I don't have a problem with the idea of a Spotify type model in which the bands are given an amount per play, provided it's large enough that everyone is happy with their payout, and provided it doesn't eliminate more traditional delivery systems.
Though if it's the case that the Spotify model means the record labels get money and they can give whatever portion they want to whichever bands they want, that sounds kind of shitty.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't have a problem with the idea of a Spotify type model in which the bands are given an amount per play, provided it's large enough that everyone is happy with their payout, and provided it doesn't eliminate more traditional delivery systems.
Though if it's the case that the Spotify model means the record labels get money and they can give whatever portion they want to whichever bands they want, that sounds kind of shitty.
Apparently the brave new digital frontier has not solved the "record companies are shitlords" problem.
the way that piece formulates its point is kind of silly; the death metal band is also getting some 'share' of the taylor swift subscribers' money.
1) that individual ~$7 subscriptions be split according to what the individual user actually listens to. Which isn't something that seems to be too problematic a proposal, except that it's not clear to me what it actually changes. If a band accounts for 1% of the spotify plays in one payment period, it doesn't really matter if their payout comes from all subscribers evenly or just from the ones who actually heard their song however many times. Author seems super concerned that his money go to the artists he wants it to go to, but that isn't a distinction that actually matters.
2) This:
In this far more equitable system the subscriber is paying to listen to certain artists, so those artists, and those artists alone, are the only ones splitting the royalties payable from that subscriber’s subscription fee. The economic model that drives Spotify is now connected to the economic model that drives artists: get more listeners, not more plays.
What if a listener doesn’t listen to anyone at all? They forgot they had a subscription, or maybe they just weren’t in the mood to listen to music that month. In that case the money should be divided among all artists proportionate to their cumulative subscriber share, not their share of overall plays. In other words, let’s reward artists who actually bring in and sustain revenue, not artists who simply have listeners more likely to listen to the same tracks repeatedly.
this strikes me as basically trying to jawbone streaming services back into the album model; if I mostly only listen to the same few artists' songs, why wouldn't I just buy their albums (or songs on itunes or whatever)? Spotify is appealing precisely because it does the opposite of this: it pushes variety.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Though if it's the case that the Spotify model means the record labels get money and they can give whatever portion they want to whichever bands they want, that sounds kind of shitty.
I don't use Spotify and I likely never will (or any other streaming service), I prefer to order CDs and have a large collection then play from my itunes, but is this true or are people just guessing? Because that seems absurd. Radio plays have been tracked for decades - when I was in college the royalty rate for having your tune played on the radio was 7.7 cents per minute. That wasn't the label's (i.e. the person who owns the rights) money, it was the songwriter's royalty. The record company didn't get to intercept that money and arbitrarily hand it out however they wanted and I highly doubt that's how Spotify operates. It would defy all logic and common sense. It should be easier than ever to track song plays when everything is digital.
Edit - yep, some internet research confirms this. Just like I thought, artists are paid according to a negotiated royalty rate for spotify plays.
Apparently the brave new digital frontier has not solved the "record companies are shitlords" problem.
Record companies are necessary. There were many bad deals foisted on artists over the years but you can't release music and maintain a catalogue without one, even if it's entirely a DIY operation.
Space Pickle on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Spotify values niche bands for joining the service because they add depth to the catalog. It values large acts like Swift joining the service because they lure a broad range of people in. It's self-evident that there's a problem with the Spotify model, since neither the niche bands nor the large acts feel like they're getting paid enough for the trouble.
It isn't self-evident that there's a problem whenever someone feels like they aren't getting paid enough. People are pretty reliable about wanting more money than they're getting.
I don't have a problem with the idea of a Spotify type model in which the bands are given an amount per play, provided it's large enough that everyone is happy with their payout, and provided it doesn't eliminate more traditional delivery systems.
Though if it's the case that the Spotify model means the record labels get money and they can give whatever portion they want to whichever bands they want, that sounds kind of shitty.
I don't have objections to proposals of alternative payout models, but the article AH posted kinda just skipped over why the pay structure is as it is. Power, the people who have it, and the negotiations Spotify has to go through to get rights to popular music. Why would, to pick a name out of a hat, Taylor Swift agree to a new model where she gets less money from Spotify? 'Fairness' to fellow artists? I don't think she would. I don't think anyone would.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
the way that piece formulates its point is kind of silly; the death metal band is also getting some 'share' of the taylor swift subscribers' money.
1) that individual ~$7 subscriptions be split according to what the individual user actually listens to. Which isn't something that seems to be too problematic a proposal, except that it's not clear to me what it actually changes. If a band accounts for 1% of the spotify plays in one payment period, it doesn't really matter if their payout comes from all subscribers evenly or just from the ones who actually heard their song however many times. Author seems super concerned that his money go to the artists he wants it to go to, but that isn't a distinction that actually matters.
2) This:
In this far more equitable system the subscriber is paying to listen to certain artists, so those artists, and those artists alone, are the only ones splitting the royalties payable from that subscriber’s subscription fee. The economic model that drives Spotify is now connected to the economic model that drives artists: get more listeners, not more plays.
