this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
675 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
60135 readers
2767 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can someone explain why this is bad? It seems like normal behaviour of corporations.
Or has spotify previously committed to being a fair market?
This is like a soup joint that's trying to see how much they can piss in the broth before customers notice.
That would be a health hazard, so it's not really comparable.
It seems more like a soup joint using cheaper ingredients in their dishes, which is just... normal? I don't get what the big deal is.
It's normal if you accept it. You do not have to accept it. There's also a good chance that it's illegal in Spotify's case, if not in the US then likely in Europe.
Under what law?
Likely antitrust.
That said if you've gone down the path of reasoning that says things that aren't illegal are okay, then I don't know what to tell you.
I suppose you could argue that Spotify can abuse its position in the same way that Walmart bullies its suppliers and Microsoft freezes out competition, but it doesn't sound like that's what's happening here. Like I said, it sounds like they're just preferring cheaper sources.
But they aren't just preferring cheaper sources, they're funding production houses that crank out music cheaper than it would cost to pay a single artist, and then putting that "mass" produced music on playlists that they themselves promote, allll to avoid promoting actual artists and paying them potentially more than they're paying the production house.
It's in terribly bad faith because I myself am an artist that distributes through Spotify, not only because I can reach the widest audience, but I'm hoping on some level Spotify is promoting my new music to people outside of my own purview. But they aren't. They're flooding the market with cheap music and only promoting it.
Okay, that's shitty for sure, but I'm not sure that it amounts to illegality, at least under US law.
This is behavior is anti competitive under both US and EU and member states' law.
Issue is the regulatory capture along with strong corporate lobbying on these issues.
If you are with it, that's cool. But behavior has historical precedent and it requires the state to set boundaries on the extraction practices
This is a completely disingenuous comparison.
yeah, it's more like they piss directly into peoples mouthes, but it turns out a few people are into that and can't get enough of it
According to the RIAA, Spotify is a leading contributer to music revenue going up over the past decade plus https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2022-Year-End-Music-Industry-Revenue-Report.pdf
Prior to spotify, people bought songs or albums, and were locked into their favorites or pirated music, which obviously contributed nothing to artist's pockets.
Spotify is not the evil entity here, in my opinion. Record labels are.
Edit: Unsure how reliable of a source this is, but steaming reduced piracy levels by ~20% https://www.alliotts.com/articles/streaming-has-a-consumer-and-a-piracy-problem-the-answer-lies-in-the-music-industry/
I do think that we have become far removed from the old days, because music piracy was extremely prevelant before these services came out.
There are literally musicians with Only fans accounts because Spotify makes then such a pathetic amount of money. Every single artist I've ever seen comment on Spotify who hasn't been amongst the most popular bands in their genre for decades have always said that Spotify is absolutely awful for artists.
Albums/singles traditionally weren't money makers, merch and concerts were. Nobody is saying record labels weren't and aren't shitty, but believe it or not it's possible for both of them to be shitty at the same time.
Your point feels like a false cause or an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It's not Spotify's responsibility that some artists choose to leverage their platform to promote OnlyFans or other side ventures. Artists have the autonomy to seek alternative income streams or even pursue entirely different careers if they find Spotify's payouts insufficient. Blaming Spotify for these decisions ignores the broader context of the music industry and the role record labels play in revenue distribution.
Additionally, streaming platforms have helped reduce piracy and provided exposure to artists who might not have had it otherwise. The issue is much more nuanced than streaming services bad.
Being an artist doesn’t inherently entitle someone to make a lot of money. Success and income in any field depend on demand, skill, and market conditions. For example, writers often face similar challenges—many authors spend years creating books that may never generate significant income, and only a small percentage achieve financial success. Like musicians, they must often supplement their income through other means, such as teaching, freelancing, or speaking engagements.
Just as no one expects every writer to become a bestseller, it’s unrealistic to assume every musician will earn a substantial income solely from their art.
That said, given my views, I also do not want to be on platforms like Spotify. The music industry as a whole needs to make meaningful changes—finding a way to pay artists fairly, provide a robust recommendation engine, and maintain affordability for consumers. Until these systemic issues are addressed, the current model will continue to leave many artists struggling.
Sure, Spotify could raise their rates 100% and increase their payouts, but that wouldnt stop the record labels from taking their 80+%, as part of the contract the artist signed, and the consumer would end up falling back to piracy.
A couple of years ago we reached the tipping point where artist are paying more for Spotify to promote their music than Spotify is paying the artists. Spotify is more evil than even the record companies at this point.
Streaming only reduced piracy because it presented a more convenient option. This formula has already changed with their predatory behavior.
The reason artist create has little to do with money. It was never about that and those that think it make shitty music and are owned by corporations.
Technology has set us free from corporate control, but we have to shun commercial platforms. We will never be free running to the wide open arms of business ready to fleece us and lock up our culture behind their pay walls.
Enshitification is here for every corporate platform. There is no escape. The days are 0% interest aka free money are now long gone.
Better check the TOS doesn't include acceptance of various concentrations of piss..
The normal behavior of corporations IS bad. By definition.
IANAL but it seems akin to the antitrust case against Microsoft for bundling their own web browser in with Windows or movie studios also owning theaters and giving preferential treatment to their own films.
You seem to be saying that something normal and legal cannot be bad.
Just because it's normal doesn't me it isn't bad.
I'm just surprised that anyone didn't assume this was happening. If most people are using playlists generated by Spotify, how are they not expecting Spotify to choose songs that are also in their interest? Furthermore, how would this be different from the practices of a radio station? Seems like manufactured outrage to me.
Unfair competition.