# Petition for better pay from Spotify at change.org. SIGN IT!!!!!!!



## gsilbers (Aug 12, 2020)

Sign the Petition


WE DEMAND 1C per PLAY!




www.change.org





1c per Play!

We are begging for 1C PER PLAY from a multibillionaire CEO. WE DESERVE JUSTICE!

Spotify pays: 0.004 per play
Tidal pays: $0.012 per play
Apple Music: $0.007 per play
YouTube: $0.00069 per view

“If” an artist get 1 million views the payouts will be:

Spotify: $4,000 / 1 Million streams
Tidal: $12,000 / 1 Million streams
Apple Music: $7,000/ 1 Million streams
YouTube: $690/ 1 Million Stream.

After Daniel EK spoke on an interview, “You can’t record every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough.” We want to make a point that making more records, is impossible with the amount of pay per stream we are getting. We want to release a record more than every three to four years but the costs are unbearable.

We spend at least $5,000 per song, to record and to promote properly. WITH YOUR PAYOUT OF 0.004/stream = to $4,000/ 1 MILLiON STREAM. We CAN’T even make it EVEN!

To make a record:

Hiring musicians says,
Drums, Bass, Guitar, Keys, and Voice
$250x5= $ 1,250
+ pre-production $350
+ mixing $450
+ mastering $250 = $2,300 per song.

That does not even include if you want horns or percussion in your music. Unless you do everything yourself but this is why the quality of music is more and more degrading!

Now to make a music video? $5,000-$15,000, some cases even more!!! 

To make $4,000/1 Million Strea is not even ENOUGH to make a SINGLE and let alone to promote it properly.

WE DEMAND THAT ALL Streaming services, such as SPOTIFY PAYS ARTISTS 1C per PLAY!


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 12, 2020)

And help out..


----------



## JonS (Aug 12, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> Sign the Petition
> 
> 
> WE DEMAND 1C per PLAY!
> ...


I agree ☝️ 









Sign the Petition


WE DEMAND 1C per PLAY!




chng.it


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 12, 2020)

and for those who think it doesnt involve them or think nothign will happen out of it....


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 12, 2020)

i know you dont like clicking and clicking around so i added the text.... 


c'mon... 


easy to do..


----------



## Krayh (Aug 13, 2020)

Dont agree with their prices, go somewhere else. Cant find something else, start a different business. Nobody owes you anything, you are the only one that agrees with these stupid prices when you sign up.

It's the same with farmers in our country, they demand better prices for their milk from the supermarkets. There is nothing to demand! Just dont sell if you dont agree with the price! Point is there are way to many farmers producing milk! And way to many stupid farmers selling to supermarkets for that ridiculous low price...

Music is just a commodity, adapt or die


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 13, 2020)

Krayh said:


> Dont agree with their prices, go somewhere else. Cant find something else, start a different business. Nobody owes you anything, you are the only one that agrees with these stupid prices when you sign up.
> 
> It's the same with farmers in our country, they demand better prices for their milk from the supermarkets. There is nothing to demand! Just dont sell if you dont agree with the price! Point is there are way to many farmers producing milk! And way to many stupid farmers selling to supermarkets for that ridiculous low price...
> 
> Music is just a commodity, adapt or die



You are completely wrong but it would take too much writing to explain something so simple.

Geez, can’t believe people will side w a corporation like Spotify.


----------



## Technostica (Aug 13, 2020)

Do Tidal pay different rates depending on the bit-rate as they have a tier that is much higher in price and bit-rate than Spotify.
To make a realistic comparison you have to look at all the information.
Including the fact that Apple penalise 3rd party apps that use iOS in multiple ways including financially.
Apple are a staggeringly profitable company and make vast sums of money across their platforms so they can easily afford to pay more per stream.
Do Spotify even make a profit?
Just because their CEO has stock worth billions doesn't mean that the actual company can afford to pay more per stream.

As presented here I wouldn't even bother to click through to read the petition.
I'd happily sign a petition to have Apple fined the odd £100 Billion though and split up if necessary.


----------



## Mornats (Aug 13, 2020)

Is the petition aimed at the streaming services or the record labels who agreed the steaming rates with them?


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Aug 13, 2020)

Krayh said:


> Dont agree with their prices, go somewhere else. Cant find something else, start a different business. Nobody owes you anything, you are the only one that agrees with these stupid prices when you sign up.
> 
> It's the same with farmers in our country, they demand better prices for their milk from the supermarkets. There is nothing to demand! Just dont sell if you dont agree with the price! Point is there are way to many farmers producing milk! And way to many stupid farmers selling to supermarkets for that ridiculous low price...
> 
> Music is just a commodity, adapt or die


Almost as stupid as saying - "don't like the world? Kill yourself."

