Ending Spotify's policy of granting all users..

[shmal96 2,928]

Honestly paid streaming subscriptions are pretty cheap if you think about it.....usually under $10 a month for unlimited music from a huge library, offline downloads of the songs. Plus spotify has a student discount so it's only $5 a month

[Harry 26,836]

59 minutes ago, Bio said:

She said she was gonna release 1989 on Spotify if it was only made available for paying costumers and Spotify refused to do that. Now it looks like they changed their mind.

I guess this isn't exactly that though, is it? I haven't looked into this properly yet just scanned the article, but doesn't it just mean that free customers may not receive access to certain albums instantly? It says there's a two week window on it. So not quite.

I think her proposal is good though. Artists should be able to have their albums available in whatever way they want to. But she built her whole argument against Spotify (and streaming in general) under the pretence that she was doing it to stand up for less established independent artists, then threw in the towel and joined the Apple bandwagon anyway when they offered her enough money to front their campaign.

[Supersonic 49,376]

33 minutes ago, Bio said:

The ads compensated the fact that there was non-paying costumers. The artists received the money either way. This is only gonna get them more money that they honestly don't need. While there's people who have literally no money at all and need a dose of entertainment and culture in their life and won't be able to afford it.

First things first: Spotify is operating on a loss with its freemium option. The money they make by this is first of all going to the company itself to ensure that it will exist in the future (and not crumble in 5 years because of the massive debt they have amassed) meaning that people with no money still have a legal way to listen to music, even when it has minimal restrictions.

Second: This is not about the rich getting richer. This is just about principles. People who work should get paid, regardless of how well off they are or aren't. Imagine if you ran a business and a customer said to you "Oh yeah, you fixed my roof but you've been in the business for so long, you must be pretty rich so I'm not paying you a single penny." That's just dumb.

Third: I refuse to believe that somebody (who is not homeless) has not enough money to buy a streaming subscription for 10$ every month or an album on sale for 5-7$. What is that entitlement and arrogance of wanting free entertainment provided to you and then treating entertainers so badly that the only way they can make a sustainable living is selling overpriced tour merchandise.

[Supersonic 49,376]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

I guess this isn't exactly that though, is it? I haven't looked into this properly yet just scanned the article, but doesn't it just mean that free customers may not receive access to certain albums instantly? It says there's a two week window on it. So not quite.

I think her proposal is good though. Artists should be able to have their albums available in whatever way they want to. But she built her whole argument against Spotify (and streaming in general) under the pretence that she was doing it to stand up for less established independent artists, then threw in the towel and joined the Apple bandwagon anyway when they offered her enough money to front their campaign.

I don't really like the T-Swizzle but her point with the Apple Music was that they didn't compensate their artists for the first three months when it was free. She only joined and fronted the campaign after they publically announced that ALL artists under Apple Music would be paid royalities during the 3-month free trial.

[Mr Judas 4,106]

1 hour ago, hausofkc said:

I have Spotify premium anyway. 

9.99 a month for all music I want >>>> 14.00 for one CD. 

While i pay 0.7 $ / month for Apple music 

[Harry 26,836]

58 minutes ago, Supersonic said:

I don't really like the T-Swizzle but her point with the Apple Music was that they didn't compensate their artists for the first three months when it was free. She only joined and fronted the campaign after they publically announced that ALL artists under Apple Music would be paid royalities during the 3-month free trial.

Yet she's still boycotting Spotify? They've never refused artists royalties under any free membership.

[Supersonic 49,376]

30 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yet she's still boycotting Spotify? They've never refused artists royalties under any free membership.

I think she's boycotting Spotify because of how little they pay artists, meaning millions of streams being worth like 10 bucks for an artist (and because of the fact that they're having a free option at all I think she does not believe in). It's whatever. Feels like a good portion of being generally concerned for other artists but also being a bit greedy for money herself at the same time.

