We use the label's songs till we get a 100m uniques, by which time we can tell the labels who is listening to their music where, and then turn around and charge them for the very data we got from them, ensuring that what we pay them in total for streaming is less than what they pay us for data mining.
This part doesn't quite make sense to me. Besides being news to me that this is their business model, how could it possibly be that UMG is willing to pay more for the data about a song play than they charge for that play?
I think the data helps determine terrestrial radio playlists - it's what made last.fm an attractive acquisition. It may also help with targeting certain demographics and geographics with music in advertising, tv and film.
I hope you aren't upset about this revelation.The quality of their service is pretty high, I don't recall ads, nor do I recall having to pay a subscription fee.
If you are discomfited by it, take comfort knowing that the only reason they get money for it is they are selling the amalgamation of what thousands (millions?) of listeners chose; from the sound of it, you are going to be completely invisible among the masses.
This part doesn't quite make sense to me. Besides being news to me that this is their business model, how could it possibly be that UMG is willing to pay more for the data about a song play than they charge for that play?