Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Spotify are aggressively exploiting artists and yet they are not making money. Not sustainable, and it's not really suprising. If someone offers you all the music of the world for 10 bucks that is just too good to be true. I closed my Spotify account because I didn't want to be complicit in the exploitation of artists. I'm now using Qobuz ($20/month) and hope that they are paying more fairly (couldn't find any numbers, though). $20 per month still doesn't feel right to me, but unfortunately there are no better options.


> Spotify are aggressively exploiting artists

Many of my favorite bands love Spotiy, going as far as making it the platform they pre-release music on and back-catalog out of print albums. Why? It's an engine for discovery unlike anything else. A lot of people were pirating music not because they were cheap but because it gets too expensive to drop $20 to figure out if you like an album. Spotify also rewards the right behavior -- if you make the kind of album I want to listen to over and over you get a bigger return. It also automatically notifies your fans of new releases and nearby concerts which puts more money in your pocket. It's a different model than the record labels but it's far from "aggressive exploitation".


> Spotify are aggressively exploiting artists...

What do you mean by that?

And separately, is it better or worse or the same as how the music industry has exploited artists over the years?


I'm not defending the music industry. They deserve to die. But, yes, Spotify is worse. At least that's what all musicians I talk to are telling me unison.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: