That is completely unjustifiable, regardless of any overheads argument. Imagine this happened in the workplace: "sorry, but your income is so low that it is too much hassle to process; we will be adding it to your manager's income instead..."
There's no logic to 'you don't get much money so you won't miss it if we take it all - we'll save you the bank charges' Gee thanks! Absolute bananananas.
Can everybody that sees this please hit the like button? Let the algorithm spread the news. This is outrageous and totally out of order!! Dave, we will support you and musicians like you 100%. I hope all musicians get together and start a petition. This should be illegal as they are changing the goal posts mid match. Of course the best way to get Spotify's attention is vote with your wallets!
Things could have become much better when when big record labels lost their power. But now streaming services have taken over and they aren't the slightest bit better.
I don't use any of the streaming "services," if I like a song I will pay for a CD or a high res download. Hopefully, that way it stands a better chance of supporting an artist.
That‘s by far the best way to support artists. I follow the same approach. As a result I own the purchased music for all time and - at least for - I spend less than with a steaming Abo - in the long run.
You're one in a billion who does that. People are no longer accustomed to purchasing downloads. They've been spoilt, we all have, and us artists even contributed in a way to spoil them by putting our stuff out there in the open. 99% of people will do this: if I like a song, and wanna keep it, I'll try and download it from YT, if not, I can stream it from anywhere for free. It's a very long and very complicated issue. After all, we've all watched this video for free, and thanks to larger and cheaper storage, and faster broadband, we hardly need to download 'content', and there is an infinite supply of it. Even subscription services, like streaming, have all become all-you-can-eat outlets with super cheap prices, regardless what the customers may say: $10/mo to access all the music and podcasts you like 24/7 is basically offering a free service. In fact, Spotify is not making profits at all. And that's why in the past 10-15 years they have convinced 'content creators' to work for free and beg for donations, sell merch, etc. i.e. considering work as void of value and worthy only of voluntary donations or subscriptions for supposedly better perks, etc. What could possibly go wrong?:)))))))))))
The most infuriating about this is that they just raised their prices. But instead of evenly distributing all that extra money they take it away from the small artists and give it to those that are already big. And it's not simply that. Not only artists but entire genres. I'm a classical music guy and I love that most labels on the market have put their catalogue up on Spotify. But some smaller labels who have gems in their catalogue that no one knows, get litterally no play except by people like me who always want to discover new stuff and not listen to the 10.000th new recording of the Rachmaninov 3 Piano Concerto. These labels lose what little incenttive they had in the first place. It's ludicrous!
Here in Italy there is an association, called SIAE, (that you are legally obliged to pay) that should defend artists and distribute them their revenues. I wrote them to ask what’s their stance about this new idea of Spotify. And guess what….they didn’t even reply to me.
100% with you on this. I knew this was coming. Last year I removed all of mine and advised my clients to remove their songs from Spotify, which my clients and I did. It has not affected my or my clients' few-dollar income. At least I know Spotify is not stealing my 2 cents.
That is theft indeed. What's wrong with them, bullying artists and lying to subscribers. I've been evaluating music streaming services for almost a year trying to find an alternative but Spotify has the most (by far) of the obscure and old progressive rock I listen to. I'm in a dilemma.
We all could. But why should we? It's MUCH cheaper. I can buy maybe 10 CD's a month, but I can listen to 30 with a subscription price that is even below a single one. So who would want to forfeit streaming and go back to spending much more money for a fraction of the content?@@RUBBER_BULLET
I'm not the only musician to comment on this but previously all I had seen was speculation. Now I've seen it officially from Spotify. I suspect other artists and producers will have their say.
Won't matter what anyone says or does: no widespread solidarity = no power. Yet another example of the long term decline of solidarity due to a continuous 75 year campaign of anti-union cultural hegemony disguised as neo-liberalism. Gramsci warned us. @@AudioMasterclass
It’s despicable of Spotify to do that. I have a few tracks on the streaming services so I’m not happy about it. (I was already annoyed with Spotify for their family plan only working for people living under one roof.)
@@bobbyboyderecords I considered that a while back, but then I heard they wanted access to location information as proof. Maybe they backed down on that.
Spotify is evil and greedy. Why any artists want to put their music up on their platform is beyond me. I boycotted Spotify several years ago. I won't ever go back.
As I understand from the movie about Spotify, the record companies/distributors squeezed Spotify for a great deal, otherwise wouldn’t they get the big artist. They are the middle hand that takes your money. Now Spotify’s accounting cost must be high so they take all the earned money from small artists. Shareholders want a good profit so the little artist will pay the price. Just like Big Farma and Big Oil
I have always refused to put my music (when I still have the right to do so) on Spotify. As a smaller artist, it has never made much sense anyway, and now I think the time has come for those who were somehow convinced to allow Spotify to profit from their music just pull their music. I doubt it, but if larger artists really cared about the smaller artists, they would have the balls to stand up and also pull their music.
At the very least, it makes sense for artists to go through their catalogue, figure out what they now won't be getting paid for, and pull that. Then miss no opportunity to remind their audience that if they want access to all the greyed out tracks they should ditch spotify for a different service.