When there are no better options, no better places to go it doesn't work.
Trying to start Spotify 2 with better pay as a random artist is an insane idea - the better way is trying to fix the exisiting and established Spotify. If a country sucks the way is to try and fix the country not the start a new one. 

The Farmer analogy is insane - what happens if they don't sell cheaply? Then they won't sell and are ruined. Similarly artists have no good streaming outlets at all when turning on the greats like Spotify.

You are asking for people to stop complaining about issues and to instead ruin themselves by trying to go for better options that don't exist.

Bottom line: Don't try to re-invent the wheel, rather improve it.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 13, 2020)

Krayh said:


> Dont agree with their prices, go somewhere else. Cant find something else, start a different business. Nobody owes you anything, you are the only one that agrees with these stupid prices when you sign up.
> 
> It's the same with farmers in our country, they demand better prices for their milk from the supermarkets. There is nothing to demand! Just dont sell if you dont agree with the price! Point is there are way to many farmers producing milk! And way to many stupid farmers selling to supermarkets for that ridiculous low price...
> 
> Music is just a commodity, adapt or die



Bad, bad analogy. Your attitude is precisely why we're in this mess in the first place.


----------



## Allen Constantine (Aug 13, 2020)

Signed and Paid!


----------



## Wunderhorn (Aug 13, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> 1c per Play!



Well yes... but better yet in addition to that would be a demand for transparency and an investigation into the business practice. Who controls their books? Who can say they are not rigging prices? Are the payouts actually according to proper book keeping? Are they in a cartel with the competition to set the pricing?

The words of the Spotify CEO of recent certainly reveal that this person has no regards for music whatsoever. Obviously it is only the stock market that propels him in a thick cloud of greed.


----------



## Rory (Aug 13, 2020)

Wunderhorn said:


> Well yes... but better yet in addition to that would be a demand for transparency and an investigation into the business practice. Who controls their books? Who can say they are not rigging prices? Are the payouts actually according to proper book keeping? Are they in a cartel with the competition to set the pricing?



If you want to ask for an investigation of that type, the request should go to the European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/media/overview_en.html


----------



## d.healey (Aug 13, 2020)

I'm not familiar with distributing music through streaming services. Is this something your label requires you to do or do you do it yourself?


----------



## Gingerbread (Aug 13, 2020)

I’m happy to sign a petition, but gotta ask:

How does a petition, in a _practical_ way, force their hand? In my experience, companies only change policies like these when they are economically forced to; when the opposing side has the leverage to cost them money.

So...could someone give a practical reason why Spotify wouldn’t just ignore the petition?


----------



## Daryl (Aug 13, 2020)

A price per stream is not realistic or even possible to budget for. What it really needs is a guaranteed percentage of income to be paid out, and all streams to be equal.


----------



## Rory (Aug 13, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> I’m happy to sign a petition, but gotta ask:
> 
> How does a petition, in a _practical_ way, force their hand?



This petition doesn't appear to have that purpose. Apparently a week old, it has 40,000 signatures with a declared objective of 50,000 signatures, although I suppose the objective can be revised upward. Nor does it appear to be part of a larger exercise. In other words, it doesn't seem to be intended to have practical significance.


----------



## MartinH. (Aug 13, 2020)

Rory said:


> Apparently a week old, it has 38,000 signatures with a declared objective of 50,000 signatures. In other words, it isn't very ambitious. Nor does it appear to be part of a larger exercise.



That goal goes up automatically to give the illusion of some reachable goal being close, because that drives engagement. Notice how it says "*next *goal".


----------



## Rory (Aug 13, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> That goal goes up automatically to give the illusion of some reachable goal being close, because that drives engagement. Notice how it says "*next *goal".



That's why I said "I suppose the objective can be revised upward".

Personally, I think that petitions are pointless unless they are just one of the tools in a larger exercise. By itself, a petition is not going to accomplish a hell of a lot.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 13, 2020)

Wunderhorn said:


> The words of the Spotify CEO of recent certainly reveal that this person has no regards for music whatsoever. Obviously it is only the stock market that propels him in a thick cloud of greed.



I have to play the devil's advocate for a minute just to say that this is both understandable and perfectly acceptable. Spotify is a business. A big business's first priority is always to their investors, not their customers. Their strategy is to make as much money as possible. But of course, no business can come right out and say that, so they hire PR people to come up with words and phrases that spin their greedy intentions into positive, conscientious-sounding fluff.

From a business perspective, Spotify is doing everything right. They literally have an obligation to pay as little as possible to musicians in order to fill the pockets of their shareholders. It sucks for us musicians, and hopefully we will change that someday, but for now it is what it is.