What if a listener doesn’t listen to anyone at all? They forgot they had a subscription, or maybe they just weren’t in the mood to listen to music that month. In that case the money should be divided among all artists proportionate to their cumulative subscriber share, not their share of overall plays. In other words, let’s reward artists who actually bring in and sustain revenue, not artists who simply have listeners more likely to listen to the same tracks repeatedly.
this strikes me as basically trying to jawbone streaming services back into the album model; if I mostly only listen to the same few artists' songs, why wouldn't I just buy their albums (or songs on itunes or whatever)? Spotify is appealing precisely because it does the opposite of this: it pushes variety.
Yeah that article doesn't make sense to me. They only time I could forsee spotify's method being a problem is if there are types of music that encourage more or less repeated streams.
So like say you had an indie death metal band that drives a bunch of people to sign up for spotify and pay the fee, but because their fans all work in retail they can't listen to their music until after work. Versus a pop indie band, where the fans work in a cubicle and can put an album on repeat for the entire 8-10 hours they are at work. The argument being that if both bands brought in the same amount of subscribers they should get the same amount of royalties even if their fans have different listening preferences that results in a different total play count.
To that end the article makes a good suggestion, in that you would try and tie royalties to percentage of a users total play time, rather than percentage of all users total play time. So the fan of the indie death metal band that only listens to spotify for 2 hours a day, and the pop indie band fan who listens to their one band all day long, both generate the same amount of royalties for their respective bands.
I'm not sure that's really a problem though. Intuition suggests that music tastes/job environment type deals don't usually correlate in any real way and over a large enough sample of people you wouldn't have this problem.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Spotify values niche bands for joining the service because they add depth to the catalog. It values large acts like Swift joining the service because they lure a broad range of people in. It's self-evident that there's a problem with the Spotify model, since neither the niche bands nor the large acts feel like they're getting paid enough for the trouble.
It isn't self-evident that there's a problem whenever someone feels like they aren't getting paid enough. People are pretty reliable about wanting more money than they're getting.
Case in point, calling the two million Swift would have gotten from Spotify a pittance.
I don't doubt for a moment that Swift works hard on her music. But most people work hard at what they do.
Spotify values niche bands for joining the service because they add depth to the catalog. It values large acts like Swift joining the service because they lure a broad range of people in. It's self-evident that there's a problem with the Spotify model, since neither the niche bands nor the large acts feel like they're getting paid enough for the trouble.
It isn't self-evident that there's a problem whenever someone feels like they aren't getting paid enough. People are pretty reliable about wanting more money than they're getting.
Case in point, calling the two million Swift would have gotten from Spotify a pittance.
I don't doubt for a moment that Swift works hard on her music. But most people work hard at what they do.
Considering that she was able to make considerably more than that with her model, why is it wrong to call it a pittance (even if that was a bit hyperbolic, I'll admit.) $2M can be a vast sum or a rounding error - it's all about the frame of reference.
And frankly, the "most people work hard" argument comes as a bit of crab thinking - it feels like an argument that someone doesn't deserve to make that money solely because other people work just as hard and aren't getting the same compensation.
(Edit: As for why I stopped posting - even I get tired of being dogpiled, and when it starts bleeding over into my life, I choose to walk away now. When I didn't do that, I made me a worse person both here and in real life.)
It's wrong to call it a pittance because it's two million dollars.
I don't care what you've spent the last year doing be it recording songs, working on cures for diseases, or sweeping hallways. Two million dollars is a metric fuck ton of money and anyone disappointed with receiving just enough money to live off of comfortably for the rest of their lives can piss off.
Nor is it anywhere close to crab bucket esque thinking to say so unless you're a bunch of diamond coated crabs in a platinum bucket eating tinier, more expensive crabs. In an ideal world, sure, people would be compensated millions of dollars for working hard. In the real world we realize this isn't feasible and so generally expect an explanation as to why they should be payed millions of dollars beyond "they want to be."
It's wrong to call it a pittance because it's two million dollars.
I don't care what you've spent the last year doing be it recording songs, working on cures for diseases, or sweeping hallways. Two million dollars is a metric fuck ton of money and anyone disappointed with receiving just enough money to live off of comfortably for the rest of their lives can piss off.
Nor is it anywhere close to crab bucket esque thinking to say so unless you're a bunch of diamond coated crabs in a platinum bucket eating tinier, more expensive crabs. In an ideal world, sure, people would be compensated millions of dollars for working hard. In the real world we realize this isn't feasible and so generally expect an explanation as to why they should be payed millions of dollars beyond "they want to be."
Then you should be perfectly fine with making $10k/yr. After all, there are many countries where that would be a princely sum. But you say that your labor is worth more? What justification do you have for that?
This is why your argument is crab thinking. You're arguing that a person should be satisfied with $X, even though they have made the argument (in this case, on the free market) that their labor is worth substantially more. The only difference is that you're trying to say that if X is big enough, that makes the argument work.
Nope, it's a goosey argument regardless of the size of X.
