Spotify steals $40,000,000 from small artists to give to the rich. Solution?
Comments on this video
You can comment on this video at YouTube
You can comment on this video at YouTube
Thursday January 4, 2024
David Mellor
David Mellor is CEO and Course Director of Audio Masterclass. David has designed courses in audio education and training since 1986 and is the publisher and principal writer of Adventures In Audio.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @GhostWriter_Music: You're right. Not at all being sarcastic here but if I get paid $0.003 for a listen on Spotify, I'll take it and bank it. Someone paid attention.
@GhostWriter_Music replies to @GhostWriter_Music: @@AudioMasterclass yep thats right, and Spotify isn't going to be my preferred place to send future fans. especially when apple music and even YouTube (surprisingly) pays a lot more. It even stopped me using Spotify for listening. I only use apple music and YouTube now.
@juniordunkley2751: What's the matter old man pension not enough?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @juniordunkley2751: Aha that's very funny. If all you can do is attack me for my age you probably need to crawl back into your nappy.
@mrgeraldbroughton1105: And Taylor swift wonder why people not buying her cd and downloading all her albums off you tube? Also, these wack rappers and singers steal from us and hating on us because our songs are better. Stop supporting these artist, stop buying their records is the solution as well. Spotify are HATERS. And yes, spotify has ripped me off as well. My song What We Doing gained 1,723 listeners last month in December 2023, why spotify took away 1,338 listeners and only left me only 385 listeners this month in January 2024?....Facts, the only way my song got streamed 3,366 times, 1,723 people had to stream the song, how else would I get the streams Spotify? But, the problem was that, 1,723 of those listeners liked my song more than their signed iluminati artist music that sucks. Im taking $ from their artist is why they did it! Spotify cheated and stole from me and they are dishonest people. Also, you tube deleted My Fayrothedon channel and erased all my videos with What We Doing. These lame rappers making these crappy songs and their record labels are telling these platforms to delete our music, because their songs are getting more attention than these wack artist that they are wasting millions of dollars on and the people just not feeling them. I can name about 10 of these artist that suck bra on ATL
@svendtveskg5719: My band is just a small band here in Denmark. Here, the cost of printing a 100 CD's is about 3000 DKK = 30 DKK a piece. We sell them at gigs, at 120 DKK a piece = 25 sold for break-even, and when theyr'e sold out a revenue of 9000 DKK - just about 1000 pounds. A hugely better deal, than any streamng service will offer.
@TravisAvey84: Daniel Ek was a CEO for uTorrent for a bit (which was notorious for illegally sharing music like napster) -- shouldn't be a surprise Spotify would screw over artists.
Plus, major record labels have stock in Spotify...
@MarciaFunebre: You forgot one big aspect. This is not only about money and there are plenty of people who would say they don't care about their $4 - Besides money it is about respect. Spotify would be nothing without all those who share their content on this platform to begin with. Purely and simply out of RESPECT stealing from small artists should have never been considered. That is way more upsetting than to go without $4 after a year.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @MarciaFunebre: You're not wrong. That small sum of money - even $0.004 - shows that someone enjoyed your music at least enough to listen for 30 seconds.
@gavina.miller: It gets worse. If your track has 900 streams in one month and 100 the next, even though it reached the threshold, Spotify will only pay for the 100 streams. So the 1000 streams/year must be in the same month in order to have all your streams paid out. Given the "Relationship" between Spotify and the majors, it wouldn't be surprising that this is a plan to keep unsigned or independent label artists off the platform. Spotify does not own the rights to any music and must pay royalties regardless of how many streams. To do otherwise is indeed theft. I don't know who's legal team dreamed up this farce but they are the type to argue the legal difference between streaming and broadcast.
@thomaslthomas1506: Your expression in the thumbnail is the level of grumpiness I perpetually aspire to !
@AudioMasterclass replies to @thomaslthomas1506: Apparently it's called my resting bitch face.
@saardean4481: You are doing the Lords work
@solarionispirit2117: So finally Spotify will work as the world in general 😅
@yeebie4: Thank you for making this video. So many people don’t know this. I think if they did, they would not listen to Spotify…
@theaustralianconundrum: Thus why my music is all on CD's that I purchased.
@BubbaabbuB: yea dude. thanks for drawing attention to this.
@LuckyDogDave: plus 999 streams of a song is 60 hours of listening that they are going to now ignore. If only a 1/3 is new listeners that would have been $300 of revenue using the old cheap rate of $.99 a song.