Gingerbread said:


> How does a petition, in a _practical_ way, force their hand? In my experience, companies only change policies like these when they are economically forced to; when the opposing side has the leverage to cost them money.
> 
> So...could someone give a practical reason why Spotify wouldn’t just ignore the petition?



The petition could fizzle out and die as quickly as it was created, but there's also that small chance it could pick up momentum and grow to a size that leads to a chain reaction of events... making international news, prompting a public statement from Spotify, garnering support from celebrities, triggering celebrity-endorsed boycott movements, etc. This is the leverage petitions like this hope to achieve — to create enough of a stir to rattle the shareholders.


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Aug 13, 2020)

Krayh said:


> Dont agree with their prices, go somewhere else. Cant find something else, start a different business. Nobody owes you anything, you are the only one that agrees with these stupid prices when you sign up.
> 
> It's the same with farmers in our country, they demand better prices for their milk from the supermarkets. There is nothing to demand! Just dont sell if you dont agree with the price! Point is there are way to many farmers producing milk! And way to many stupid farmers selling to supermarkets for that ridiculous low price...
> 
> Music is just a commodity, adapt or die


Kanye West what are you doing here?!


----------



## Rory (Aug 13, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> Spotify is a business. A big business's first priority is always to their investors, not their customers. Their strategy is to make as much money as possible.
> 
> From a business perspective, Spotify is doing everything right. They literally have an obligation to pay as little as possible to musicians in order to fill the pockets of their shareholders. It sucks for us musicians, and hopefully we will change that someday, but for now it is what it is.



Spotify is a Swedish company, not an American company. I am no expert on Swedish corporate culture and law, but I am confident that it does not require what you suggest.

As for the U.S., last year the U.S. Business Roundtable, chaired by J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, expressly rejected your characterisation of corporate responsibilities:

*Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans'*: https://www.businessroundtable.org/...-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans


Here's Reuters's news summary:

*Top U.S. CEOs say companies should put social responsibility above profit: * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ial-responsibility-above-profit-idUSKCN1V91EK


----------



## SergeD (Aug 13, 2020)

I signed the petition even if this petition is vain. As I mentioned in an other thread, these are the places which could stop the huge theft over musicians:









Welcome to ASCAP - the world leader in performance royalties, advocacy and service for songwriters, composers and music publishers


Welcome to ASCAP - the world leader in performance royalties, advocacy and service for songwriters, composers and music publishers




www.ascap.com












Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)


BMI, a leader in music rights management, advocates for the value of music, representing over 20.6 million works of more than 1.3 million copyright owners.




www.bmi.com









SOCAN







www.socan.com




etc.

If they are there to protect and represent musicians, as they say, they should, all together, jump into the 21st century and offer digital music service built to enrich musicians rather than Wall Street brokers.


----------



## MGdepp (Aug 13, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> I have to play the devil's advocate for a minute just to say that this is both understandable and perfectly acceptable. Spotify is a business. A big business's first priority is always to their investors, not their customers. Their strategy is to make as much money as possible. But of course, no business can come right out and say that, so they hire PR people to come up with words and phrases that spin their greedy intentions into positive, conscientious-sounding fluff.
> 
> From a business perspective, Spotify is doing everything right. They literally have an obligation to pay as little as possible to musicians in order to fill the pockets of their shareholders. It sucks for us musicians, and hopefully we will change that someday, but for now it is what it is.


Uh ... what??? Well, I guess I will never understand why some people applaud while watching someone else eating them alive ... I guess that is only possible by strictly following an ideology until the day you die. 

Every ideology is only an invention by human beings - never a law of nature! For communism, most people seem have accepted that truth. But only a handful of people can see that the same is true for capitalism.


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Aug 13, 2020)

SergeD said:


> Welcome to ASCAP - the world leader in performance royalties, advocacy and service for songwriters, composers and music publishers
> 
> 
> Welcome to ASCAP - the world leader in performance royalties, advocacy and service for songwriters, composers and music publishers
> ...



The german GEMA just recently acquired a majority stake in ZEBRALUTION , a digital distributor for independent labels in Europe , which will still operate as an independent business but under the GEMA umbrella.

Until now ZEBRALUTION's services were available to independent lables only (... _similar to THE ORCHARD _...), but it will launch a service for artists/songwriters in the near future, named MusicHub .









German PRO GEMA buys majority stake in digital distributor Zebralution that ‘secures our future viability’ - Music Business Worldwide


“By taking a stake in Zebralution, GEMA has made a targeted investment that secures its future viability."




www.musicbusinessworldwide.com





Additional to the distribution itself , for GEMA members the aim is to even integrate the process of registering the work with the GEMA databank at the same time, including the metadata which is usually used by Spotify/Apple/etc. , that is ISRC number and Artist name , and also uploading the audiofile into the GEMA Audio-Monitoring system that is available since late 2019 .
( _This integration might not happen right when the new service is launched , but will become true at a later point I hope._)


EDIT:
Of course this will have no influence on how much Spotify pays out to independent performers and/or composers , but it will help to make sure all the metadata - that is necessary to identify and remunerate a single stream- is correct. Something that one would expect to be an easy task , because we are dealing here with Tech-companies ( Google/Youtube , apple, amazon, Spotify ... ) . But the reality is quite different ... .


