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
I think it's reasonable to have a minimum threshold for payouts when transaction fees would otherwise reduce the payout to effectively zero.
A song hardly needs to be "viral" to get over 1000 plays over the course of a full year.
An "emerging artist" isn't going to succeed because they get a check for $3 after a year on Spotify. I don't think that means that $3 should go to Taylor Swift, or that she deserves it more.
I'm not defending every single minutia of Spotify's policies. My original post was just to push back on the idea that Spotify is inferior to Apple because they pay musicians less per stream.
So you agree with Spotify then that an artist trying to get the music out there doesn’t deserve the money as much as an established artist. Got it. Because Spotify have done that exact thing. Why not put the money in a trust and the artist can choose whether to withdraw it with Bank fees or let it accrue so they get more value from it.
You are misrepresenting my view, but I think your criticisms of Spotify are valid.
I also know there are people who try to game the system, including rich and famous people! Justin Bieber told his fans to loop his new song on Spotify at low volume while they slept. That is clearly an abuse of the system. So is someone flooding the system with thousands of automatically generated songs or making short background noise tracks.
I don't have enough data to know if Spotify's policies for mitigating that issue are fair.
Even if you don't like Spotify's new policies, they aren't doing it for their own enrichment, because they are paying out the same as before, overall. (Or at least they say they are. I'll assume they are telling the truth unless something contradicts it)
My main point was to push back at the "Apple is better because they pay 2x as much per stream as Spotify" claim, because it is highly misleading, at a general level.
I think your "Spotify doesn't pay small artists anything" criticism is better.
Last edited:
Fair points. The only problem I have with that argument is that whilst Spotify pay more than Apple, they also pay more than Tidal. And I would say I prefer Tidal to both, despite being the minnow. Having that kind or size of market share isn’t healthy imo. I think Spotify are the worst of the 3, if for no other reason than they have made it harder for artists to survive. But they also give consumers less value than alternatives, so I can’t understand why they are so dominant. Is the Algorithm that sucks people in?
Let's not forget Spotify has a large number of users on the free ad-supported plan, which brings down their average payment per stream
I cannot wait until theses legislators bring down the hammer on all present-day LLMs (ie: OpenAI, Gemini etc.).
These is literally the biggest copyright/IP infringement in all of humanity's history – having scraped and produced derivative works off the entire Internet without anybody's consent – and repackaging the derivative works (generative AI) as their own products.
Reality is gonna be one helluva bite for the AI blow-up wave we are under.
These is literally the biggest copyright/IP infringement in all of humanity's history – having scraped and produced derivative works off the entire Internet without anybody's consent – and repackaging the derivative works (generative AI) as their own products.
Reality is gonna be one helluva bite for the AI blow-up wave we are under.
llT have AI lawyers o argue their case.
And a while back AI law work was proving to be more accurate than human lawyers.
When you can crosslink millions of cases and rulings, the AI wins out easily due to sheer volume...