Recent news revealed that Spotify’s CEO Daniel Ek has been investing heavily in military tech companies, which adds another ethical layer to a platform already criticized for how little it pays musicians !

Spotify only pays artists about $3–5 per 1,000 streams, using a pro-rata model that directs most money toward major stars... By contrast, Qobuz (≈$18–20 per 1,000 streams) and Tidal (≈$12–13) pay far more fairly!

However Tidal is far from ethical. Most of its revenue is controlled by private investors and founders and small artists still earn very little...

More fair-minded platforms like Bandcamp, Resonate, Ampled, or SoundCloud’s fan-powered royalties prioritize musicians over investors.

With these more ethical alternatives available, why do we keep using Spotify?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    LOL your suggestion is that they said they're subscribed to various producers but they don't listen to them? Now that's pedantic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Being subscribed is not the same as listening. In fact, I use a Firefox add-on to specifically exclude what I've categorized as music. It is vanishingly rare that I turn that setting off.

    I strongly associate any given track with the mood I was in when I first heard it, and I've not been in anywhere near a good mood since the election, so listening to new stuff at this point would give it negative connotations that would forever follow that track around in my mind.

    So I stick with "college road trip" or "I just met my (ex-)wife" sorts of stuff. I don't exercise or anything, and my earbuds are lost somewhere in my van. I rarely listen to music, period, because it reminds me of not being homeless.

  • source
  • parent