Technology

60109 readers

1963 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

1483

After announcing increased prices, Spotify to Pay Songwriters About $150 Million Less Next Year (www.billboard.com)

submitted 7 months ago by fpslem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

379 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheSealStartedIt@feddit.de 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Thank you for the information. Not a fan of putting the blame on the consumer here though. Spotify is the asshole here, not the people who want to pay for the music.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago

Just want to add an extra FU to Google as a consumer and Android user. Killing off GPlay Music for YT Music was just a nasty nice, especially given that the latter has no mechanism to purchase music and a lot of the content or mixes in from YouTube uploads seems of pretty dubious legitimacy

[–] vinhill@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn't assume a corporation is a moral entity, Spotify's only goal is to maximise profit. Maybe it's a problem of our economic system or regulations around monopolies.

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I don't think it's about assuming anything... it's about not burdening the consumer with regulating industry when it is clearly impossible to do so.

OP (of this thread) pitches Apple as an alternative... do you want to help artist a tad while also assisting a multi billion dollar company to continue to squash any possible ownership and right-to-repair chance the consumers has?...

There isn't ONE large corporation that has not shown they would kill people if that made them money... so no, the consumer cannot, in practice, "vote with their wallet" into forcing any corporation anywhere near an ethics "green ground"

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It's worth noting though, that Spotify has been bleeding money since the start. I know they may be wasting a lot of money on side hustles but still. They're not raking home any money. The only way the founders got rich is by the overinflated stock price.

E: typo

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I think they actually just started making a profit.