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 13, 2020)

Rory said:


> _Top U.S. CEOs say companies should put social responsibility above profit_:



Well of course they're going to say that, but that's not how business works behind closed doors. Small business owners typically start out with the intention of providing exceptional service, treating customers right, and creating local jobs. But as the business grows and investors come on board, maximizing and sustaining profit becomes the #1 priority. Shareholders will insist on sending production to China, farming customer service out to call centers in India, buying cheaper plastic, deprecating desired features and services in favor of more profitable ones, etc.

I'm obviously generalizing here since not all business are the same, but the point I'm making is that if Spotify were to suddenly decide to increase royalty payments for moral reasons, they'd be putting their business at risk (unless they figured out how increased royalties could increase or help sustain profits.)




MGdepp said:


> Well, I guess I will never understand why some people applaud while watching someone else eating them alive ...



The commercial property realtor from Dubai who invested in Spotify isn't watching anyone get eaten alive. He doesn't care about the plight of musicians. He's a realtor trying to make a buck in the stock market. The _only_ thing he's watching is the ticker.


----------



## Rory (Aug 13, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> Well of course they're going to say that



Look, skate all you want, but here are some simple facts.

Your statements about corporate obligations are wrong as a matter of law even in the U.S. They reflect a right-wing political view about capitalism and business that is not only not uniformly accepted in the U.S., but was expressly rejected a year ago by the CEOs of the biggest corporations in America. That's just a fact, whether you like it or not.

Furthermore, you apparently don't understand that the approach to business outside the U.S. differs from your right-wing version of capitalism. Let's take a really simple example that is local to you. Ask your Wisconsin dairy farmers who are going bankrupt whether they'd prefer how the dairy business works just the other side of your northern border, a system that, I would like to think you know, completely rejects what you are saying.


----------



## Zhao Shen (Aug 13, 2020)

Spotify already runs their music streaming business at a loss - this petition is going nowhere.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 13, 2020)

When I talk about "obligations" and "priorities" I'm not talking about literal obligations and priorities as you might find outlined in a business plan. I'm using those words in a connotative way to explain what does _not_ get said publicly but drives business all the same. I assumed that was a given, so I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.




Rory said:


> Furthermore, you apparently don't understand that corporate culture outside the U.S.



That's why I said , "I'm obviously generalizing here since not all business are the same." I'm sure there are cultures overseas where businessmen champion honor above profits, as well as a few independent businesses in the U.S who maintain that standard.

And I don't consider my view winged in any direction. The nature of big business is brutal and cold when it needs to be, because it is driven by investors who want their shares to go up. Spotify is a publicly traded company in the NYSE. My gut tells me just because they're headquartered in Sweden doesn't mean their investors around the world would be willing to hold onto plummeting stocks because they want us poor independent musicians to make a few more pennies. That's just a guess.


----------



## Rory (Aug 13, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> When I talk about "obligations" and "priorities" etc, etc, etc



What you said is this:

"They [Spotify] literally have an obligation to pay as little as possible to musicians in order to fill the pockets of their shareholders."

You are completely full of it, both as a matter of law and, outside rightwing circles, as a matter of business culture.

As a believer in capitalism myself, the problem with this kind of rubbish is that it is ethically bankrupt and deservedly leads to class warfare.

Do you understand that a communist revolutionary would completely agree with what you said, and that he'd have a pretty good argument to get rid of you, one way or another?

Earlier in this thread, @MGdepp said this:

"Every ideology is only an invention by human beings - never a law of nature! For communism, most people seem have accepted that truth. But only a handful of people can see that the same is true for capitalism."

Everyone seems to have ignored that. Personally, I think that it's one of the more interesting comments in this thread.


----------



## GtrString (Aug 13, 2020)

To secure fair payments, politicians need to regulate these big software companies. Spotify is like Google and others, crossing borders and operate in the virtual domain only, and can potentially slay us all if free market policies are just let loose. Its like a pack of angry dogs chasing your tail.

We need some protection of our work and practices. No one can work professionally with creative work when these people are just giving it away, and take the real money from it. We should also stop feeding these angry dogs like we do, but there seems no alternatives..

Of course, we might get some money back, if we bought shares, but when they pull out huge money for wages, they don’t seem all that financially sound either..


