If I have to pay for distribution to a platform, I want every cent (or fraction of a cent) generated that is owed to me. I don't care how little it is.
Facts. I don't care if I have to glue my portions of pennies back together, I want them all. In a "fair" system this would be common sense, but it isn't fair, and common sense isn't so common nowadays.
Sounds like Dame is working for the Streaming companies, if an artist earns 1 dollar in streams in a year off their art, what right does this company have to withhold the artists earned money. This extra withheld money will mainly go to major label artists. Artists need to stand together for a better overall deal for music artists. Streaming companies are looking to divide artists, letting the small indys and artists fight for small bread crumbs. This will be legalised theft.
@JEFFMAN90 that's not entirely true. I think he does, to some extebt at least. I don't agree with him here, but there's a reason he's been so successful.
I get what you're saying but if it were my company, I wouldn't want to pay you a dollar for simply uploading a song and getting 100 streams when I can pay Drake more to bring in more listeners and generate more revenue.
More Erinn please, this is about ethics and fairness. We dont know how much a stream is really worth. A stream should be at around approximately 40 cents per stream for one song, to allow people to be fairly paid for their art.
I echo the sentiment about Erinn. I really appreciate her takes on most topics, as well as how she fights for the small guys. 40 cents will never happen though. It'd be cool, but those are pipe dream numbers.
How much should it cost for me to keep my collection of gardening magazines in your closet? Why would it be okay for me to dictate that price to you? You're talking "ethics/fairness" about a business...existing in a capitalist society. Market determines value. A stream is worth whatever the streamers say it is. That may or may not be "right" - but it's the system, that Spotify didn't make, that we (Americans) live in.... UNLESS you wanna classify Spotify as a +utility+. If everybody's selling milk for 10$ a gallon... then that's what milk is 'worth'. Your options are to find another (cheaper) source for milk, if you can, OR start your own dairy. But, until then it's illogical to say, "we don't know what the value of milk is".
Producers are going to be affected by this, bar the top 10%. On beatstars the majority of purchases are made by artists who have few fans, followers etc, if they now realise that they have no possible way of earning money then they why would they even bother buying beats? investing all that money with little to no return, or even just the psychological concept that they "might" make back the money if they keep pushing. The trend will follow that producers will continue lowering the cost of their beats (it is already happening) and it will end up at the point where exclusives are being sold for a few bucks. The amount of producers pushing out free for profit beats are already sharply rising so I don't know where this is all going to end up to be honest. If all producers pulled together and started increasing their prices, stopped giving [FREE] downloads [I include myself here] then things might go back to the way it should be. Producers are getting the absolute shit end of the stick, but in hindsight so are artists which in turn affects the producers. It's a domino effect, I really wish artists and producers pulled together and tell the labels to go F themselves and tell Spotify to go F themselves. RU-vid are also doing some shady shit, I had over 100 beats up on one of my channels and it started pushing each video via impressions to werid muckbang videos and a load of other videos from asia and the middle east that had nothing to do with music, and views continued dropping sharply. Rant over, I'm just really fed up with the way things are going right now
Agreed...royalties are required by law per performance/reproduction. Spotify can't pick who gets royalties or not they only control who can use their platform.
That's what I was thinking. There's only so much playing with people's money that the people are going to take before they break out the pitchforks, ropes, and torches. I feel this new 'I've altered the deal' styled deal is going to backfire on Spotify via litigation.
Well all of us independent artists should unite and stand together and make a change because it's hard to get a 1000 streams on each song when some playlists are run by labels and some playlisters don't wanna put your song on there playlists because they feel like your song don't fit there playlists and another thing we ain't gonna get more money they stealing money from us.
The streaming model is not Sustainable if the majority of artists work for free and don't get paid, but a corpate company is making millions off free content and art. People will get wise and realise this eventually. A system based on model where the artist is almost working for free is destined to fail eventually.
@@bobpriest6388do you think bypassing streaming services and going straight to consumer is the answer then? I see a few artist doing this, but the majority don't even attempt it.