I'd argue it's more playing a tiny violin for the rich, successful recording artist with multiple revenue streams that make them not particularly want for the luxuries, let alone necessities, of life in the area they live in.
Now there's something certainly to be said of whatever disparity there may be between what Spotify's cut is of the revenue Swift brings in vs what she receives in return, but as Quid points out: at the end of the day she's still making two goddamn million dollars from just one of her revenue sources alone. It's hard to see that as some great loss when you're one of the folks who would have to work decades to see that from even multiple revenue streams.
It's wrong to call it a pittance because it's two million dollars.
I don't care what you've spent the last year doing be it recording songs, working on cures for diseases, or sweeping hallways. Two million dollars is a metric fuck ton of money and anyone disappointed with receiving just enough money to live off of comfortably for the rest of their lives can piss off.
Nor is it anywhere close to crab bucket esque thinking to say so unless you're a bunch of diamond coated crabs in a platinum bucket eating tinier, more expensive crabs. In an ideal world, sure, people would be compensated millions of dollars for working hard. In the real world we realize this isn't feasible and so generally expect an explanation as to why they should be payed millions of dollars beyond "they want to be."
Then you should be perfectly fine with making $10k/yr. After all, there are many countries where that would be a princely sum.
Not the countries we live in though. Unless Taylor Swift lives in a different country where making the money she makes means just barely scraping by your comparison is stupid.
I'd argue it's more playing a tiny violin for the rich, successful recording artist with multiple revenue streams that make them not particularly want for the luxuries, let alone necessities, of life in the area they live in.
Now there's something certainly to be said of whatever disparity there may be between what Spotify's cut is of the revenue Swift brings in vs what she receives in return, but as Quid points out: at the end of the day she's still making two goddamn million dollars from just one of her revenue sources alone. It's hard to see that as some great loss when you're one of the folks who would have to work decades to see that from even multiple revenue streams.
No, it's called worker solidarity, and the fact that we don't have it anymore is why labor in this country is fucked. Because, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, if you limit the person on the top to $X, everyone under them gets capped below $X. If you work as a programmer in the US, this is something that actually happened to you - the Silicon Valley wage fixing cartel caused wages to be suppressed industry wide, to the tune of $9B.
So no, I don't support Swift out of celebrity worship. I do it because it's in my own self-interest to preserve the principle of workers getting the best value for their labor.
I'd argue it's more playing a tiny violin for the rich, successful recording artist with multiple revenue streams that make them not particularly want for the luxuries, let alone necessities, of life in the area they live in.
Now there's something certainly to be said of whatever disparity there may be between what Spotify's cut is of the revenue Swift brings in vs what she receives in return, but as Quid points out: at the end of the day she's still making two goddamn million dollars from just one of her revenue sources alone. It's hard to see that as some great loss when you're one of the folks who would have to work decades to see that from even multiple revenue streams.
No, it's called worker solidarity, and the fact that we don't have it anymore is why labor in this country is fucked. Because, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, if you limit the person on the top to $X, everyone under them gets capped below $X. If you work as a programmer in the US, this is something that actually happened to you - the Silicon Valley wage fixing cartel caused wages to be suppressed industry wide, to the tune of $9B.
So no, I don't support Swift out of celebrity worship. I do it because it's in my own self-interest to preserve the principle of workers getting the best value for their labor.
This seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure my wages aren't calculated as a percentage of the top earners wage. I seriously doubt taylor swift earning less changes the earning potential of the vast majority of artists.
If you're talking about just a hard cap and not a industry wide shift, then you haven't really said anything different. It's still hard to muster sympathy that artists can only earn $2 million (per year?) for streaming rights to a single album.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2015
1989 is clearly worth much more than spotify was paying for her entire catalog. It is possible that no one will ever have another record sell like 1989 is because of how the industry is changing, but 1989 is the kind of record that actually does extraordinarily well under the traditional model.
Edit: 1989 currently sits at 4.5 million copies sold. It is showing no signs of stopping. $2 million is objectively a lot of money, but pittance seems like the right word in relation to the value of this album.
I'd argue it's more playing a tiny violin for the rich, successful recording artist with multiple revenue streams that make them not particularly want for the luxuries, let alone necessities, of life in the area they live in.
Now there's something certainly to be said of whatever disparity there may be between what Spotify's cut is of the revenue Swift brings in vs what she receives in return, but as Quid points out: at the end of the day she's still making two goddamn million dollars from just one of her revenue sources alone. It's hard to see that as some great loss when you're one of the folks who would have to work decades to see that from even multiple revenue streams.
No, it's called worker solidarity, and the fact that we don't have it anymore is why labor in this country is fucked. Because, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, if you limit the person on the top to $X, everyone under them gets capped below $X. If you work as a programmer in the US, this is something that actually happened to you - the Silicon Valley wage fixing cartel caused wages to be suppressed industry wide, to the tune of $9B.
So no, I don't support Swift out of celebrity worship. I do it because it's in my own self-interest to preserve the principle of workers getting the best value for their labor.
This seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure my wages aren't calculated as a percentage of the top earners wage. I seriously doubt taylor swift earning less changes the earning potential of the vast majority of artists.