----------



## chocobitz825 (Aug 14, 2020)

I think signaling out Spotify is the wrong approach. It’s made a monster out of only one part of the problem. What about the cut that labels and publishers still take? What about the restocking fees they charge for digital? Spotify rates suck but so do most of the other services too. While it may not be in the power of small artists, it might be better to appeal to big name artists to pull their music from services that don’t pay what artists should be paid. If Spotify loses the big players, they have to change their model to stay afloat and it’s a win for the big names because they get more money.

I do agree with others here that just because you feel you should get more doesn’t mean a company is obligated to meet your demands.It’s a negotiation and you have to bring something to table to make them change their mind, otherwise you’re acknowledging they have such a. Huge influence in your business that you can’t survive without them, but you want them to go out of their way to make you happy. Not gonna happen.


----------



## T-LeffoH (Aug 14, 2020)

The petition itself is a bit bizarre because it really isn't specific enough to accomplish anything given that the legal obligations required of Spotify and other streaming services for licensing are different per country.

Are songwriters & composers underpaid for music streaming royalties?

Yes.

Will a petition quoting basic math with a blanket request for a $0.01 per spin rate solve that issue?

No.

The rate paid back to the writers by a service seems like far less of an issue than the fact that such a service was ever able to be launched having never gotten mechanical licenses for a lot of music in their catalogue, instead operating in the Lloyd Christmas I.O.U. model from Dumb & Dumber.


----------



## Manaberry (Aug 14, 2020)

I don't see any demand of retroactive action. Think bigger!


----------



## Daryl (Aug 14, 2020)

The only way to "solve" this is for the PROs to refuse to allow the music of their composers on these platforms. A petition does nothing.


----------



## Mornats (Aug 14, 2020)

Daryl said:


> The only way to "solve" this is for the PROs to refuse to allow the music of their composers on these platforms. A petition does nothing.


Yep, that's my view (speaking as a Spotify consumer primarily). Someone above mentioned what Spotify was doing was theft. Nope. Not at all. The record companies agreed to the payment terms. This is not Spotify's fault. People are whipping the wrong horse.


----------



## JonS (Aug 14, 2020)

Daryl said:


> The only way to "solve" this is for the PROs to refuse to allow the music of their composers on these platforms. A petition does nothing.


I hope that’s exactly what happens. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC should do whatever it takes to put all the Music streaming companies out of that business. Apple Music, Pandora, Amazon Music, Spotify, YouTube and others pay so little per stream it’s destroying songwriters and composers ability to make royalties when this business was difficult enough to succeed in before the streaming industry appeared. I would personally love to see all music streaming services end as soon as possible. I don’t care what these companies say about if they are losing money, then they should stop paying your CEOs so much money, stop spending so much on advertising, and stop spending so much money to be in this biz. I want all music streaming companies and divisions to go out of business. I hope lawsuits lead to raising streaming companies to pay out a penny or much more per stream and if they can’t make a successful business model from that then go out of business. If you apply the same logic to any other industry one could argue against the minimum wage and allow companies to pay people in the USA pennies on the dollar an hour because they say they can’t make a profit while fat cat CEOs at health insurance companies make $60 million a year. There is way too much oppression and corruption in the world, I wish justice would truly reign so it’s not just billionaires who make the rules.


----------



## Krayh (Aug 14, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> You are completely wrong but it would take too much writing to explain something so simple.
> 
> Geez, can’t believe people will side w a corporation like Spotify.



You dont read, I never said I side with spotify, their prices are idiotic. But what is even more idiotic you signing a contract with them for those prices and start whining after wards.


----------



## Krayh (Aug 14, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> Almost as stupid as saying - "don't like the world? Kill yourself."
> 
> When there are no better options, no better places to go it doesn't work.
> Trying to start Spotify 2 with better pay as a random artist is an insane idea - the better way is trying to fix the exisiting and established Spotify. If a country sucks the way is to try and fix the country not the start a new one.
> ...



If there are no better options, no better places. THEN QUIT. Start a new business, or go work for a boss. The prices are so low because there are enough stupid people that will work for that price.

The analogy makes perfect sense. What happens if they dont sell, they will go bankrupt indeed thats the whole point! There are just to many of them in the first place, to have a HEALTHY market some of them needs to go bankrupt, then the ones who survive will get better prices.

And one tip for you. There are ALWAYS better options, it might not be in the business you currently work in but there is plethora of options out there!


----------



## nyxl (Aug 14, 2020)

Zhao Shen said:


> Spotify already runs their music streaming business at a loss - this petition is going nowhere.


Reading this, one could think they're just running Spotify to bring music to people like some charity. Howver, they're just currently focusing on growth and expansion rather than being profitable, which will only make it harder to establish competition in the future. They might be able to pay more to artists and/or make a profit if they slowed down on expanding into new markets or acquiring content providers.


