←back to thread

275 points starkparker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cortesoft ◴[] No.45133347[source]
So the author talks about how little money per stream artists make... but how much SHOULD they be making? What is fair compensation for writing a song?

In the old days, artists would join a label and put out an album. The artist would earn about 10% of sales or so (varies of course, but on average). So a $15 CD would earn an artist $1.50.

The article lists the 'price per stream' as about $0.005. So it would take about 300 streams of a song to earn the same amount as selling a CD used to make.

I feel like that isn't categorically less money than artists used to make per song listen? There are many albums I own that I have listened to way more than 30 times, which is what it would take for a 10 song album to get 300 song 'streams'

Is that a fair compensation? Why or why not?

I think artists should be able to earn money from creating music, but I don't know how we decide how much they actually deserve if we aren't just going based on the price the market sets.

replies(26): >>45133369 #>>45133399 #>>45133409 #>>45133428 #>>45133431 #>>45133438 #>>45133449 #>>45133951 #>>45134199 #>>45134553 #>>45134767 #>>45134905 #>>45135002 #>>45135123 #>>45135321 #>>45135900 #>>45135940 #>>45136005 #>>45136506 #>>45136530 #>>45136544 #>>45138425 #>>45140193 #>>45140370 #>>45141747 #>>45146960 #
probably_wrong ◴[] No.45133951[source]
Without giving specific numbers, I think the following situation is inherently unfair:

I pay Spotify $20. They take their cut (say, 50%) and there's $10 left for the artists. I've only listened to one small artist throughout the entire month. The artist does not get $10 but much less despite Spotify knowing precisely which artists I listened to.

replies(4): >>45134037 #>>45134190 #>>45134222 #>>45135259 #
higgins ◴[] No.45134190[source]
shameless plug:

SoundCloud implements a "fan powered royalties" model, so that $10 in your example goes to those who artists who you stream

https://community.soundcloud.com/fanpoweredroyalties

replies(1): >>45134229 #
cortesoft ◴[] No.45134229[source]
I have often thought this method made more sense. It should not be total revenue / total streams, it should be what a single person pays going to exactly what they listen to.

It isn’t fair that someone who listens to a ton of things has a much greater say in how the money is distributed even though they pay the same as someone who only listens to one artist.

replies(1): >>45134425 #
SoftTalker ◴[] No.45134425[source]
By that logic the most fair would be pay per play for every song, with some fraction to the artist. But subscribers really like the single payment for unlimited plays model.
replies(3): >>45135871 #>>45135983 #>>45139674 #
1. cortesoft ◴[] No.45139674[source]
Whether that is the most ‘fair’ method or not, a pay per play model wouldn’t be the best for either listeners, artists, or streaming company.

There is always this challenge for creating a business model around digital goods; there is a non-zero cost to create the good, but there is a near zero cost per unit of the good.

No one is going to want a pay per listen model. The heaviest users aren’t going to want to pay that much and will likely turn to piracy, and the lightest users don’t have that strong a desire to listen to music (as demonstrated by their light usage) to want to pay for each stream.

The advantage of a single price, all you can stream, model is that it generates revenue for artists AND it properly recognizes the fact that each stream has a near zero unit cost.

In my model, each listener generates a fixed revenue that is divided up amongst all the artists who create something that user listens to in the same proportion that they listen to it.