Comment on Spotify will end service in Uruguay due to bill requiring fair pay for artists
Gazumi@lemmy.world 10 months agoNo, it’s as indicated, that is, to have artists paid fairly for their creative talents. Trickle down economics exemplified. It is akin to you working your job through an agency but the agency paying you far less than minimal wage. Like a lottery, only a few will make real money.
Alinor@lemmy.world 10 months ago
But according to the article 70% of the money they make from music is already going to record labels and publishers, so what exactly is Spotify supposed to do here to give more money to the artists?
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
Exactly… The issue isn’t spotify taking a very normal cut, it’s the record labels taking a majority cut and it seems this bill misses that entirely
brunofin@lemm.ee 10 months ago
That’s definitely the case, and that’s not the only country with laws that protect artists this way, for example Brazil right next to it also have it’s own set of laws, had then even before Spotify was a thing, but Spotify is happily in Brazil since 2014.
The Uruguayan law is just not well though, and that’s what happens when you put incompetent people in charge of making laws for things they don’t have the slightest clue of how they work. They kill an entire industry.
Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I feel like this whole bill is kind of a government sized “thanks Obama”.
Corgana@startrek.website 10 months ago
Spotify is still signing unfair contracts with those labels though. They could throw their weight around and demand higher cuts for artists but they aren’t. No need to let them off the hook when they’re choosing to participate and profit in a corrupt industry, IMO.
1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
Is it Spotify that arrange the cut for artists or the label though?
I don’t know but I’d think it’s the labels as it’s too much for Spotify to negotiate per-artist?
When food companies use slave labour or cut down old growth forest for intensive farms do we get mad at Walmart/Tesco/Carrefour for having a normal margin on what they buy from the food companies (which may or may not leave enough for the products to be sourced sustainably, but that’s a separate argument as the food companies would likely take a higher margin over keeping the same one and making their food more sustainable if paid more) or do we blame the food companies/their suppliers?
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 10 months ago
iirc spotify has some weird revenue sharing thing where that 70% is split between all artists in a very non-linear way. You don’t get money based on how many of your songs get sold you get a slice of the total pie based on some weird formula. The result is that top artists get paid for more than their own songs sales and everyone elses gets less than their own songs sales to provide that extra cut to the top performers.
raptir@lemdro.id 10 months ago
That’s not just Spotify though. Everyone uses a similar algorithm. Deezer and Tidal have talked about implementing user-centric payments but have not done so.
Corgana@startrek.website 10 months ago
IRC Tidal gives 10% of the subscription to the most listened-to artist. Not a lot, exactly but still miles ahead of Spotify who gives functionally zero.
DacoTaco@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I think the law has more to do with indie artists not getting paid shit. People who want to self publish and cut out the middle man
Gazumi@lemmy.world 10 months ago
“According to the article”…