----------



## Krayh (Aug 14, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> I’m happy to sign a petition, but gotta ask:
> 
> How does a petition, in a _practical_ way, force their hand? In my experience, companies only change policies like these when they are economically forced to; when the opposing side has the leverage to cost them money.
> 
> So...could someone give a practical reason why Spotify wouldn’t just ignore the petition?



Indeed you are absolutely right! It's a silly thing to do, pointless. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to be a musician and work for peanuts. You and you alone are responsible for agreeing with such ridiculous terms.


----------



## Krayh (Aug 14, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> I have to play the devil's advocate for a minute just to say that this is both understandable and perfectly acceptable. Spotify is a business. A big business's first priority is always to their investors, not their customers. Their strategy is to make as much money as possible. But of course, no business can come right out and say that, so they hire PR people to come up with words and phrases that spin their greedy intentions into positive, conscientious-sounding fluff.
> 
> From a business perspective, Spotify is doing everything right. They literally have an obligation to pay as little as possible to musicians in order to fill the pockets of their shareholders. It sucks for us musicians, and hopefully we will change that someday, but for now it is what it is.
> 
> ...



Finally someone who gets it!


----------



## JonS (Aug 14, 2020)

Rory said:


> What you said is this:
> 
> "They [Spotify] literally have an obligation to pay as little as possible to musicians in order to fill the pockets of their shareholders."
> 
> ...


First of all, Communism is just an idea not an actual system of government. The former Soviet Union and current People’s Republic of China were and are both corrupt oligarchies who use(d) the label of communism no differently than how the USA uses the word democracy to describe itself, falsely. All of the largest countries in the world are oligarchies controlled by billionaires and their corporations. Communism and Democracy don’t exist. Oligarchies, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes are how the world has been ruled since the dawn of time. Both Communism and Democracy are ideas used by regimes to brainwash the broader populace to buy into some form of societal order. The billionaire class runs the world and sometimes rulers use armies to take power over the wealthy to become the ruling class, that’s all that ever happens. For example, of the 535 US Senators and Congressman almost all of them are controlled by Big Pharma, it doesn’t matter what party they are in. Politicians are merely legally bribed servants to the rich, powerful and wealthy, they don’t serve the people.

As Big Business controls Federal and State governments, the average voting citizen is of no significance in how the world gets ruled. Since the formation of the US Court system, corporations have been gaining more and more favor throughout jurisprudence. Laws and precedents are written to primarily protect the banks and the most powerful corporate citizens owned and controlled by the wealthiest billionaires not average individuals. One ☝ vote per person is a farce, meaningless concept, when whoever gets elected becomes influenced and controlled by billionaires and their corporations. Every once in a while the court system gets is right and rules in favor of the average citizen but even when the government hands out stimulus checks to average individuals it’s nothing compared to how much more money it’s handing out to Big Business and the billionaires who own it. I’m not a skeptic, I’m seeing the world as it is not how others want to romantically and delusionally believe it is. 

The Dark Ages are alive and well. Feudalism runs the world. Wealth determines the aristocratic order. Compared to the billionaire class, most of us barely get by and constantly toil away, have very little control and influence, and lead much smaller lives than we may realize. Only the ultra wealthy have access to freedom and choices that most of us will never have. I don’t own 7 or more $20 million homes, I can’t just leave where I live whenever I want because of Covid19 fears and fly on my private jet to my home in Tuscany or villa outside Paris or home in the Swiss Alps or beach Estate in Malibu or country Mansion outside London or my sprawling Caribbean home on my own private island or my $200 million yacht. Some of the best doctors in the world don’t take any insurance and can only be afforded by the richest people. Most average individuals can’t afford corporate tax attorneys to hide and shelter their wealth throughout the world from being taxed. The wealthy have always been able to pull strings so that their children did not get drafted in the armed forces and be forced to fight in wars. There is no end to how corrupt society is at the highest levels of power.


----------



## Mornats (Aug 14, 2020)

Am I alone in thinking that the poor payouts to musicians are the result of some dreadful negotiations/agreements between the labels and the streaming services? Spotify and others did not come along, steal all this music then started selling it. (So suing them is not the way forward.) The labels agreed to these payment terms.


----------



## JonS (Aug 14, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Am I alone in thinking that the poor payouts to musicians are the result of some dreadful negotiations/agreements between the labels and the streaming services? Spotify and others did not come along, steal all this music then started selling it. (So suing them is not the way forward.) The labels agreed to these payment terms.


If most of the biggest artists and bands pulled their music off of streaming sites then these companies and divisions would crumble. I hope that happens.