I hate to be "that guy" but if we make assumptions on past experiences, and history in general, I think we know whats going to happen here. The rich will get richer (for the most part) and the rest will be left to the wayside. Do we really think anything is going to change? I pray I'm wrong, but 37 years on earth will make you question things 😂😂 like ones sanity for instance 😅
Give em an inch, they take a mile. It might start at a 1000 stream threshold, but slowly over time they'll amp it up to 10k. Cause that's what them leeches do. Edit: Dame responding with the same "more money" shpeal over and over again to every single concern the others have ain't convincing bruh 😂 either git good or stop bootlicking
I love Erin she is correct about the influence of UMG working with streaming companies on all of this, ultimately the small artists will be crushed, more money for the major companies.
depends on the threshold. Lets be real if you generate 15 cent a month you are virtually making no money either way. The cost of wiring money to you is higher fee lol. If the threshold is around 1-5$ I feel like that is %100 fair business. They are providing the platform for you to upload music. If you virtually generate no money the labor of keeping your music on their platform outweighs the money your track generate. Theres NO POINT in paying you 50 cents a year. They can use it to said allocate yo labels and artist who ACTUALLY GENERATE streams. Small artist will not be crushed because they dont even have a foundation to be crushed yet lol
I remember tho last month they were going in on the guy from Heatmakerz as Pain mentioned about him being wrong about the relationship of UMG and Spotify But as this recent article showed while UMG don't own Spotify it displays the type of power and influence it has while not even owning it
Why cant people see these streaming companies are not in the small artists or indy labels intrests. Why does Dame think these streaming companies will be fair ?
Yea i Def respect shorty.. and what she’s saying.. umg and the majors been had a hand in streaming.. they are not going to loose. Hopefully that threshold is low. I will say that, when I first started, getting 0$ royalty checks totally sucked but once I made my first 5 cents, it put the battery in my back to learn and generate more! But they low balling is from gate.. they are not going to make this easy
If "independent" distribution channels like distrokid are going to take a financial hit on this, it won't surprise me if the distrokid (as an example) user fee structure increases to compensate for that loss of money in the bank - at which point this would absolutely impact all the smaller players through the price of admission.
"THE PLAYING FIELD WAS BECOMING (EVEN) AND THE STREAMING COMPANIES ARE GETTING PAYOLA/ PAID OFF TO KEEP THE INDEPENDENT DOWN AND THE MAJORS UP" I CAN SEE THIS AS CLEAR AS DAY... this is why you dont hear the majors complaining... they have the power to make change, but there fine with the cover up of the true money being made off of all of us.
Spotify is giving you less than a penny! It’s a waste of time to discuss this in my opinion, unless you’re a big artist. My thoughts are to become more valuable to the marketplace then you could name your price create merchandise and shows to really make the money you deserve. There is way much music coming out every day. Music that’s not that good. so Spotify is a company that’s going to protect its interest! which I totally understand! as an artist protect your interest by becoming a better business person, and making yourself more valuable in the marketplace as a artist!
Lol.... these new proposed rules are literally illegal. But the music industry is not regulated, so the only way to deal with this is by exposing this for what it is, class action lawsuits, and some lobbying on behalf of independent artist. Bruh on the bottom sounds like he's paid to not understand why this is criminal, or he's legit brain dead when it comes to matters of intellectual property and commission based payout. This is NOT the same as "market share". Erin's analogy of owning property hit the nail on the head perfectly, this is like gentrification for the streaming platforms to nullify the effects of non-major label artist on streaming platforms; and improve the position and financial holdings of major label IP's on Spotify. Its designed to create a disadvantage for independent artist, skewing the playing feild in favor of 'signed artist'. Making it look more attractive being signed to a major label.
@@DJPain1 Good question, but that's why I feel there should be further legislation or regulation regarding the handling and exchange of monies in the music industry. With regards to distribution and streaming we need TRANSPARENCY, period. Overall It's a double edge sword, because on one hand I hate to see any privately owned business (smaller companies) be forced into state or federal regulation unnecessarily, but when an industry has historically buit its business models on robbing and exploting the working class (in this case artist) to 'unjustly' line the pockets of the major labels there needs to be some rules (transparency) in order to curb and limit the corruption. I'm not saying all labels or all deals are bad, but there needs to be an equitable solution that allows for independent artist the same legal protection and earning potential as the majors and thier artist.
Why do we only value highly productive artists? Some artists are prolific, writing hundreds of songs a year. Others write one song every few years. It has nothing to do with the quality of the art.
No one's losing money, calm down. You just won't get your money UNTIL you reach the bare minimum ie RU-vid. Lazy artists have flooded the system and this will hopefully be more fair for ACTIVE artists
So Why now Should We Pay For Song Distribution From DistroKid And BeatStars And Others DistroKid And BeatStars NEED To Get Involved And Talk To Spotify...