@@CraigScottFrost Same regarding text on my artist profile. I'm waiting till January for the takedown in case they back down between now and then. (Unlikely, but possible - and reuploading in that case would be a pain.)
One solution would be to switch back from _streaming_ music to _downloading_ music, which of course would ruin the whole streaming service business model. The economics & costs of the required server infrastructures are quite different for downloading vs. streaming, and should make downloading music as a one-off purchase a much more equitable proposition as far as smaller artists are concerned. In Japan there are (at least) hundreds of very 'small' indie bands and bedroom-artists, but there are effective combined service providers dedicated to the promotion of those smaller bands, providing music news, interviews and download ( *not* *streaming* ) services for the songs of small indie bands. That model seems to work well there.
This is not very farsighted. Spotify will probably live to regret it. It will surely come to bite it in the u-no-what sooner or later. I listen to your channel regularly, and love it.
Not at all. Quite the opposite. Never forget that labels and distributors are S. shareholders, not really third parties. They get rid of us small plebs, or anyway they get our money. The ordinary listeners have no idea (nor interest, really) about this at all, will not be willing to spend more for their sub, and they listen to the top 40 anyway. It's like Richard Prior with the extra cents in Superman III ;)
And people laugh at "old fashion" CD's. CD's= money to the artist (away more than streaming by magnitudes), you own the CD, you are "renting" your music for 3 minutes like spotify and other streaming services, you can read and educated yourself on everyone who went into the creation of the CD, you can play a CD without internet services or connection,. And on and on. The Public has been duped, the artist cheated, the "big" companies get bigger and make more money while the creator starve.
Corporations killing profit on everything under the sun. I refuse to use any streaming service as i look at the 1200 CDS I have and besides I am an old fart and can't stand the new music anyway ! Glad that I will not be around when there are no longer any musicians and everything is created by A/I on computers.
I agree, this is theft. Why are they doing this, because they can knowing the people they are stealing from have few to no options to do anything about it. I subscribe to Tidal, this is an honest question, are they better in how they deal with the smaller artists?
WTF!? - outrageous. Can this be legally challenged or even if all of the small artists banded together they would still not have enough money to go to war with the big bad greedy streamer, I'd have to say it's slightly unfair commercial practice. Even suggesting that this is, at the very least, the height of high-handed arrogance and dishonesty is an understatement of Olympian proportions. Apart from STEALING from small artists, the eventual outcome of a move like this is that Spotify will end up with only having the big-name major artists on their platform when the non-mainstream small artists withdraw their music, which means a world of easily available music of only the likes of Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran etc, God - won't that be some sort of "special" hell!
The 3 major record companies, Sony, UMG and Warner don't necessarily compete against each other but rather against true Indie artists who are either unsigned or signed to a smaller independent label. We are a threat to them and they want us to get frustrated enough to leave the platform. They created their own definition of what a working artist is. I play in a part time local band. Notice I said part time. Not hobby but part time. Why do I say this? Because we make money every year. Last year 5% was from recorded music including Spotify streams. That number will now go down and the video host is correct, this is theft. Maybe we should oblige the labels and Spotify and leave. Maybe we should start something as a replacement that will be more equitable, not have big name artists to suck up our royalties and zero influence by the major labels. All things end and some day so will Spotify .
I have three albums on Spotify (soon to be four) which will be 37 songs on the platform. My songs on Spotify generate small royalties that go to my distributor (along with royalties from other streaming platforms) and I'm paid once a threshold of $100 is reached - which happens several times a year. While not a lot of money, it ends up being a decent chunk for repairing or upgrading equipment. Spotify will now be stealing my royalties and giving them to bigger artists. How is this fair? It doesn't seem legal to me to just refuse to pay royalties on intellectual property that you are streaming (no matter how many plays). I'm also curious where the "1000" came from. Why not 5000? Maybe next year...
This only means smaller artists will not put up their music on Spotify which will mean less exposure which will result in less sales and labels dropping them. Pc😊
Indie artist's revenue was already unfairly going to the big names because of the royalty model. What is happening now with this royalty model change is (in effect) nothing new, it's just more money being siphoned off the small artists. I just hope this change is enough to put off people (artists and listeners) from using DSPs and heading to BandCamp (or similar) to buy music files and real media. Although judging by the amount of "Spotify Wrapped" I've seen this week, I'm not so sure 🙄
The music industry is so messed up. They made tons of cash on overpriced CDs for years back in the 90s. People stopped buying CDs and their profits dropped and they are sill upset that the gravy train was over. They seem to be willing to do anything get their profit share back & they couldn't care less about what it does to music culture.
Oh, they are , Did you know they have started & changed their policy about 1000 streams before they even start paying you, this too stop spiking in your account and be taken a track down on Spotify,
I really don't get that line of thought by Spotify, it's the small artists are the ones that really need the money to continue produce music while for bigger artists it just increases the profit (increased profits for Spotify as well by discouraging smaller artists -> less server resources needed). If anything they should pay the smaller producers more imho (since there are where the future profits usually come from).