----------



## Wunderhorn (Aug 14, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> I have to play the devil's advocate for a minute



After those turds falling out of that CEO's mouth you still think they need an advocate?
Capitalism without any ethics is going back to the middle ages.



JonS said:


> If most of the biggest artists and bands pulled their music off of streaming sites then these companies and divisions would crumble. I hope that happens.



Under normal circumstances it won't... although if the pandemic keeps going on without live venues more artists might look at their streaming outlets and might start wondering where the revenues go.


----------



## Mornats (Aug 14, 2020)

JonS said:


> If most of the biggest artists and bands pulled their music off of streaming sites then these companies and divisions would crumble. I hope that happens.


Indeed, that's why I'm puzzled by things like this petition. Surely the answer is for record companies to either negotiate a better deal or strip the content from the platform, thereby killing off the platform. I suspect the reason why it's not happening is that the labels are getting an acceptable amount of money from this, even if the artists are not. That's why my attitude is to not attack the likes of Spotify, but to look at the real culprits. Spotify is a fantastic platform for the consumer in my opinion.


----------



## zigzag (Aug 14, 2020)

0.004 per play? What if you buy Spotify subscription for $10, create a playlist of only your songs and play it on repeat 24/7? If an average song duration is 3 minutes that is 20 plays per hour, 30days*24*20=14400/plays per month. Which is $57.6 of revenue per month. You make a profit of $47.6 (57.6-10) per month per account. Now outsource this to 1000 more click farmers (so they can listen to some some music while they are clicking on ads). That's $47600/month minus the farmer's %


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Aug 14, 2020)

Krayh said:


> If there are no better options, no better places. THEN QUIT. Start a new business, or go work for a boss. The prices are so low because there are enough stupid people that will work for that price.
> 
> The analogy makes perfect sense. What happens if they dont sell, they will go bankrupt indeed thats the whole point! There are just to many of them in the first place, to have a HEALTHY market some of them needs to go bankrupt, then the ones who survive will get better prices.
> 
> And one tip for you. There are ALWAYS better options, it might not be in the business you currently work in but there is plethora of options out there!


Basically "If you don't like the terms of streaming services and quit and go bankrupt"

I think there is no need for me comment, this post basically speaks for itself.
Hard to fathom that I'm living on the same planet with people "thinking" that way.


----------



## JonS (Aug 14, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Indeed, that's why I'm puzzled by things like this petition. Surely the answer is for record companies to either negotiate a better deal or strip the content from the platform, thereby killing off the platform. I suspect the reason why it's not happening is that the labels are getting an acceptable amount of money from this, even if the artists are not. That's why my attitude is to not attack the likes of Spotify, but to look at the real culprits. Spotify is a fantastic platform for the consumer in my opinion.


Spotify like similar companies is basically being allowed to steal music. I don’t think they are a wonderful company.


----------



## Krayh (Aug 14, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> Basically "If you don't like the terms of streaming services and quit and go bankrupt"
> 
> I think there is no need for me comment, this post basically speaks for itself.
> Hard to fathom that I'm living on the same planet with people "thinking" that way.



Welcome to the real world...


----------



## Mornats (Aug 14, 2020)

JonS said:


> Spotify like similar companies is basically being allowed to steal music. I don’t think they are a wonderful company.



Ha, no. This is my point. Spotify and others didn't march in and steal music. They negotiated the right to stream it. The music industry agreed to being paid a fraction of a penny per stream. This is like saying you stole a sample library from Auddict because VST Buzz are selling it at 82% off.


----------



## T-LeffoH (Aug 14, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Am I alone in thinking that the poor payouts to musicians are the result of some dreadful negotiations/agreements between the labels and the streaming services? Spotify and others did not come along, steal all this music then started selling it. (So suing them is not the way forward.) The labels agreed to these payment terms.



The deals that labels negotiate with a streaming service to have music in their catalogue on a service is not as relevant because the rates for writer royalties comes from a combination of things on the PRO side - i.e. blanket license costs to licensees & streaming royalty rates established on a country-by-country basis.

As Daryl mentioned, PROs should just refuse blanket licenses to these services. If they did, they would effectively be able to shut these services down until they agree to negotiate better rates.

Historically, one of the failures of the PROs (I believe), is their unwillingness to act more like a guild on songwriters' behalves in forcing the broader industry's hand in establishing and accepting more fairly established market rates for new business models such as streaming.

Hell, even TV and film screenwriters get better royalties from the streaming of shows due to the WGA strike in the 2000s over the development of streaming content.