If you don't think prevailing industry wages affect your salary in any way, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
I'd argue it's more playing a tiny violin for the rich, successful recording artist with multiple revenue streams that make them not particularly want for the luxuries, let alone necessities, of life in the area they live in.
Now there's something certainly to be said of whatever disparity there may be between what Spotify's cut is of the revenue Swift brings in vs what she receives in return, but as Quid points out: at the end of the day she's still making two goddamn million dollars from just one of her revenue sources alone. It's hard to see that as some great loss when you're one of the folks who would have to work decades to see that from even multiple revenue streams.
No, it's called worker solidarity, and the fact that we don't have it anymore is why labor in this country is fucked. Because, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, if you limit the person on the top to $X, everyone under them gets capped below $X. If you work as a programmer in the US, this is something that actually happened to you - the Silicon Valley wage fixing cartel caused wages to be suppressed industry wide, to the tune of $9B.
So no, I don't support Swift out of celebrity worship. I do it because it's in my own self-interest to preserve the principle of workers getting the best value for their labor.
So how does Taylor Swift getting paid more than $2 Million out of a licensing deal result in Spotify's employees making better money?
I'm not going to disagree that Worker solidarity is a thing that's needed, but this kind of seems like a poor analogy to mark that somehow Swift only getting so much money has a direct correlation to the depressed wages of workers who are not Taylor Swift. If Swift somehow got a better deal, would it follow that Spotify's workforce would see better wages?
I'd argue it's more playing a tiny violin for the rich, successful recording artist with multiple revenue streams that make them not particularly want for the luxuries, let alone necessities, of life in the area they live in.
Now there's something certainly to be said of whatever disparity there may be between what Spotify's cut is of the revenue Swift brings in vs what she receives in return, but as Quid points out: at the end of the day she's still making two goddamn million dollars from just one of her revenue sources alone. It's hard to see that as some great loss when you're one of the folks who would have to work decades to see that from even multiple revenue streams.
No, it's called worker solidarity, and the fact that we don't have it anymore is why labor in this country is fucked. Because, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, if you limit the person on the top to $X, everyone under them gets capped below $X. If you work as a programmer in the US, this is something that actually happened to you - the Silicon Valley wage fixing cartel caused wages to be suppressed industry wide, to the tune of $9B.
So no, I don't support Swift out of celebrity worship. I do it because it's in my own self-interest to preserve the principle of workers getting the best value for their labor.
This seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure my wages aren't calculated as a percentage of the top earners wage. I seriously doubt taylor swift earning less changes the earning potential of the vast majority of artists.
If you don't think prevailing industry wages affect your salary in any way, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
I guess it would probably be fairer to say that I just don't see someone like taylor swift as really even being in the same industry anymore as some local band. Sure Taylor swifts wages will affect say imagine dragon's wages. But once you drop down from the top tier I don't think most artists wages would be affected by swift making 2 million versus 10 million. Even if they would eventually be affected if she dropped down to say 50K. Basically I don't think the leading wage effect is as large as you seem to be implying.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I mean, I'm sorry. I really don't have a lot of Sympathy here. At the end of the day, Taylor Swift is fucking rich, while there are countless other musicians around the country who are barely making ends meet with dayjobs unrelated to their music.
I doubt that Swift getting a sweeter licensing deal is going to somehow make things better for them considering all the other aspects of the industry that they have to deal with before even getting close to the position she's in.
It's wrong to call it a pittance because it's two million dollars.
I don't care what you've spent the last year doing be it recording songs, working on cures for diseases, or sweeping hallways. Two million dollars is a metric fuck ton of money and anyone disappointed with receiving just enough money to live off of comfortably for the rest of their lives can piss off.
Nor is it anywhere close to crab bucket esque thinking to say so unless you're a bunch of diamond coated crabs in a platinum bucket eating tinier, more expensive crabs. In an ideal world, sure, people would be compensated millions of dollars for working hard. In the real world we realize this isn't feasible and so generally expect an explanation as to why they should be payed millions of dollars beyond "they want to be."
Then you should be perfectly fine with making $10k/yr. After all, there are many countries where that would be a princely sum. But you say that your labor is worth more? What justification do you have for that?
This is why your argument is crab thinking. You're arguing that a person should be satisfied with $X, even though they have made the argument (in this case, on the free market) that their labor is worth substantially more. The only difference is that you're trying to say that if X is big enough, that makes the argument work.
Nope, it's a goosey argument regardless of the size of X.
Nope. 10k a year in some countries greatly increases their standard of living or, based on currency conversions, purchases much more.
When I say two million, I say it understanding what two million purchases. Which is the capability to live in a first world country for the rest of your life in relative comfort. I fully understand that others have it worse. That is not a reason for Taylor Swift to have it even better.
Swift's labor isn't worth more. It, until recently, was much more scarce. Now it is not. Them's the fucking breaks. Advocate for a better standard of living for people in general. Not Ms. Swift only.
1989 is clearly worth much more than spotify was paying for her entire catalog. It is possible that no one will ever have another record sell like 1989 is because of how the industry is changing, but 1989 is the kind of record that actually does extraordinarily well under the traditional model.