I agree the distribution companies will loose out or are they in cohoots, ultimately the streaming model is bad, unless all artists are paid a fair sum for their music.
When I heard the news about this at first I was mad cause I do get low streams but thinking about it for a while it makes me want to work harder so this doesn’t effect me as much at least with the first point. I think that this could be a wake up call to the artist that dont take it seriously to work harder to be a full time artist. So they can get their bread.
Yes Pain, It doesn't matter if a song gets a single stream in a year or more, that song is someone's intellectual property and they've decided to sidestep the entire intent of Title 17 (that supposedly protects the intellectual property) and not pay for the use of the property. Whoever agrees to this move, their music needs to me Napstered.
Universal Music Group (UMG) have a have a multi-year global license agreement with Spotify. So of course it will mainly benefit them in the long run somehow. What's funny is all those lofi artists that have millions of streams that don't have a name or label on the credits... There's plenty of them yet nobody still knows who they are. If you really want to go against bots and fake followers and streams then penalize the actual artist/playlists by deleting those accounts. That's what's actually harming the payout. Not a few cents for a few plays. There are other ways but they want the easy one.
"I don't think it's a big issue" That's a fat L take, Dame. IDGAF if it's $.40 - it's _mine._ I made the music. I learned my craft. I paid to have it distributed. If I don't promote it, that's on me, sure. But if it generated revenue, regardless of how little, it belongs to me full stop. You can look down your nose all you want, but that attitude is garbage my guy.
You're not a hobbyist if you are trying to make something happen and just lack promotion knowledge and skill and I think this is the case with a big percentage of people loading music onto Spotify. Right now you have to hit 1k streams per song to get paid. We should start laying down bets now on when they raise it 5k and then 10k. I say by 2026 we'll see an increase to the threshold.
Seems like as a community of indie artist at this point it would be more beneficial for us to try to come together and start a streaming service specifically for NON MAJOR indie artist. Indiebops streaming service😂😂😂
To say that there are a ton of people who have paid a distribution to have their music featured on spotify, and they simply don't care if they collect royalties is nonsense. That they never open their artist account to even look...come on bro that's a silly statement. The article suggests it as 17 streams a month avg.
I agree Erinn and Pain is right. Me and other new artists will literally have to grind and figure out how to make streams count, those who are no label artists just uploading to distributers, will get penalized the most and from there will enforce better positions for labels. For me this is a good and bad thing because I believe in labels because I am signed to a label but I also don’t like it because the label im on is relatively new. This means that my label can have the liberty to get more money streaming, however it also means the grind to that could crush us as an ethical business.
So does anyone think it would be a good idea to take all of your music down from streaming and away from distro and use your social media to drive traffic to your website where supporters can listen to stream and buy directly from the artist?
why do we still need them? don't we all have paypal /email/personal websites? this is a serious question team. The internet started breaking everything from politics to the music industry and we the creators who fuel the whole business are still getting reamed. Why do we still need them? Please address this question guys. I don't think we need to bow to these middlemen any more.
I don't know if they have any more secrets@@crnkmnky . It seems the most that we lack before we can all gladly cut them out is money to try and match their budgets. but once we see we don't need to compete with them, we will learn we do not need them. when we turn the tables, we will certaiunly attract some of their talent this way. I know there have to be at least a dozen execs embedded within it who regret being on that side. We gotta unionize and strike or something. when do we stop selling ourselves short?
Realistically the game is sewn shut by streaming serves. Who is going to take the time to get an app on their phone just for 1 or 2 of their unsigned favorite artist and use the space to download the song and all of that. Unfortunately, the convenience of streaming has killed the ability of the artist to cultivate a financially sound career in music. On top of battling random algorithms. Best bet for anyone who wants to make money from their music is to get big enough to stay doing paying shows. You not gonna make money from streaming without a giant label paying and pushing you to the forefront, and even then you gotta pay that money back.
