Hacker News Reader

Comment by patrickyeon | Hacker News Reader

So first, why does that not seem like the right way to you? Paying per-play is generally how I would expect broadcast/performance payments to work.

The bigger problem though, is that's not how it works. You may expect those two artists to split your 10$ (ignoring everybody else's cut for simplicity), but what actually happens is the sum total of the revenue that Spotify gets in a month is split up across all of the plays that month[0].

So what actually happens is the two artists you've streamed get paid a few pennies out of your subscription fee, and the rest of it goes to subsidize the streams of other people (heavy users, and/or business that leave it playing all day).

[0]: https://www.stereogum.com/1587932/spotify-explains-royalty-p...

View on HN

Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion. I know the pool includes all subscribers; I was also just ignoring everyone else for simplicity. But that just exacerbates how hostile the system is toward independent labels and artists.

To clarify further, my issue isn't that payment is calculated per play, but that it's measured relative to other artists instead of absolutely.

Put another way: an artist that that gets X plays shouldn't make more one month than the next, just because the next month they have to compete with a new album by Taylor Swift.

Edit: to clarify even further, I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this or even that it's immoral. All I'm saying is that it's a system that's heavily biased in favor of major labels at the expense of independent ones.

> Put another way: an artist that that gets X plays shouldn't make more one month than the next, just because the next month they have to compete with a new album by Taylor Swift.

Why not?

The only way to make that fair to both that artist, and to Taylor Swift, is to make the monthly subscription fee change depending on how much music you listened to.

Really, the only problem with Spotify's system is that people who listen to a lot of music... Pay less to each artist for an hour of music, then someone who listens to very little music. The problem is not that indies are getting screwed, the problem is that Spotify charges someone streaming 24 hours a day the same amount that they charge someone streaming 24 minutes a day.

> The only way to make that fair to both that artist, and to Taylor Swift, is to make the monthly subscription fee change depending on how much music you listened to.

It doesn't follow at all that a constant price per stream can only be achieved by charging users a variable price based on usage. Film and TV streaming services charge a fixed monthly rate to each user, and light users almost certainly subsidize heavy ones.

It may be that a $10 a month simply isn't enough for Spotify to pay as per stream much as they are now. But that's Spotify's problem to solve — labels and artists really should only care inasmuch as it affects their streaming royalties. The fact that Spotify has figured a system out that lets them stay afloat and pay some amount in royalties doesn't mean it's a system that treats all participants equally.

> The problem is not that indies are getting screwed, the problem is that Spotify charges someone streaming 24 hours a day the same amount that they charge someone streaming 24 minutes a day.

This is how subscriptions work. Someone who watches six hours of Netflix a day gets more out of their subscription than someone who watches six hours a month. Someone who reads the New York Times cover to cover gets more out of their subscription than someone who just reads the front page. Someone who buys from Amazon every week gets more out of their Prime subscription than someone who buys every month or two.

It's no different for Spotify. People for whom the price isn't worth it can just use the free tier or buy albums (the original pay-as-much-as-you-use way to consume music!) instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com