←back to thread

275 points starkparker | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
newsclues ◴[] No.45133369[source]
Does the record company make more money than the artist? That’s unfair to me.

The people making the art, should be paid the most.

replies(7): >>45133379 #>>45133417 #>>45133442 #>>45133474 #>>45133477 #>>45133484 #>>45133559 #
nomel ◴[] No.45133417[source]
> The people making the art, should be paid the most.

Why? There's a fair market value for the art. There's also a fair real world cost* for distributing and advertising, set by the market (the people working those positions need to eat too). It's trivially easy to go negative, if you try to market something that isn't popular.

If it weren't a net benefit for the artist, they wouldn't go under a label, or stream on a certain platform. They're not being forced to. They do it because it results in more money in their pocket.

replies(3): >>45133450 #>>45134455 #>>45134548 #
GuinansEyebrows ◴[] No.45133450[source]
> They do it because it results in more money in their pocket.

more than zero can still be too little money in exchange for the labor provided and the profit produced.

replies(1): >>45133526 #
nomel ◴[] No.45133526[source]
If the value that others get from it is not worth the effort that someone puts into making it, then we say it's unsustainable. You can't make people give you money, to cover the cost of something they don't want. And, that goes for the entire chain of human effort that is from the artist to the listener.

There's a team that maintains the internet connection so the author can upload. * maintains a storage array/metadata catalog to hold the song. * creates the algorithm to recommend the music to people. * creates ads to recommend the service to people. * ...etc

If any part of this chain finds their effort not worth the value they receive, the whole chain stops. The point before it stops is the market value of that service. Someone charges more than the market value? Then someone else, who finds the effort worth the cheaper pay, will do it (ok, besides monopolies that have captured the government, but they're not really relevant in this case).

If you think it's possible to do what you want, then put the effort into starting a service! You don't want to? Well, nobody else does either, because what they get in return will not be worth the effort.

We live in a society.

replies(1): >>45141843 #
1. GuinansEyebrows ◴[] No.45141843[source]
and yet, artists are paid fractions of pennies for the privilege of allowing their music to be streamed while streaming company owners make millions and millions of dollars and put that money into machines that kill children. some society.
replies(1): >>45143466 #
2. nomel ◴[] No.45143466[source]
Or, the reality is that everyone in the chain of effort wants, and deserves, a bit of money in their pocket, for their efforts. If that chain means nothing comes out the other end, it doesn't mean there's a problem with society, it means that the tech isn't there yet to make the chain shorter/cheaper. I'll leave that advancement to you! You can do the right thing, the thing nobody else wants to do, and make the service that solves this issue. As others have said, distribution costs are near zero, so, it must be easy!