@LuckyDogDave: Streaming has become a monopoly killing an independent musician, so that's when the government should get involved.
@headshotke: As mentioned before, I left Spotify long time ago, because they dont pay their artest any good and they stream lossless, been using Deezer since the beginning in 2007 and 2014 I switched to their HIFI, now recently also added Tidal for their 24bit/lossless and because Tidal both pay better and have higher quality and now have a wide variaty of music, were in the beginning, i found only 60-70% of my Deezer collection, it used to be US / R&B focused, but I have the feeling this is no longer the case, shame they don't have Podcast yet...:
Streaming Platform Average Payout per Stream
Tidal: $0.01284
Apple Music: $0.008
Amazon Music: $0.00402
Spotify: $0.00318
YouTube Music: $0.002
Pandora: $0.00133
Deezer: $0.0011
@frederikqu7717: I assume they want to avoid small payments of a few cents. They could also avoid this by just postponing the payout until an account accumulated a few dollars in total, even if it takes multiple years. The current system on the other hand is just unfair
@budgetkeyboardist: Spotify is evil. Stealing is stealing. It's wrong. I don't understand why more people aren't freaking out about this.
@TuffyAndBetty: Are the Big Artists who don’t need the revenue advocating for the smaller ones?
@albiepalbie5040: Robbery !
Big nasty multi Nationals robbing small people
Gone on forever with nasty government complicit as they aligned with the nasties and not the small people they are supposed to represent
Power is Robbery
@chopsmcp: "You can be loved or you can be hated" kind of misses the point, imo. All they care about is keeping the three big music groups happy, and that's what this frankly desperate move is about.
When you think through the numbers it's hard not to conclude that this is a company that at least thinks it's in deep trouble.
@homosexualpanic: The Spotify business model is entirely dependent on being completely unfair. It's broken and shouldn't work, but yay for capitalism, I guess?
@MechFrankaTLieu: am happy now even more that I choose not to choose Spotify as my service of choice for enjoying streaming , what a disgusting and criminal way of doing business
@alvaromedinagarcia: I have more confidence in the EU that USA to pass legislation that regulates this scam. Very well explained video.
@ElenaDuffMusic: Comments under all the discussion about this seems to be "it's only pennies, who cares, it's worthless anyway, what do you care?" and "if you can't get 1000 streams you're doing something wrong"...Well, I say to these people that with 100,000 tracks a day being uploaded onto Spotify it's damn near impossible to get ears on your music, and some of us don't have massive marketing budgets. And Spotify don't help At All with getting you heard by others. Most of my listens on there come from my own graft trying to market myself online over months and weeks and it's like pulling teeth to even get that, so yes, I want my .0003 of a cent per stream too. Another solution would be for every non-label artist to pull all their tracks down off Spotify in protest - many have a lot of streams and it would impact their financial bottom line, until they stop treating people like cr*p.
@musicbythesilverheadengineer replies to @ElenaDuffMusic: A global movement for all independent artists to remove their tracks from Spotify is an excellent idea.
@hoser2901: Class action would be apropriate, but how do you contact all the artists involved? Shameful how they tramp all over the little people. They need to be reminded that all the big artists were once small. Perhaps some of the truly huge artists ie: (Taylor Swift) might get on board if the group reached out. Could certainly put some preasure on.
@Bassotronics: Spotify should be sued for double that amount.
@Johnny-te4rv: You are a true Saint Robinhood.
@chadband9860: I'm never going back to Spotify.
@michaelschuberth7802: Streaming Services are the WORST thing to happen to musicians & artists in living memory. I for one belong to no streaming service. If I want the song/album I buy the physical product. Sadly my solution to the streaming service money grab will never work for the modern world...to much money involved & the general public has come to expect instant gratification plus they can't get their heads/lives out of their phones.
@LapsangTe: That's the reason why I'm not putting my music on Spotify. If ONE of my songs is played ONCE on radio or TV I get money for it. The same applies to if ONE of my songs is performed ONCE live. The Spotify rules are as if a painter would have to paint a thousand houses before he got paid. No one would consider that O.K.
@johndicksonkaraoke2554 replies to @LapsangTe: Gene Simmons says Spotify is a total ripoff to small artists, example his daughter did a song on Spotify that got 10 million listeners and she only got paid $214.00.
@CatOnVenus183: eat the rich :)
@paradoxicalcat7173 replies to @CatOnVenus183: That is a Communist expression.
