Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Music Publishers Accuse Spotify of Copyright Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are there media that can't be played now? 8-track maybe... Pretty sure we can still get players for vinyl, cassettes and CDs and will for a while.
That seems to describe pop music pretty well, actually... Was that angsty song about writing code all night really any worse that something Weird Al would put out?
Tidal pays the most. Apple is #2 right behind them. Spotify is 4.
It's not "semantics"; all these terms are extremely well defined via case law. And the purpose of these distinctions is precisely to make sure songwriters don't get ripped off by music publishers. Tearing down the laws means going back to square one, where the publishers keep everything.
Swedish criminal gangs using fake Spotify streams to launder money
Investigation claims networks convert illicit cash to bitcoin to pay people who sell false streams on the platform
The individual subscription for each of these services is $10.99 a month in the US. I live in the US. Which service should I subscribe to if I want the highest percentage of my subscription money to go to the rights holders? Can you give an estimate of how many dollars would go to the rights holders for each service? Does it depend on how many songs I listen to? What if I just listen to one song in a particular month?
Don’t listen to new artists. Spotify pay them a total of $0 if they have less than 1,000 streams.
As Spotify say
“Today, Spotify hosts well over 100 million tracks. Tens of millions of them have been streamed between 1 and 1,000 times over the past year”
And don’t even think you’re getting anything if you add mindfulness music. if you have a song that is less than 2 minutes you will get nothing even if you get a million streams.
Spotifys view on new artists.
“Well, an artist with 20 songs at just under 1,000 streams each previously would earn around $60. Now that artist would earn $0. $60 is not life changing”
“Well, an artist with 20 songs at just under 1,000 streams each previously would earn around $60. Now that artist would earn $0. $60 is not life changing”
“the royalty pool that should be delivered to honest, hardworking artists.” And also to get more money into the royalty pool by taking from the songs where it wouldn’t make a material difference to the artist. What’s a few dollars here and there?"
#singersongwriter. A piece of music is a) written by somebody and b) performed by somebody. I assume that a Performer has obtained the rights of the Writer to sing the Song and make money with it. So if a Performer gets paid for the Song being be heard, does that mean those royalties cover the embedded permission from the Writer to have the Song being heard?
I guess lawyers could make a case to extend the value chain towards the Pen the Writer holds, the chair he/she sits on, the SW he/she uses. Great we have blockchain to connect the dots.
The whole streaming music business is a good deal for consumers, streaming companies, and to some degree record companies but a terrible one for artists, which is why they have become so more reliant on merchandise and touring income.
To them, music has become a way of getting attention (customers in the door) rather than the main money maker of their business, which is perverse and results in worse music.
Hopefully this changes, as I would like to live in a world that rewards artists without forcing them to become business men and women.
Last edited:
Is there another company that likes playing the victim as much as Spotify despite being as ruthless and greedy as anyone?
On par with Epic I think. They can both “Cry Me A River” ©
Their policies sound reasonable to me, though I'd think the threshold would be based on plays per artist rather than plays per song.
I can see why they'd want to pay less when someone plays a 31 second track of white noise on loop for four hours than they'd pay if someone listened to four different hour-long albums by a musician.
And they don't say you get nothing on songs less than 2 minutes long, they say you get nothing for "noise" tracks less than 2 minutes long. If you have a rain forest ambience track, make it at least 2 minutes long. Though it seems to me that they should just pay per minute for noise tracks rather than having a hard cutoff.
Anyway, my point is that Spotify passes the same amount to rights holders, even though they may have a slightly different way of splitting the revenues between various rights holders.
It's probably best to pick your music service based on how you like the service and software, rather than based on misleading metrics about how much each service pays per listen.
So you still think it’s okay that emerging artists get paid nothing unless they go viral, but someone like Taylor Swift could release a song of her clearing her throat and she’d get thousands. Because she is (according to Spotify) a hard working artist and deserves it more.
What’s a proper college? One where losers go to and graduate with useless “skills” to have zero career path and live at home afterward in debt?
They pay far more in total than Apple does. Lower pay per stream just means people stream more on Spotify.
That's per stream, though. As total income, you'd have Spotify, then Apple, and somewhere near the bottom as a rounding error - Tidal.
This is about one thing - using someone else's property without paying for it and without permission.