[Harry 26,836]

1 minute ago, Supersonic said:

I think she's boycotting Spotify because of how little they pay artists, meaning millions of streams being worth like 10 bucks for an artist (and because of the fact that they're having a free option at all I think she does not believe in). It's whatever. Feels like a good portion of being generally concerned for other artists but also being a bit greedy for money herself at the same time.

Yeah. And I actually agree with her on most of what she said, or I can at least see her side of it all. But the whole sudden turn around of Apple Music on their policy combined with Taylor suddenly showing up in their commercials is a little fishy to me. Instead of trying to figure out a way of improving things for the smaller artists on Spotify - considering Spotify is by far the most popular streaming service - she made an agreement with Apple that secured her a lump of cash and was done with the whole thing. Idk. Maybe I'm looking into it too much but it seemed false to me after that.

[Oivind 287]

13 hours ago, vrajesh said:

While i pay 0.7 $ / month for Apple music 

I guess you paid for it when you bought your Apple device. Apple is interested in one thing, and one thing only: Selling hardware. That's why I don't think we'll ever see iTunes or their streaming service on Android devices. Those services are basically there to sell iPhones and iPads.

[Kindness Ponk 2,994]

34 minutes ago, Oivind said:

I guess you paid for it when you bought your Apple device. Apple is interested in one thing, and one thing only: Selling hardware. That's why I don't think we'll ever see iTunes or their streaming service on Android devices. Those services are basically there to sell iPhones and iPads.

Apple Music is available for Android devices though.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.android.music&hl=zh_CN

[JusticeforVenus 950]

14 hours ago, HolyDelRey said:

Artist don't make any money from streaming (only a small percent), only label and song-writers do.

Now I understand Gaga... She writes all her music to get all the coins  That is not very BTW, that is very Taylor Swift dear Gags 

#freethewriters #letthemwriteforGaga

[Evan Peters 10,749]

good thing i use apple music

[insight 2,440]

4 hours ago, JusticeforVenus said:

Now I understand Gaga... She writes all her music to get all the coins  That is not very BTW, that is very Taylor Swift dear Gags 

#freethewriters #letthemwriteforGaga

how are artists supposed to make a living, otherwise? The painter paints, the sculptor sculpts, the musician writes and plays his music. Writing music for the sake of art and not expecting a profit in return is like for the landlord renting out his property to someone and not expecting to collect/ receive his monthly rent payments.

[Benji 20,113]

15 minutes ago, insight said:

how are artists supposed to make a living, otherwise? The painter paints, the sculptor sculpts, the musician writes and plays his music. Writing music for the sake of art and not expecting a profit in return is like for the landlord renting out his property to someone and not expecting to collect/ receive his monthly rent payments.

In all fairness, touring is where artists have been making the bulk of their money. Album sells more or less go back to the label to pay for investment in the creation of the album and the staff who worked on it.

Artists weren't making a lot of money off strict album sells before streaming.

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

19 hours ago, Supersonic said:

First things first: Spotify is operating on a loss with its freemium option. The money they make by this is first of all going to the company itself to ensure that it will exist in the future (and not crumble in 5 years because of the massive debt they have amassed) meaning that people with no money still have a legal way to listen to music, even when it has minimal restrictions.

Second: This is not about the rich getting richer. This is just about principles. People who work should get paid, regardless of how well off they are or aren't. Imagine if you ran a business and a customer said to you "Oh yeah, you fixed my roof but you've been in the business for so long, you must be pretty rich so I'm not paying you a single penny." That's just dumb.

Third: I refuse to believe that somebody (who is not homeless) has not enough money to buy a streaming subscription for 10$ every month or an album on sale for 5-7$. What is that entitlement and arrogance of wanting free entertainment provided to you and then treating entertainers so badly that the only way they can make a sustainable living is selling overpriced tour merchandise.

this reminds me of when players refuse to pay PokeBank for $5/year