. That's sure to change people's minds.
Even your "logic" is faulty, first claiming that Spotify does not pay artists, then whining that you think the figure is too low. Which is it - it can't be both. Do they pay or don't they?
How about this article:
https://press.spotify.com/us/2014/11/11/2-billion-and-counting/
Do you have any figures to refute those figures?
Of course not, your type is full of whining, little logic and zero honesty.
"collects their creations for free"
More lies. You should be ashamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify's Crimes
It used to be 9 cents per play, that would have been 28 cents, but now it's 0.00.
Apple is worse and they have no excuse. They are one of the biggest companies in the world. This criminal activity against musicians needs to stop.
A bill was just introduced, I hope it passses that will address this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spotify not paying.
Streaming is great, but they have to pay the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spotify not paying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spotify not paying.
Do you have sleeping giant artist friends, hurricane head, or is it the same jackass faking different accents while bellowing frothy spit out of Lowery's cavernous rectum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]