@@LVEMRE streaming may be the way the most consume. but there is an untapped market that still have and or use, radio, cds, vinyl and cassettes. we forgot about us, we forgot how to network. I can remind yall. this very channel is laying the blueprint real clear. if you want me to spell out the plan, its very easy to explain, but it is a long read. they got us out here fighting over scraps from the corporate pie while the homemade pie rots on the vine. all it would take is a handful of people in key positions. just like the whole team cant all play quarterback, the whole squad can't all be rappers. some will need to make the music, while others move the music and monetize the music. support underground radio. support college radio, support your fans, etc etc. yes, none will want to hear from, or believe some unknown guy kickin the facts but that doesn't change the truth of what I'm saying. we do not need their help to create, own, develop, monetize and enjoy and enjoy hip hop. labels were an option that we mostly ignored all other options for, to the point where now they look like the only way. truth is if every artist stopped fking with the music busiiness they will eventually run out of ways to manipulate old tupac and taylor masters. We would regain ownership of the future of the culture as soon as we decide to stop signing everything over to them.
bring back signed cds and vynls.....make the music more personal and valued more vs the streaming model of .000000000000008 lol. if we get paid a milli milli penny it feels like we getting paid crypto coins....
this is the beginning of the end for streaming services. and we already knew the music industry as we know it was over. this is great for visionarys. and of course dame doesn’t have a problem with it cause people like him are apart of the problem and why that ses pool is the way it is. phuc spotify
@nine27 And they need to start acting like a business and pay us regardless this is our art our creative work they think they slick wanna pay big artists and label.
@@derrickbelmar what do you honestly expect if this is the way things have been with all artists getting paid next to nuthin and excepting it. And think about how much music that is loaded daily on their servers that no one pays attention to. So they are thinking like a business. They are cutting overhead on how much they gota pay their IT to keep their infrastructure stable. And with them already being in bed with the majors the way they currently are now I don’t understand why some people are so surprised. It’s time for people to think outside of the box. The real creatives will figure it out and succeed. They always do and models always change. The future is near.
I had to pause this for this purpose. I’ve heard it mentioned several times now about the artist who are listening to this podcast has there ever been a survey/pole taken on what tear or class that the artist/creators that listen to this podcast are in? 19:14
You say that anyone who cares about their music is not going to be affected by this Spotify change. Frankly, I think that your position is _extremely_ optimistic. In today’s social-media-driven world, there is more to it than just caring about your music. You also have to be very savvy about promoting yourself -- and caring about your music does not automatically bestow that savvy.
With 100k songs dropping every day on Spotify and most people only listening to big artists a ton of songs won't reach 100 streams, no matter how low it is artists should be payed for their streams. I'm always against the youtube treshold.
I'm with Dame on this one, Spotify is bleeding money and can't afford to hand out participation trophies to everyone who uploads a song. As long as the threshold is reasonable and attainable then meet the threshold or don't get paid. Seems like a fair deal to me.
@@SingKiaMuze It is a participation trophy because like it or not, the fact that my 8 year old song can record, upload, and distribute a 1 min song of him singing Mary had a little lamb and I can stream it one time or several times and Spotify has to write him a check is not a sustainable business model. It’s one of the main reasons Spotify hasn’t been profitable since day 1. It’s an extreme example but you get my point. And then you’re saying he should get paid a penny for that one stream? Either the industry would collapse as we know it or you would have to pay $200 a month to listen to music on Spotify.
Lol... Spotify and other streaming services are NOT transparent with what a stream actually generates, so... the notion that they are bleeding money is bulls#it. Their business model may not be sustainable, but I guarantee Spotify, and their corporate affiliates (major labels) are pocketing much larger royalties than they are owing up to, and then distributing less than crumbs to independent artist who are creating the content that is producing said (undisclosed) revenue.
I mean Spotify is their company they can honestly do as they please. You can't tell Jordans to drop their price on us because we don't own it. Best bet is make ur own website or as crazy as it sounds make your own streaming platform Really can't be mad at the players
I agree, except Spotify doesn't manufacture or make music, we give it to them for almost free and the streaming companies make the money off artists labour. Nike at least has to pay to manufacture their products, Spotify can choose not to pay bread crumbs to small artists.
@@bobpriest6388 yea the Jordan shoes wasn't the best example and yea it's a tricky situation with Spotify Cuz the consumers don't care if they getting their fav artists music for cheap that's all they want And I doubt we gonna see any type of major Indy artist boycot t on this situation
@@DJPain1that’s totally different, RU-vid was a free platform that creators where able to upload their content for free. Which they still can, their music videos etc..