Edit: 1989 currently sits at 4.5 million copies sold. It is showing no signs of stopping. $2 million is objectively a lot of money, but pittance seems like the right word in relation to the value of this album.
It only seems that way in comparison to the traditional model.
There is nothing special or better about the traditional model.
Like, there are most certainly better ways to deal with income inequality and the fair distribution of revenue between labor, management and corporation than the ability of an artist who's been estimated at a net worth of $200,000,000 to get a better licensing rate than $2,000,000.
Maybe looking at the distribution of revenue in any given industry overall instead of focusing on just how badly the elites get screwed by each other.
1989 is clearly worth much more than spotify was paying for her entire catalog. It is possible that no one will ever have another record sell like 1989 is because of how the industry is changing, but 1989 is the kind of record that actually does extraordinarily well under the traditional model.
Edit: 1989 currently sits at 4.5 million copies sold. It is showing no signs of stopping. $2 million is objectively a lot of money, but pittance seems like the right word in relation to the value of this album.
It only seems that way in comparison to the traditional model.
There is nothing special or better about the traditional model.
The traditional model is also reknown for being an abusive leech to both artist and consumer alike, benefiting little more than the executives on the top of the pyramid
Like again: I have no doubt that Spotify probably fucked over Swift.
But it's still a bunch of fucking super well off people deciding just how much better well off they're going to be than each other, while everyone else below them only get the position in the matter of "Get Fucked"
Like, I would like to make indie movies either directing, writing or as DP. I've worked on shorts in school and with friends and there's some other stuff we're working on.
Michael Bay arguing that he should get paid $FuckMillions for his latest picture deal helps me in no discernable way, because I am several barriers removed from that realm.
Likewise, it's probably not going to do too great for the legions of below the line people who basically have to work grueling hours for questionable rates (Re: The hours and work they're putting in when not forced to wait for time to work) whose job security depends entirely on making sure they get brought on another project as soon as possible.
This idea that the livelihood of regular folks depends on the wealthy getting their "fair share" of millions of dollars reeks of a bizarre cousin of trickle down economic nonsense.
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Like, I would like to make indie movies either directing, writing or as DP. I've worked on shorts in school and with friends and there's some other stuff we're working on.
Michael Bay arguing that he should get paid $FuckMillions for his latest picture deal helps me in no discernable way, because I am several barriers removed from that realm.
Likewise, it's probably not going to do too great for the legions of below the line people who basically have to work grueling hours for questionable rates (Re: The hours and work they're putting in when not forced to wait for time to work) whose job security depends entirely on making sure they get brought on another project as soon as possible.
This idea that the livelihood of regular folks depends on the wealthy getting their "fair share" of millions of dollars reeks of a bizarre cousin of trickle down economic nonsense.
Michael Bay is presumably a member of the DGA, a trade union; so his salary absolutely has the potential to affect yours. As someone also in the industry on the writing side, even my non-union wages are set in relation to guild minimums and in a broader sense to the understanding of where the top of the industry caps out at (around $1 million or so for an original spec feature script). If next week a screenwriter gets $10 million for his script, I believe that would change the conversation about the value of screenwriting, especially if it started happening consistently.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Put it this way; if they can cheat Swift, what's to stop them cheating you?
Put it this way; if they can cheat Swift, what's to stop them cheating you?
Who says they're being cheated and who says companies weren't already cheating already below Swift?
The point being that if you're offered two million dollars for whatever you did in the last year I'm fine saying you're not being cheated.
The problem is that the logic you're using to arrive at that position is horribly flawed. Again, as has been pointed out, if someone offers you $2M for work worth $10M, that is an incredibly low offer. The fact that "it's $2M!" doesn't change that it's also an offer that is only 20% of the value.
Put it this way; if they can cheat Swift, what's to stop them cheating you?
Who says they're being cheated and who says companies weren't already cheating already below Swift?
The point being that if you're offered two million dollars for whatever you did in the last year I'm fine saying you're not being cheated.
The problem is that the logic you're using to arrive at that position is horribly flawed. Again, as has been pointed out, if someone offers you $2M for work worth $10M, that is an incredibly low offer. The fact that "it's $2M!" doesn't change that it's also an offer that is only 20% of the value.
The point I'm getting at is odds are nobody's work is worth 10 million dollars. They might want it to be and under a different regime they might have received that much but it's not actually worth that. It's what people are forced to pay for it.
Put it this way; if they can cheat Swift, what's to stop them cheating you?
Who says they're being cheated and who says companies weren't already cheating already below Swift?
The point being that if you're offered two million dollars for whatever you did in the last year I'm fine saying you're not being cheated.
The problem is that the logic you're using to arrive at that position is horribly flawed. Again, as has been pointed out, if someone offers you $2M for work worth $10M, that is an incredibly low offer. The fact that "it's $2M!" doesn't change that it's also an offer that is only 20% of the value.
The point I'm getting at is odds are nobody's work is worth 10 million dollars. They might want it to be and under a different regime they might have received that much but it's not actually worth that. It's what people are forced to pay for it.
