←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 #
benoau ◴[] No.45134037[source]
They on average pass approximately 70% on, but the record labels also eat heavily into that before the artists get their share.

I'm reminded of an effort a few years ago to legislate the creators getting 50% - which of course meant the "platforms" and the "labels" would collectively share only the other 50%. Which is presumably why the initiative failed.

> The three major labels - Sony, Universal and Warner Music - faced some of the toughest questioning of the inquiry, and were accused of a "lack of clarity" by MPs.

> They largely argued to maintain the status quo, saying any disruption could damage investment in new music, and resisted the idea that streaming was comparable to radio - where artists receive a 50/50 royalty split.

> "It is a narrow-margin business, so it wouldn't actually take that much to upset the so-called apple cart," said Apple Music's Elena Segal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57838473

These days Spotify has hundreds of millions for Joe Rogan and podcast investments, and Apple reports a 75% profit margin on services, so I guess it is quite profitable for everyone except the actual artists.

replies(4): >>45134393 #>>45134861 #>>45135546 #>>45135863 #
scarface_74 ◴[] No.45134861[source]
Apple Music is a miniscule part of service revenue compared to App Store, payments from Google ($20 Billion a year), AppleCare, etc.
replies(1): >>45141853 #
1. steveBK123 ◴[] No.45141853{3}[source]
Right, and before you even get into password sharing you have stuff like this: Apple Family Plan: Costs $25.95 per month, includes Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, and 200GB of iCloud+ storage, and allows sharing with up to five other people

So $5.20/mo per head and you get TV, games and storage with it.

Or Spotify Family Plan - 6 Premium accounts for family members under one roof. $11.49/month

So family plans seem to discount unlimited music streaming down to $2/mo per head.

$24/year or what a single CD used to cost, before even doubling it for inflation..