Personally I believe Dame is being dishonest, being willfully ignorant. Cuz I remember a month ago, Pain and Dame going in on Rsonist of Heatmakerz after he accused the big labels of owning Spotify (which isn't true but...) as given this recent news and as Erinn alluded to before, these major labels such as UMG are the ones who license their popular music to Spotify and its competitors. So therefore when news come out like the topic of discussion in this video, the people who are negotiating and reworking these rules ARE LABELS LIKE UMG and shows the power/influence they do have as Rsonists was basically saying So this is why I say what Dame is saying is disingenous cuz everytime I see these business articles in videos or in print, as Erinn mentioned, it includes the big labels like UMG so to act like this isn't a possiblity or an actual reality is crazy
@@DJPain1 I doubt that smaller labels than UMG has the influence to shape those negotiations as they do but my point is you and Dame has been in the industry for a minute and the way y'all was acting like these big labels don't own or at bare minimum have control/influence over Spotify etc is what tripped me But good show tho
Needs to be a platform that's independent friendly and remove the indie artist's music from Spotify. It's not right when independent artists paying money out of their own pockets to pay for studio marketing producing and etc and sounds like they are taking the independent artists' money and giving it away no matter how little it is. If that's even correct, are they counting the streams right to begin with.
_Dame & Pain & Erinn K_ (nobody actually says it out loud, except for a 💋🎙️🎛️ over-produced vocal drop) _The Rootin' Tootin' Fresh n' Fruitin' Virtual Happy Hour_ _Everybody Hates Dame_ _Producer Dramarama with the __-MEC-__ Gang_ 🤜 _How to Give Lucian Grainge Them Skibbity-Paps_ 🤛
It will be the future but the problem is the price of NFT's skyrocketed and then crashed which temporarily loses trust in people. Similair thing happened to the internet bubble back in 2000. Many internet companies were raising huge valuations and it all crashed down. That didn't mean the internet flopped, just wallstreet bankers profiting off a new paradigm. Eventually Amazon, Google and Yahoo survived. Same thing will happen with NFT's, most people have absolutely no idea what this tech is about and how it will empower them massively in the future.
This is unlawful and we will file a class action lawsuit against Spotify for stealing all monies owed to each artist. Here's why. You have to pay money to use spotify premium services so if someone pays to use the service then in turn listens to my song that I created I deserve to get paid for that stream because it was my song that got played df it's not hard it's literally robbing peter to pay paul.
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...
I was selling my music of universal music group which is spinnup and it was the worst experience I had. now the music industry is getting worse damn life hits hard
I don't understand how there are two sides of this conversation. They are relocating money, for low streams, and this guy dame is arguing "Well some artists will get more!" Bro, how are you taking their side. This is a bad decision, for every artist. No one should be happy about this, getting more money at the cost of others, why are you even giving them an argument.
Every cent I make is my cent, so I want it and thats it! Thresholds even if its for 100 streams or less multiply by thousands or billions of musicians its a lot of money. - so this for me is not negotiable! It's an outrage! In fact I'm suspecting that this is the major labels trying to get extra advantages.
1000 streams per song per year minimum. I will start focusing on other streaming services once that happens. Will remove most of my songs and stop pushing Spotify and whoever else will follow.
From an Admin pov. Think this is more about allocating an employee(s) time involved in the pay out process or group that oversees this process. Just a thought 💭
I only record for nostalgic purposes but it is still my property that should be paid to me regardless of popularity. And a big shoutout to my only streamer in Poland “good on ya mate” if I lived closer to you I’d buy you a beer
Thanks for your post... so helpful. For me, it's time to BOYCOTT SPOTIFY! This is so bad for our industry, especially for up & coming songwriters and artists. Spotify's litigation history proves that they don't care about creators; they care more about lining their pockets. Working artist?... yeah right... Time will prove that a lie... Please stay on this topic whenever possible.... let's go. Thx
@@JEFFMAN90"always" is a strong word to use. I'm not in agreement with him here whatsoever, at least not until we have all the facts, but that's just part of the pods dynamics. It'd be boring if they all agreed.