So, why isn't her work worth $10M? Seems like she was able to put it out on the free market and get that much money from the people who bought her work. And I don't recall any of them being forced to buy her album at the price offered - they were more than welcome to walk away. So I don't see where coercion occurred. We live in a capitalist society, and according to the market that is part of that, her labor in this case is worth $10M.
If you want to say that for some reason it's morally or ethically wrong that she can receive $10M for her work, then say that. But be honest about the fact that you are making an argument on ethical and/or moral grounds. Don't try to dress it up as an economic argument.
Put it this way; if they can cheat Swift, what's to stop them cheating you?
Who says they're being cheated and who says companies weren't already cheating already below Swift?
The point being that if you're offered two million dollars for whatever you did in the last year I'm fine saying you're not being cheated.
The problem is that the logic you're using to arrive at that position is horribly flawed. Again, as has been pointed out, if someone offers you $2M for work worth $10M, that is an incredibly low offer. The fact that "it's $2M!" doesn't change that it's also an offer that is only 20% of the value.
The point I'm getting at is odds are nobody's work is worth 10 million dollars. They might want it to be and under a different regime they might have received that much but it's not actually worth that. It's what people are forced to pay for it.
So, why isn't her work worth $10M? Seems like she was able to put it out on the free market and get that much money from the people who bought her work. And I don't recall any of them being forced to buy her album at the price offered - they were more than welcome to walk away. So I don't see where coercion occurred. We live in a capitalist society, and according to the market that is part of that, her labor in this case is worth $10M.
If you want to say that for some reason it's morally or ethically wrong that she can receive $10M for her work, then say that. But be honest about the fact that you are making an argument on ethical and/or moral grounds. Don't try to dress it up as an economic argument.
No, bullshit. Why is it worth 10 million outside of in the past that's how much she would have received? Cause the past was garbage.
Don't cry free market when it's only convenient to you. That's a garbage argument.
Information Is Beautiful has a wonderful infographic on how bad the Spotify model is for artists.
Honestly, why should I care? I want what is best for me and the population in general- the consumers. So unless you are going to actually back up the piracy streaming is going to destroy all music bogey man we've been hearing about for almost 20 years now....who gives a fuck.
Hasn't it been long established that the majority of the artist income is from merch/touring anyways?
That's the attitude that leads to the tragedy of the commons - because if you only care about what is good for the customers, and ignore the rest of the ecosystem that the system relies on, you shouldn't be surprised when everything collapses in on itself, and the rest of the people involved decide it's not worth it.
No, it's directly the opposite of that attitude. It's asking what is best for everyone, rather than the recording industry as it is constructed now. I don't understand why in this one niche, so many people just echo an industry groups talking points as gospel.
American Coalition for Clean Coal energy, tells me all sorts of things about how bad life is becoming for laid off coal miners. Doesn't mean I believe them or will do what they say I should.
No, you're not asking what's best for everyone - you're just saying "the customer is always right". It's the Omelas problem - you're asking people to take a bad deal to benefit "everybody", then act shocked when they balk.
An equitable deal balances the needs of all stakeholders. And consumers are only one stakeholder.
Can I go back to this old post and point out the level of insulting hyperbole there is in comparing Omelas, a story in which a child was subjected misery, filth and abuse to somehow keep the city in a state of Utopian bliss, to the plight of the wealthy elite getting screwed over by one another, yet still millions of dollars in said screwing, in a licensing deal?
Like, the bad deal you are complaining about is still a damn better deal that most people will ever see in their lives.
Can I just go back for a moment and point this out?
When it's based on an artificial monopoly created by the government that forces them to.
You want to ascribe to the oh so wise free market to determine everything then you shouldn't advocate government enforced copyright.
...why? It's not like a market regulated by the government is antithetical to the concept of capitalism. And if you're so against copyright, then you should be against all sorts of property, since "property" only exists through government.
Posts
Though if it's the case that the Spotify model means the record labels get money and they can give whatever portion they want to whichever bands they want, that sounds kind of shitty.
Apparently the brave new digital frontier has not solved the "record companies are shitlords" problem.
1) that individual ~$7 subscriptions be split according to what the individual user actually listens to. Which isn't something that seems to be too problematic a proposal, except that it's not clear to me what it actually changes. If a band accounts for 1% of the spotify plays in one payment period, it doesn't really matter if their payout comes from all subscribers evenly or just from the ones who actually heard their song however many times. Author seems super concerned that his money go to the artists he wants it to go to, but that isn't a distinction that actually matters.
2) This:
this strikes me as basically trying to jawbone streaming services back into the album model; if I mostly only listen to the same few artists' songs, why wouldn't I just buy their albums (or songs on itunes or whatever)? Spotify is appealing precisely because it does the opposite of this: it pushes variety.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't use Spotify and I likely never will (or any other streaming service), I prefer to order CDs and have a large collection then play from my itunes, but is this true or are people just guessing? Because that seems absurd. Radio plays have been tracked for decades - when I was in college the royalty rate for having your tune played on the radio was 7.7 cents per minute. That wasn't the label's (i.e. the person who owns the rights) money, it was the songwriter's royalty. The record company didn't get to intercept that money and arbitrarily hand it out however they wanted and I highly doubt that's how Spotify operates. It would defy all logic and common sense. It should be easier than ever to track song plays when everything is digital.