@@johnbravo7542 You mean short term profit focus doesn't work that way, but long term does. It's the same with R&D in tech, especially the R part. You sacrifice short term profits for longterm improvements.
What the hell? What's wrong with those people running that company?! I'm sure I just don't understand the business model, but how does that help them? Even if it does (which it must for them to do that), it's exceedingly lame.
I can't figure it, unless they want to discourage substandard music and save space on their servers. But who can judge what's substandard unless the public gets to hear it?
the squeeze is on! Spot'o'Sht CFO & CEO trumped the A&R / Marketing Dept 'cause Big Artists Mgmt (& the Board, & their investment banker) are telling 'em they gots ta have more $$$... & they don't care where they get it. hyper-capitalism at its finest. so... who's the least powerful source of dough in this biz? unknown, niche music musicians. & btw, prepare for more uninspiring pablum from corporate.
While watching you explain this I could truly see the deep down anger against Spotify. I don't blame you at all. Your last resort might be that you pull your content from them unfortunately. You do the right thing and still get screwed over.
To say It's only a small amount of money so it's not much to lose is so ludicrously wrong. In 2022 I got £50.63 from my 250 odd songs on all streaming services combined. Very few crossed 1000 plays but they all add up and that is just one year. Thanks for posting. I'm worried other services will follow. No I don't want money from other artists, just what is due to my music. I would loved to have been a professional musician, it's not my main income, but it is still theft.
It is theft but the problem is an unsustainable business model. Assuming Spotify's income stays roughly steady, something like 60% gets distributed to rights holders. The problem is that there are 100,000 tracks each day uploaded to streaming services which means that the 60% gets diluted day after day after day. Same money being shared ever more thinly. The current theft plan is a temporary way to not leech all their revenue away. Ultimately it will fail because there will still be 100,000 new tracks a day being added.
I rely on Spotify for the huge range of music I listen to, what would you suggest I replace it with if necessary? I mainly play music through Bluetooth on my phone and I'd like a system that isn't so reliant on a subscription.
OK time to move family subscription to another platform... €18 less for Spotify to send to Taylor and Ed. Not that they'll notice. Vote for the little guys leave Spotify
Thing is, it is the biggest streaming platform, and they can do what they want. Still we will post music on spotify, we will continue to use it, even they rob us the small money!
Clearly, Spotify doesn’t want all this material on their servers. They are trying to force small artists off the platform. There’s no money in it for Spotify to host smaller artists. Apple is doing the thing by only accepting material that is mixed in Atmos. That immediately eliminates 99 percent of home producers who simply won’t have the money or inclination to build a specialised 11 speaker studio! You tube has also been doing this for years. If you don’t have 1000 subscribers and 4000 watch hours, you don’t get paid! YT continues to sell advertising on those smaller creators videos however. Yet, people still continue to create and upload to YT, even though they know they won’t get paid. How is this any different?
Shawn from INDOMINION here. Just wanted to say that as an indie artist you won't find my music on streaming platforms. My music is being made available through CD & Vinyl only. Support your new artists!
This reminds me a lot of the stupid French law that makes me pay a tax on every single storage drive or phone or tablet I buy to supposedly pay artists. On those drives I save my photos, my videos, my writings, my designs. Mine. Yet I pay taxes that go to other artists and I get nothing. That's purely theft.
… cancelling my Spotify account now. Between this, lossless vaporware and all of the subscription money that has gone into Joe Rogan’s pocket, I’m done.
spotify sucks ass for multiple reasons. the only (popular) decent streaming platforms are tidal, apple music and deezer. for both artists and listeners
I stopped using Spotify when the price went up recently and I also found out they planned to give $20 million to people like Harry and Megan for a few podcasts. Give me a break. People have always got rich by screwing the little people but it seems to be getting worse.... or more visible. I don't know which.
Take Spotify into public ownership. After all, it apparently is making a financial loss, and when we own it, we can collectively decide how to distribute royalties. At the moment, artists have no say in what Spotify does, despite its enormous power over them. Democracy now!
I stopped using Spotify after they announced Hi-fi tier and then it never materialised after waiting about 12 months and many false promises. I cancelled my subs. Awful company. If I were you I'd remove my music from their service and report them to trading standards.
Why would "BIG" artists wish to allow this practice? Are they so mealy mouthed? Stealing money in this way will surely impact their popularity when exposed as pick pockets. I think I will cancel Spotify if this practice continues.
So as an advertiser... if my campaign is really, really small is it not worth it to Spotify to collect the fee from me? I mean the amount is so trivial, why even bother charging me?
"we can drive approximately an additional $1 billion in revenue toward emerging and professional artists over the next five years" They will steal $1B from the poorest artists to give to the richest. Wonderful. They should run for government.
All the money going to pay for Joe Rogan pod cast.😉 All music I have are on CD's and Vinyl,never listened to people saying to me why don't you just stream it,no thank's I like getting out of my chair to flip the record,or stick in a new CD.