I think it will help more people to actually make a living from music who want it. If u makin like 20 streams no way u taking it seriously.. I agree with that intellectual property argument tho, but overall I think it’s positive
Exactly. This is gonna force artists/ producers are gonna have to either go back to getting signed to a label again or going back to doing youtube channel for monetization. So basically alot of people are prolly gonna stop making music all together. Hopefully everybody stop useing Spotify... n maybe Spotify will go back to how it is now. Shit is lowkey fucked up tbh 😂😂😂😂😂 cause I just started uploading music to distrokid!!!! I guess we going back to promoting apple music 😂
What people forget is that, they may own the intellectual property to the music they make, but they don't own the coding, programming and streaming analytics/data. Spotify can play the game way better because they're hosting the music. Instead of it being B2B, it's B2C. Music listeners benefit from Spotify more than the artists. Spotify has the listener's best interest. I sell subscription software for a tech company at my day job. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It would be interesting to see if you can make more money with a boombox on a corner with a hat than trying to generate revenue as an unknown artist on a streaming service. EDIT - there likely is a some aspect a PRO can collect off of plays from spotify - they are only a fraction of the amount -- basically people are giving away free distribution to their stuff it they upload it is it is rendered promotional rather than commercial content unless it is successful - but atleast you arn't paying to do testpressing and promo distribution to record pools there is more financial cost in that than signing up to a distributor. For people like me we still are not going to make money giving our sound away for free but its not like it is in demand anyway. Guy on the bottom would have the right frame in that even though all the nobody artists or writers/producers signing over global licensing to spotify through their distribution service --- labels/artists are still getting that money although leverage as a bit of a pyramid scheme to the top performing artists who are in fact likely owned by RIAA major labels. So of that 40 million maybe 4 million will be a little bonus to major artists that are known household names - and 30 million will end up with the labels. As far as not being able to track plays they totally can track plays if they required people to logged into their accounts. As a nobody hobbiest who isn't playing shows each weekend nothing lost nothing gained, but it is an incentive not to upload anything but promotional content rather than something I would want to generate revenue on I would rather only make it available for sale if I was trying to make money on it.. but really who is going to pay for it. Its all branding and marketing anyway. Note though "Mechanical royalties earned from streams, downloads, and physical sales are not collected by Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) like BMI. Global mechanical royalties are handled by publishers." So again, this is all what licensing agreement you choose to enter into and if so what you choose to provide a distributor. HOWEVER "Performance and mechanical royalties are both generated when your song is streamed on a digital service like Spotify because a music stream is considered both a public performance and a mechanical reproduction of your work. The payout on a Spotify stream varies based on what country and kind of user (premium, free, family, student, etc.) are streaming the song. " Your licensing structure more or less gives away some of your collection rights to the terms imposed but that is because you choose to distribute with them, nothing stops you from releasing junk to their service if you don't think they deserve good content but that is a marketing and brand damage issue. At the end of the day someone is paying and someone is getting paid, if it is not you then you must be getting some benefit otherwise why do it? That said as someone who likely will not get paid from these services I can only see this as a method of potential promotional release to a limited number of listeners, but still listeners. I will say though most of those top performing artists are putting out junk and so are the other 100,000 people uploading every day, but everyone has their own taste in what audio they consume. What would you have without the commercial labels and artists --- man if you arn't their staff where exactly are you on that industry later, I know I am very close to the bottom. If they wern't taking people to court to get paid, who would be getting that money? Its a complex issue but as an artist get the best deal you can, and no one is forcing you to license, its not a sales agreement it is a publishing agreement - why enter a publishing agreement where you arn't paid other than for promo purposes? Do radiostations pay to play your music - no you send them your CD etc.. and they may if they like play it to their listeners. I think people are looking at spotify the wrong was if I understand, I don't use spotify so this is my understanding through second hand knowledge.
What makes most sense to me is that Spotify is doing this to combat AI. People have been creating multiple fake artist profiles and pumping out generic AI generated tracks. Being that these tracks are coming from a newly created unknown artists, they won’t get very many streams individually, but across hundreds of accounts and thousands of tracks can add up to a lot of money, which Spotify believes belongs to “working artist” who actually make music… not people who generate it with AI.
Once again, AI screwing everyone over. I love this new technology frontier but it shouldn't come at the expense of fucking smaller artists over. AI should be a tool of democratization and empowerment and not a lazy way to generate thousands of audio's to mass-distribute to collect some pennies. Spotify should build a better tracking system and maybe put a cap on how many songs one natural person can release. This also ensures more quality instead of artists just flooding the market with too many music.
I’m absolutely f*cked. I have no traction and spend all my money on ad placements with little engagement. At this point I will have to just think of this as a hobby