Edit - yep, some internet research confirms this. Just like I thought, artists are paid according to a negotiated royalty rate for spotify plays.
Record companies are necessary. There were many bad deals foisted on artists over the years but you can't release music and maintain a catalogue without one, even if it's entirely a DIY operation.
It isn't self-evident that there's a problem whenever someone feels like they aren't getting paid enough. People are pretty reliable about wanting more money than they're getting.
I don't have objections to proposals of alternative payout models, but the article AH posted kinda just skipped over why the pay structure is as it is. Power, the people who have it, and the negotiations Spotify has to go through to get rights to popular music. Why would, to pick a name out of a hat, Taylor Swift agree to a new model where she gets less money from Spotify? 'Fairness' to fellow artists? I don't think she would. I don't think anyone would.
STOP DOING THIS TO ME
Yeah that article doesn't make sense to me. They only time I could forsee spotify's method being a problem is if there are types of music that encourage more or less repeated streams.
So like say you had an indie death metal band that drives a bunch of people to sign up for spotify and pay the fee, but because their fans all work in retail they can't listen to their music until after work. Versus a pop indie band, where the fans work in a cubicle and can put an album on repeat for the entire 8-10 hours they are at work. The argument being that if both bands brought in the same amount of subscribers they should get the same amount of royalties even if their fans have different listening preferences that results in a different total play count.
To that end the article makes a good suggestion, in that you would try and tie royalties to percentage of a users total play time, rather than percentage of all users total play time. So the fan of the indie death metal band that only listens to spotify for 2 hours a day, and the pop indie band fan who listens to their one band all day long, both generate the same amount of royalties for their respective bands.
I'm not sure that's really a problem though. Intuition suggests that music tastes/job environment type deals don't usually correlate in any real way and over a large enough sample of people you wouldn't have this problem.
Case in point, calling the two million Swift would have gotten from Spotify a pittance.
I don't doubt for a moment that Swift works hard on her music. But most people work hard at what they do.
Considering that she was able to make considerably more than that with her model, why is it wrong to call it a pittance (even if that was a bit hyperbolic, I'll admit.) $2M can be a vast sum or a rounding error - it's all about the frame of reference.
And frankly, the "most people work hard" argument comes as a bit of crab thinking - it feels like an argument that someone doesn't deserve to make that money solely because other people work just as hard and aren't getting the same compensation.
(Edit: As for why I stopped posting - even I get tired of being dogpiled, and when it starts bleeding over into my life, I choose to walk away now. When I didn't do that, I made me a worse person both here and in real life.)
I don't care what you've spent the last year doing be it recording songs, working on cures for diseases, or sweeping hallways. Two million dollars is a metric fuck ton of money and anyone disappointed with receiving just enough money to live off of comfortably for the rest of their lives can piss off.
Nor is it anywhere close to crab bucket esque thinking to say so unless you're a bunch of diamond coated crabs in a platinum bucket eating tinier, more expensive crabs. In an ideal world, sure, people would be compensated millions of dollars for working hard. In the real world we realize this isn't feasible and so generally expect an explanation as to why they should be payed millions of dollars beyond "they want to be."
Then you should be perfectly fine with making $10k/yr. After all, there are many countries where that would be a princely sum. But you say that your labor is worth more? What justification do you have for that?
This is why your argument is crab thinking. You're arguing that a person should be satisfied with $X, even though they have made the argument (in this case, on the free market) that their labor is worth substantially more. The only difference is that you're trying to say that if X is big enough, that makes the argument work.
Nope, it's a goosey argument regardless of the size of X.
Now there's something certainly to be said of whatever disparity there may be between what Spotify's cut is of the revenue Swift brings in vs what she receives in return, but as Quid points out: at the end of the day she's still making two goddamn million dollars from just one of her revenue sources alone. It's hard to see that as some great loss when you're one of the folks who would have to work decades to see that from even multiple revenue streams.
Not the countries we live in though. Unless Taylor Swift lives in a different country where making the money she makes means just barely scraping by your comparison is stupid.
No, it's called worker solidarity, and the fact that we don't have it anymore is why labor in this country is fucked. Because, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, if you limit the person on the top to $X, everyone under them gets capped below $X. If you work as a programmer in the US, this is something that actually happened to you - the Silicon Valley wage fixing cartel caused wages to be suppressed industry wide, to the tune of $9B.
So no, I don't support Swift out of celebrity worship. I do it because it's in my own self-interest to preserve the principle of workers getting the best value for their labor.
This seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure my wages aren't calculated as a percentage of the top earners wage. I seriously doubt taylor swift earning less changes the earning potential of the vast majority of artists.
If you're talking about just a hard cap and not a industry wide shift, then you haven't really said anything different. It's still hard to muster sympathy that artists can only earn $2 million (per year?) for streaming rights to a single album.
