News: Spotify trying to pay labels and artists less money - Page 2

Truth Teller

Quote:

Originally posted by popmusic

Actually it's quite complicated dear ATRL.

First at all - Spotify payout model is more complicated than '70% share' (55% for masters right holders and ~15% for publishers). They pay advances ($2.5m - $4.0m for North American SME), pay per streams. There's also some minimal rates per stream and per user.

Second one - Spotify paid more than 80% of its revenue music industry last year and still has operating loss (+180m EUR).

Here's full long-term Sony deal with Spotify (it ended this year): http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015...usic-contract/

And of course people will ignore this actual fact, as well as all the other receipts of Spotify bending over backward to give back to the industry.

As if Spotify is to blame that these artists sign contracts that allow their label to get 96% of the revenue

TYE

Quote:

Originally posted by that G.U.Y.

Since when did musicians need to be rich?

god they have gotten so greedy.

Entertainment is not a human right

sorry that you have to pay for something that cost a fortune to make and supplies thousands of people with a wage

You don't deserve to be entertained by someone's creativity for free, if you feel strongly maybe you should start making your own music and entertain yourself, but that would of course show you the work that goes into making a single song let alone an album and then maybe, you'll understand why they want compensation

Starkboy

Quote:

Originally posted by qurl

>__>

and y'all proudly support this filth ass service

lol why the hell should we care about labels getting rich or not? Enjoy the music already.

The site is the best streaming platform, I couldn't care less how much they're paying labels.

popmusic

Quote:

Originally posted by Truth Teller

And of course people will ignore this actual fact, as well as all the other receipts of Spotify bending over backward to give back to the industry.

As if Spotify is to blame that these artists sign contracts that allow their label to get 96% of the revenue

Yeah, this is the worst thing in music industry. Desperated musicans or maybe dumb millennials signing record contracts for 5 albums' cycles and less than 10% royalites share because of:

a) advance
b) fame

mathekr

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamren

The problem has never been with Spotify, though. It's always been with greedy labels taking almost all of the profit from streams. Them reducing revenue for streams isn't as big of a deal as what labels do to their artists.

Not only that, but copyright laws in America especially are outdated and unfair to the right owner. There is a reason why Spotify is thriving on a bunch of European countries.

AvrilLaQueen

Good.

Adonis

People don't realize lower rates will have an adverse effect on the quality of the product. Spotify designed a great idea but the price couldn't possibly cover the cost of running the service unless there is a monopoly. Now contrast that with Aaple who can survive with less than 20% market penetration.

There is such a thing as you get what you pay for it.

BobBertran1992

Quote:

Spotify reportedly pays record labels

RECORD LABELS are the key here.

6_INCH_HEELS

Music listeners don't give a ****, as long as they're still able to get their free subscription. Their blind love for Spotify will change once they become paid subscription only.

People nowadays expect free music, like its their right.