----------



## Mornats (Aug 14, 2020)

T-LeffoH said:


> The deals that labels negotiate with a streaming service to have music in their catalogue on a service is not as relevant because the rates for writer royalties comes from a combination of things on the PRO side - i.e. blanket license costs to licensees & streaming royalty rates established on a country-by-country basis.
> 
> As Daryl mentioned, PROs should just refuse blanket licenses to these services. If they did, they would effectively be able to shut these services down until they agree to negotiate better rates.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the insights on that, much appreciated. Maybe the PROs need a bit of a poke on this.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 14, 2020)

Rory said:


> What you said is this:
> 
> "They [Spotify] literally have an obligation to pay as little as possible to musicians in order to fill the pockets of their shareholders."
> 
> ...



Yes, the obligation is there. It's a real thing. But you're not going to see it written or spoken as such because it _is_ ethically bankrupt.




Krayh said:


> Finally someone who gets it!



Thank you, but at the same time, I have to admit I side with the petition. Spotify has the right to operate the way they do, but we musicians also have the right to clamor for change. Personally, I can understand a flat monthly fee for non-interactive streaming, but for an unlimited interactive subscription, I think $10/month is ridiculously low. It's brilliant from a business perspective, but it undervalues both music and musicians.


----------



## Gingerbread (Aug 14, 2020)

The cause is worthy, but the method here is ineffective, and will result in nothing. Appealing to a corporation's "better angels" is a fool's errand---they don't have them.

More effective remedies include:

• A class-action lawsuit on behalf of musicians, seeking both past and future royalties, at a better rate.

• Form a shareholder bloc, and file a shareholder lawsuit

• Create a massive content-creator boycott, and shame major artists into joining it

• Personally refuse to provide content to them

• *All of the above*


A petition could be a part of the above strategy, but _only if the other steps are also taken_.


----------



## JonS (Aug 14, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Ha, no. This is my point. Spotify and others didn't march in and steal music. They negotiated the right to stream it. The music industry agreed to being paid a fraction of a penny per stream. This is like saying you stole a sample library from Auddict because VST Buzz are selling it at 82% off.


How the rates got so low doesn’t matter. What matters going forward is how to raise the rates substantially or how to put these music streaming services out of business.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Aug 14, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> • Form a shareholder bloc, and file a shareholder lawsuit



That would not happen with a publicly traded company like Spotify. Shareholders invest for one reason...a financial return.


----------



## T-LeffoH (Aug 14, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Thanks for the insights on that, much appreciated. Maybe the PROs need a bit of a poke on this.



They have been involved where they can but I believe the most complicated aspect to the problem is that these streaming services operate internationally.

And because of this PROs have to deal with the realities of different copyright laws/precedent per country and potentially legal restrictions on a country-by-country basis in how they may or may not be allowed to restrict their business or alter the terms of their licensee agreements.

NMPA has been doing a lot in the US with lobbying Congress for recently passed legislation but that is just impacting results in US. It doesn't resolve the issue of fair market compensation in the 190+ other countries.

Everybody posting on here should also probably keep in mind that there are dozens of PROs around the world who negotiate these deals with streaming services, not just BMI and ASCAP. So it really makes the aforementioned circumstances of legal precedent, deals, and negotiations that much more complicated to realize.


----------



## Mornats (Aug 14, 2020)

JonS said:


> How the rates got so low doesn’t matter. What matters going forward is how to raise the rates substantially or how to put these music streaming services out of business.



Well that's simple. Musicians should pull their content until they can negotiate better rates or the streaming services go out of business. What frustrates me is all the wining about low rates from the industry that negotiated them in the first place.


----------



## detritusdave (Aug 14, 2020)

Krayh said:


> Welcome to the real world...


Nope. This isn't a representation of the 'real world'.... that just serves to attempt to naturalise a particular ideological perspective at a particular point in history.... as if there is no other way to describe and prescribe the way things are..... you see things a certain way, fine.... it's not the only way...


----------



## Daryl (Aug 16, 2020)

Mornats said:


> Indeed, that's why I'm puzzled by things like this petition. Surely the answer is for record companies to either negotiate a better deal or strip the content from the platform, thereby killing off the platform.


Or own shares in the company. oh wait, they already do that...!


----------



## GNP (Aug 16, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> Well of course they're going to say that, but that's not how business works behind closed doors. Small business owners typically start out with the intention of providing exceptional service, treating customers right, and creating local jobs. But as the business grows and investors come on board, maximizing and sustaining profit becomes the #1 priority. Shareholders will insist on sending production to China, farming customer service out to call centers in India, buying cheaper plastic, deprecating desired features and services in favor of more profitable ones, etc.
> 
> I'm obviously generalizing here since not all business are the same, but the point I'm making is that if Spotify were to suddenly decide to increase royalty payments for moral reasons, they'd be putting their business at risk (unless they figured out how increased royalties could increase or help sustain profits.)
> 
> ...



Unfortunate, but true. Thus the vicious cycle of any system - rebels and protesters end up being the very dictators and cronies they once despised.


----------