Edit: 1989 currently sits at 4.5 million copies sold. It is showing no signs of stopping. $2 million is objectively a lot of money, but pittance seems like the right word in relation to the value of this album.
If you don't think prevailing industry wages affect your salary in any way, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
So how does Taylor Swift getting paid more than $2 Million out of a licensing deal result in Spotify's employees making better money?
I'm not going to disagree that Worker solidarity is a thing that's needed, but this kind of seems like a poor analogy to mark that somehow Swift only getting so much money has a direct correlation to the depressed wages of workers who are not Taylor Swift. If Swift somehow got a better deal, would it follow that Spotify's workforce would see better wages?
I guess it would probably be fairer to say that I just don't see someone like taylor swift as really even being in the same industry anymore as some local band. Sure Taylor swifts wages will affect say imagine dragon's wages. But once you drop down from the top tier I don't think most artists wages would be affected by swift making 2 million versus 10 million. Even if they would eventually be affected if she dropped down to say 50K. Basically I don't think the leading wage effect is as large as you seem to be implying.
I doubt that Swift getting a sweeter licensing deal is going to somehow make things better for them considering all the other aspects of the industry that they have to deal with before even getting close to the position she's in.
Nope. 10k a year in some countries greatly increases their standard of living or, based on currency conversions, purchases much more.
When I say two million, I say it understanding what two million purchases. Which is the capability to live in a first world country for the rest of your life in relative comfort. I fully understand that others have it worse. That is not a reason for Taylor Swift to have it even better.
Swift's labor isn't worth more. It, until recently, was much more scarce. Now it is not. Them's the fucking breaks. Advocate for a better standard of living for people in general. Not Ms. Swift only.
Should it earn them comfort above and beyond what 99% of the population will ever achieve? Probably not.
It only seems that way in comparison to the traditional model.
There is nothing special or better about the traditional model.
Maybe looking at the distribution of revenue in any given industry overall instead of focusing on just how badly the elites get screwed by each other.
But it's still a bunch of fucking super well off people deciding just how much better well off they're going to be than each other, while everyone else below them only get the position in the matter of "Get Fucked"
Michael Bay arguing that he should get paid $FuckMillions for his latest picture deal helps me in no discernable way, because I am several barriers removed from that realm.
Likewise, it's probably not going to do too great for the legions of below the line people who basically have to work grueling hours for questionable rates (Re: The hours and work they're putting in when not forced to wait for time to work) whose job security depends entirely on making sure they get brought on another project as soon as possible.
This idea that the livelihood of regular folks depends on the wealthy getting their "fair share" of millions of dollars reeks of a bizarre cousin of trickle down economic nonsense.
Michael Bay is presumably a member of the DGA, a trade union; so his salary absolutely has the potential to affect yours. As someone also in the industry on the writing side, even my non-union wages are set in relation to guild minimums and in a broader sense to the understanding of where the top of the industry caps out at (around $1 million or so for an original spec feature script). If next week a screenwriter gets $10 million for his script, I believe that would change the conversation about the value of screenwriting, especially if it started happening consistently.
Who says they're being cheated and who says companies weren't already cheating people below Swift?
The point being that if you're offered two million dollars for whatever you did in the last year I'm fine saying you're not being cheated.
The problem is that the logic you're using to arrive at that position is horribly flawed. Again, as has been pointed out, if someone offers you $2M for work worth $10M, that is an incredibly low offer. The fact that "it's $2M!" doesn't change that it's also an offer that is only 20% of the value.
The point I'm getting at is odds are nobody's work is worth 10 million dollars. They might want it to be and under a different regime they might have received that much but it's not actually worth that. It's what people are forced to pay for it.
So, why isn't her work worth $10M? Seems like she was able to put it out on the free market and get that much money from the people who bought her work. And I don't recall any of them being forced to buy her album at the price offered - they were more than welcome to walk away. So I don't see where coercion occurred. We live in a capitalist society, and according to the market that is part of that, her labor in this case is worth $10M.
If you want to say that for some reason it's morally or ethically wrong that she can receive $10M for her work, then say that. But be honest about the fact that you are making an argument on ethical and/or moral grounds. Don't try to dress it up as an economic argument.
No, bullshit. Why is it worth 10 million outside of in the past that's how much she would have received? Cause the past was garbage.
Don't cry free market when it's only convenient to you. That's a garbage argument.
You want to ascribe to the oh so wise free market to determine everything then you shouldn't advocate government enforced copyright.
Can I go back to this old post and point out the level of insulting hyperbole there is in comparing Omelas, a story in which a child was subjected misery, filth and abuse to somehow keep the city in a state of Utopian bliss, to the plight of the wealthy elite getting screwed over by one another, yet still millions of dollars in said screwing, in a licensing deal?
Like, the bad deal you are complaining about is still a damn better deal that most people will ever see in their lives.
Can I just go back for a moment and point this out?
Because fuckin' hell, Hedge.
...why? It's not like a market regulated by the government is antithetical to the concept of capitalism. And if you're so against copyright, then you should be against all sorts of property, since "property" only exists through government.