When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.

By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.

  • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I was referring to the sharding that happened with video streaming services. It used to be Netflix had mostly everything, in the start, similar to Spotify. Now there are services per publisher that contain their own catalogues.

    Fuck. That.

        • Emerald@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          They were talking about how each publisher was making their own streaming service as if the solution would be to have them all under one roof aka a monopoly.

      • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Spotify isn’t the only service currently.

        Like I said in my op: it’s good service for the consumer. It might not be if enshittification ensues.

        But compared to video streaming, it’s awesome.

        The issue isn’t the service model, but the capitalistic shit behind it, that attempts to maximize profits instead of paying artists fairly.

        • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Like I said in my op: it’s good service for the consumer. It might not be if enshittification ensues.

          Are you seriously throwing might into this sentence?

          I suppose you could say when you throw a ball up in the air it might come back down but that is kind of being disingenuous isn’t it.

          Here’s another thought, doesn’t it impact the quality of the service for the consumer if the workers doing the labor to create the substance of the service, the basic thing that gives the service value to customers, are not being rewarded in a sustainable fashion for their time and labor?

          Do you really think all your favorite artists are going to keep cranking out music in this environment? More importantly, do you think your favorite artists would have ever been able to invest the time and effort to get big enough to become that 1% of the successful musicians if the environment they began in was as hostile towards musicians earning money as it is now?

          The amount of quality recorded music being released is going to plummet as musicians just stop bothering to do it. We will look back on the 2000s-2010s as a golden era where music production tools were distributed and affordable but venture capital hadn’t yet destroyed the ability of up and coming recording artists and audio engineers to actually devote the time and focus to becoming professional.

          • thesmokingman@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            At least 50% of the bands I’ve seen, toured with, or heard don’t record music to make money. There’s just too much music for it to be dependable income. They do it because they wanna share something neat with their friends. They upload it to sites like Spotify or a decade ago MySpace or a decade before that zines so other people can find cool shit. If they get lucky, that stumble upon nets a shirt sale which actually nets the band some income.

            The sweeping generalizations you’re making do not apply. Stop trying to make music about money.

            Edit: mailing tapes was a thing a few decades ago. Are you saying I ripped off those folks because I wanted friends on one coast to hear shit friends on the other coast recorded? That’s a really fucking hard DIY tour to build. You’re fucking Skinner saying all us kids are wrong.

            • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              …what?

              Are you angry at me for saying your friends were still getting underpaid for their labor even back then?

              • LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                If a friend asks me to help with something, I don’t removed and moan about my unpaid labour. Fuck that, they’re my friends and I wouldn’t take the money even if offered. That’s just what friends do. The same applies to if I wanted to do something nice for them, like sending them a cool mixtape I made. That’s how you build communities! Focusing on payment like you do reduces everything to capitalism but with even less empathy and humanity.

                • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I don’t understand where you are getting the impression that I think money is the point, I never said that.

                  What I said is the labor of recording musicians being totally eviscerated by capitalism is a tragedy and that I don’t buy the narrative that this was inevitable for one second.

                  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I said multiple times “lots of folks do music for fun.” You said “you’re undervaluing their labor.” That’s why everyone thinks you think money is the point.

                    You also seem to not understand market saturation. If a fair value for a recording is $20 (just pretend for a minute), consumers are happy to pay $20, and artists sell for $20, why aren’t musicians getting rich? It’s because there are more musicians producing an incredible volume of work than the consumers can completely support. Nowhere in that statement is an attack on the value of that labor just an acknowledgment that there’s too much to consume.

                    In addition, you seem to fail to understand the difference between value to the artist and value to the consumer. Physical and digital radio provide incredible value to the consumer. They don’t really provide value to the artist unless you have an incredible amount of fame. A very good question to ask is “how do we create a solution that’s good for the consumer and the artist?” I have no idea. Making music about money (like you continue to do) instead of about fun (like a good number of artists who aren’t topping charts do) makes it very difficult to balance what an artist should get paid against what consumers can afford to pay (assuming we remove all middle layers).