Comment on 'Technofascist military fantasy': Spotify faces boycott calls over CEO’s investment in AI military startup

pulsewidth@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• Eyekaytee@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It pays four tenths of a tenth of a cent per stream ($0.004), while raking in billions of profit each year.

  I think you’re confusing Spotify with Apple or Google, It only just last year:

  Spotify Just Turned an Annual Profit for the First Time Ever

  thedailyupside.com/…/spotify-just-turned-an-annua…

  This is the same year it paid out

  its collective payments to the music industry for 2024 totaled $10 billion.

  10 billion not bad for a business model that’s “exploitation”

  One of the things people struggle to understand is that it’s not the 70’s anymore, there is more music being uploaded every minute that you can listen to in a year, this has a diluting effect on the value of the thing being uploaded

  Listen to music on whatever service, then if you like the artists music - buy the album, or the track / single. Sure, you may support fewer artists this way, but each artist gets paid literally 2500 times as much (album averages 9.99).

  I do agree with this though

  source

  • pulsewidth@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Didn’t confuse them with anyone, they put out a quarterly report as all publicly-traded companies do, and they’re on track to do over $2 billion in profit this year ($17b revenue).

    What I didn’t go into depths to describe is that the vast majority of their money goes to big labels and several big artists they have less-favourable (to Spotify) contracts with, because those big labels and artists know they can pressure Spotify to get a bigger slice.

    So, they continue to give most artists, especially small/new artists next to nothing, exploiting them.

    Nothing I said is innacurate IMO.

    source

    • Eyekaytee@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      What I didn’t go into depths to describe is that the vast majority of their money goes to big labels and several big artists

      Yes, that’s how the algo works, unfortunately most people have no taste in music, if the people suddenly decide that avant garde orchestral metal is popular, then those artists will make more money as their plays and share of the pie goes up

      So, they continue to give most artists, especially small/new artists next to nothing, exploiting them.

      Welcome to the music industry m8

      Published June 14, 2000 7:02PM (EDT)

      So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.

      www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

      That said this is a very specific argument to make, you said

      Spotify’s whole business model is exploitation.

      Now you’re saying, yes many people make lots of money and I saw no disagreement that the music industry raking in 10 billion in a year benefits from Spotify BUT new and non-popular artists find it tough to make money and that’s exploitation

      In 2024, More Music Is Released in a Single Day Now Than in All of 1989

      The algorithm is simple, the more listens you get, the bigger the pie you have, the more you get paid.

      The reality is that small/new artists are now competing in a field that is flooded, it’s hard to complain of exploitation if you are simply trying to swim in an ocean and finding it difficult

      It sucks but this is life in the 21st century with computers, it’s also not going to get better with AI allowing people who can’t work photoshop to make pictures and people who can’t work logic pro to make music

      I also give Spotify credit for music discovery: aussie.zone/post/19441027/16055498

      It has never been easier for people to go outside the box and discover new music, it’s just a shame most people don’t

      source