Nothing wrong with being rich/wealthy/successful. Greed is the problem. If their work is being streamed, they should get paid for it. End of discussion.
@timothyrogerson4251: Provide a link to your albums and we can stream many, many, times.🙂
@AudioMasterclass replies to @timothyrogerson4251: I appreciate what you're saying but unless people listen to my music because they like it there is a risk that it will be seen as paid-for or automated streams.
@timothyrogerson4251 replies to @timothyrogerson4251: @@AudioMasterclassAppreciate your point. But would love to explore your albums.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @timothyrogerson4251: Don't tell anyone but I'm on most of the streaming services. Search for 'David Mellor'. That's me.
@RagedContinuum: I think I'll stay out of the music business and grudgingly stay in the glass business
@good.citizen: natatbot GPT-3 |:[]|... "
there was legislation, the 2020 music modernization act. it was neglected because of the plague. with spotify, like bmi and ascap, all the funds should be pooled and distributed evenly among all writers regardless of plays, because now, the only way to achieve transparency and accountability is sunset everything and start over for restitution.
@spacemissing: Screw Spotify, then.
Post your stuff elsewhere.
@straymusictracksfromdavoro6510: This sounds very much like a death knell not only for the small non-mainstream artists, but also for anybody with musical curiosity who goes down some of the more obscure "rabbit holes" in Spotify to find interesting non-mainstream music. I read an article today on a site called "MusicRadar" where it is claimed that "the decision to stop paying royalties to artists and rightsholders behind tracks streamed less than 1000 times annually,...........will effectively demonetize more than two thirds of its (Spotify's) entire catalogue". So, what happens when these small artists now getting nothing decide to pull their music from Spotify, while they may still produce their music and it may still be available somewhere, how does anybody find out they exist without some platform to inform and present their work to possibly millions of potential fans? It's all just about business and the ethos that music is a product and to hell with "art", I naively thought the modern streaming age had maybe somehow broken that ethos which was perfected by the big record companies, but not so, the big streamer has now taken it on.
@rabit818: Like I said before, I have obscure music in my playlist and Spotify hardly or doesn’t play it all.
@taylorsimonr: I would be interested to know how, in your opinion and indeed experience, the likes of Tidal, Qobuz, Deezer and so on all stack up vs Spotify. I've long known that Spotify hasn't exactly treated artists fairly, which combined with improved audio quality (amongst other reasons) are why I am a Qobuz user myself.
@spacecowboy511: It’s really not all that bad.
@quantummemechanics: 2:38 would never work due to remixes anc covers, also due to artist brand "investment" with multiple labels involved would make this a mess. It must be per track as it is.
@Anco replies to @quantummemechanics: Of course there are ways to work with that. Don't say would never work so fast. That only ends up in worse solutions.
@MCAlvesPortugal: Well Said
@richertz: Can we team up and sue them for theft? Is this being done fairly? Spotify might not pay well but this new idea is theft?
I feel this has not generated enough publicity. Have we given up? I guess most artists don't care about getting paid? If they did, this would be growing faster than it is.
@DPSingh-px4xu: May I humbly comment...with over a half century in and around the music industry, Spotify's business model has been perpetrated on artists deemed unsuitable for the masses since the 50's although in other guises...thank you sincerely for your courage and accuracy
@mr-iz8cx: Spread out, $40,000,000 really won't mean much to the big earners. To the people who are losing it, it means something. It's indicative of where we're at culturally, which is a terrible shame I think.
@officialWWM: How much has YouTube stolen from small creators over the years?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @officialWWM: Lots. I have a small anonymous channel that I set up just for fun. I got YouTube partnership years ago and earned a few GBP here and there. Then YouTube upped the requirements for monetization and demonetized me. Guess who doesn't post videos there anymore.
@officialWWM replies to @officialWWM: @@AudioMasterclass yep, that’s my point. YT continues to sell advertising on those small channels, while at the same time, keeping 100 percent of the profits for themselves. Seems to me, Spotify is following their lead!
@cfjr9453: Dave, how can I find your work on other platforms? What do I search for? Thanks. Edit: I found a David Mellor on Apple Music, but I don't know for sure it's you. Also, can you comment on other streaming platforms' payment model? Edit2: I confirmed it's you on Apple Music, nevermind the first question.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @cfjr9453: Don't listen too long and mess your brain up. Regarding other services, it all comes back through my distributor. It's a very small amount of money but, and I suspect it's the same for many musicians, it adds meaning to my hobby.
@thexfile.: There must be a class action lawsuit about this...
@AK-vx4dy: Are you sure they giving this to to big artists ? I can bet they keep this to themselfs ;D
@AudioMasterclass replies to @AK-vx4dy: I'm prepared to believe them. Artists with more than 1000 streams per track per year will be loving this.
@latheofheaven1017: I wish I had a subscription to Spotify that I could now cancel in protest, but I already don't subscribe because of the meagre royalties it pays to small artists.
@latheofheaven1017: "You can be loved or you can be hated. Come on Spotify, which do you want it to be?" Well, I think we know the answer already. It doesn't care if it's hated by hundreds of thousands of minor artists. Your opinion is not important to them; otherwise, they wouldn't have decided to steal from you in the first place.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @latheofheaven1017: You're not wrong.
@buddyxxx2951: Bandcamp chicos...Bandcamp.
@mitchelldries6628: have never used spotify. i will happily rather buy records (or whatever other form of media they offer) direct from the artist, ESPECIALLY if it is produced and released by the artist themselves. and if i ever heard a TS song, it was likely by mistake on the overhead system of a grocery store...
@fkg360: Spotify is crazy! I think we have to unite and get more attention on this matter. I am as angry as you are!
@ArturdeSousaRocha: I wonder if the real goal is to make those small artists leave and lower the costs of storage. It don't think my hypothesis adds up, though.
@mattlm64: I know Tidal pays the most but does anyone know how much Qobuz pays per stream? I can't find that information. I use Qobuz due to FLAC support and integration with UAPP on Android.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @mattlm64: I would have to research this, perhaps for a future video, but I am told that at least one service pays the artist according to what individual listeners play. So if a subscriber listens to nothing but Genesis, then Genesis get all of their subscription money, less the service's commission. (And less loads of other commissions but that's a different story).
@doyouluvit: People have the power to make the music industry strong again for artists by not supporting streaming like spotify and instead support the actual artist by buying physical media from the artist.
Sad that it will never happen. People just don't care
@caseyjones3522 replies to @doyouluvit: the majority of people on Spotify are normies and status quo consumers. The types that do care like us musicians and hipsters are the minority. You would have to get normal people to care, which is difficult.
@michaelbean2478: This is how our dysfunctional capitalist system works now...the little guys do the work, and the do nothing owners and shareholders help themselves to nice big scoop of the fruits of other people's labors. You don't REALLY believe that the likes of Elon Muskrat or Jeff Bozo actually EARNED their excessive wealth, do you? No...they put themselves into a position where they could just collet money like it was raining from the sky directly into their pockets...which in a metaphorical way, it is.
@ac81017: Welcome to the world of capitalism.
@paradoxicalcat7173 replies to @ac81017: Nothing wrong with it. The problem is greed, and Spotify thinking it doesn't need to pay people for their work. The problem is Communism.
@simc444: Unsubscribing Spotify now. Thanks.
@philbuilds116: The lawmakers in the USA would write this but it would only pass if there's another 100 billion dollars to Israel and Ukraine attached.
@Douglas_Blake_579: This is straight up ridiculous .... Guess who just lost my business!
@stevengagnon4777: There is an opportunity for a new venue that would cater to an emerging and independent market. I find this lacking currently anyway. A new venue would have an opportunity to set up a new charter with a set of guidelines suitable to a smaller market and entice artists into a better format too. I would have a place to search the path less traveled with a good starting entrance. I understand that this would be a difficult endeavor but the rewards would also be great...beyond a calclculable value as in a one of a kind gem stone. Certainly it could be done. Build it and they will come. Fight them and it will probably amount to nothing.
@Truthinshredding1: they need to legislate against these guys.
@teashea1: I am very glad you are making this new policy visible. I read about it. I hope there is action. It is stealing.
@teashea1: I use CDBaby to distribute my music. They have distributed the six albums I have produced to over fifty music services. They have a total of about 6,000 streams a month on Spotify alone. But there are 72 songs. I may not be paid much - or anything......
@mamulcahy: But just think of all the free exposure you’ll get!
Well, at least that’s what they tell new bands.
@caseyjones3522 replies to @mamulcahy: its not free, you have to pay an organization like distrokid to get on the platform lol
@emiel333: Great video. It’s ridiculous that Spotify is not paying the small artists. It looks like we’re back in the 70s and 80s again. No record label? No money. Spotify is becoming the new record label by pushing small artists out of the market.
