Spotify: Is it wrong?

[Xern0n]

Taken from Wikipedia

Spotify is a commercial music streaming service providing digital rights management-restricted content from record labels including Sony, EMI, Warner Music Group and Universal.

Spotify has been accused of failing to compensate artists fairly. Helienne Lindvall of The Guardian reported that for "artists who 'signed up to a label' there's a tangible risk that revenue which comes from a possible sale of shares by the label would end up in the proverbial 'blackbox' (non-attributable revenue that remains with the label)." and that "indie labels... as opposed to the majors and Merlin members, receive no advance, receive no minimum per stream and only get a 50% share of ad revenue on a pro-rata basis."

Now, I use it personally. Sometimes when I feel I'd save more time just streaming it (rather than DLing it off TPB or elsewhere), I use spotify. But a lot of artists and even users find that spotify is unethical due to it taking money from the artists.

Spotify has tried being "open" about their work with "artist analytics", after people (some like Thom Yorke of Radiohead) have complained, but the general consesus amongst the music industry is that Spotify is doing more harm than good.

So what's your thoughts on streaming free with ads? Or streaming > downloading in general? Is it better/ethical? Let's all forget we're pirates and try to see things from artists views. Is this better? Or is it ruining what artists aim for in terms of profits?

[kjf]

To the best of my knowledge, Spotify is no different in that it deals with the labels, not the artists, so if anyone is leaving the artists hanging, it is the labels that represent them.

[NIK]

Middlemen provide a service. It costs.

I'd like to pay less for bananas but the local supermarket charges what it charges and the simple fact is that I'm not going to track down a grower in Borneo and import them myself so I either pay what is being asked or I go without.

Of course if the supermarket gouges me egregiously then someone else will take the opportunity to track down a grower and undercut the supermarket. I then have four choices: paying what the supermarket is asking--which I might legitimately still choose to do because it provides the advantage of convenience--switching to an alternative middleman, going to the source myself, or going without.

All basic economics. All perfectly sound and reasonable.

The exact same concepts apply to the banana growers...and to artists. They can choose to sell direct, or via a middleman. If they want to employ a middleman there are a variety to choose from offering different solutions at different prices. It is up to the artists to choose the one they consider provides them with the best deal. And that will vary by the individual artist.

[Q91]

Taken from Wikipedia

Spotify has tried being "open" about their work before with "artist analytics", but even with that, people (some like Thom Yorke of Radiohead) have complained.

How can he complain about it if he left Spotify BEFORE the opened up? Please refraise that line.

[Xern0n]

Taken from Wikipedia

Spotify has tried being "open" about their work before with "artist analytics", but even with that, people (some like Thom Yorke of Radiohead) have complained.

How can he complain about it if he left Spotify BEFORE the opened up? Please refraise that line.

Rephrased.

[les.deux]

Well... It is not a perfect system (is there even such a thing in general?!) but it is a good alternative that takes less time than to download an actual album/EP/single/whatever. And it actually generates money for the artist. Maybe not as much money as the artist wants too but there is money coming from it. And that fact alone i think is a step in the right direction - even though it is a system that can become a lot better