@midnight_dancerXXX replies to @emiel333: The major record labels indeed have their shares in Spotify thus ....this is what it is ....
@caseyjones3522 replies to @emiel333: the record labels also have closed door contracts with Spotify stipulating licensing for legacy artists.
@marsrivers: IF we move our songs to youtube music? and erase the catalogue from spotify?
@BogdanSerban: I stopped caring about music services when tracks simply disappeared from my collection due to their licensing not being renewed. I went back to my mp3 collection.
@Tealc2323: If any of the EU, UK, or US are going to apply that legislations, Spotify would be force to drop this new change.
@simonclark8290: People should vote with their wallets like I did.
@officialWWM replies to @simonclark8290: Yep, me too. Canceled my subscription and pulled down all my music. I doubt they care but I feel better.
@deebeenine: The current payout system benefits mostly big labels and artists. Taylor etc. get money from customers even if they don't listen to their music. The payments should be based on the music you actually stream. Many affiliate shops have a minimum payout as well - but they simply add up all your income until you reach that threshold.
@markcarrington8565: I subscribe to Tidal for two reasons. Firstly, quality. Secondly, for their ethics. Rather than pooling all subscriptions and dividing them based on streams across the whole platform, they take the individual subscriptions and divide them between the artists I have chosen to play. So rather than my subscriptions funding people I’ve never played, I fund the people I like, or at least sample during the month.
As someone who regularly buys physical media, I am not a fan of streaming on Spotify. I don’t like that people can consume music for free, it seems like theft to me. I will never subscribe to Spotify as they seem to me to be little more than a data centre operator designed to make money. They don’t serve their customers and they don’t serve their suppliers.
@Anco replies to @markcarrington8565: Tidal did shut the direct payout down in March. So sadly that is not a thing anymore. But yes I switched from Spotify to deezer because they stated they wanted a user centric payout system. But this summer that disappeared with an "improved" algorithm to benefit smaller artists. Seems like the big labels are pushing buttons to get more money everywhere. So now I run my own navidrome. About Spotify being a bad company: they were the first and needed to accept a bad deal in order to get the rights to stream. Doesn't make the conclusion better, but I think the labels are more to blame than spotify
@markcarrington8565 replies to @markcarrington8565: @@Anco Thanks for the update. Disappointing really. I also recognise that Spotify is the lesser evil compared with its illegal predecessor, Napster. Doesn’t make it good though.
@R00m1o1 replies to @markcarrington8565: Tidal did not demonstrate very good ethics with their MQA scam. I'm using Qobuz, but they probably have their own issues that I'm not aware of ...
@GhostWriter_Music replies to @markcarrington8565: they do. hmmm I never knew that. I will have a look. I use apple music. did use spotify too until they stopped paying the small guy.
@RichardDavidBrooks: Is Tidal still the better and more fair option for artist's revenue? (as I have heard it was when it was initially created)
@Sanber replies to @RichardDavidBrooks: Yes, it is. In my own experience, they pay us better, even if we have less listeners than on Spotify
@Tealc2323 replies to @RichardDavidBrooks: @@Sanber How is Qobuz?
@siggidori: Seems like Spotify is working hard at being hated :/
But about those 1000 plays... when a songs finally hits that "magic number" ... will it only then start creating income for the artist or will they (then) be paid for those 1000 streams and business as usual after that?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @siggidori: It’s 1000 in the previous year. So you could hit the target then drop back again.
@siggidori replies to @siggidori: @@AudioMasterclass Seriously!? That's fucked up :/
@DarkSideofSynth replies to @siggidori: They say this: 'Starting in early 2024, tracks must have reached at least 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months in order to generate recorded royalties.' Which can be interpreted in any which way they like ;) We wait an year before we pay you or we wait an year before we start counting the we owe from the second year onwards...
@Anco replies to @siggidori: How I read this, if that if you don't get 1000 songs in first month, you will loose that month (and months till you hit a thousand total) always. So it will impact a lot more artists.
If my math is right, they will get 0.4% more for a stream afterwards. And say on average you won't get payed for first 500 streams, you will recoup the lost money after 125000 streams. Yes sounds as a great deal... (Taken 11.72 billion revenue in 2022, with 70% as payout to artists/rights holders, and 40 million extra payout to streams above the threshold)
@sacriste: Next step is charge you to post your music there. Disgusting people.