Hacker News Reader

For those of us who don't know about the threshold and might think it's something outrageous -- it's 1000 streams, which translates to ~$3.

You're right, it's not outrageous, but I'd argue theft at any size is still wrong.

I think it's likely they kept this number very low specifically to keep people arguing about whether or not the amount was important, versus if it was OK to be doing in the first place.

It’s basically a <= $3 publishing fee that’s refunded if minimum success is achieved. Professionally producing a track typically costs thousands (I have musician friends).

(I am a musician) I think you’re missing the point. I already pay a publishing fee to my distributor.

I honestly fail to see why it’s wrong for Spotify to adjust their commission structure to slightly favor more successful artists just because you have paid a third-party multi-channel distributor. Ask your distributor to renegotiate (over $3)?

The positioning is wrong though, in my relationship, Spotify is the third-party.

A third-party that used to pay for streams of my music, has decided to, instead change their terms, and use my music to generate more revenue (which in this case they are using to pay other artists, which is very strategic of them, because now they don’t have to pay those other artists more from their own pockets).

I negotiated with my distributor, distrokid, And paid to have my music distributed to services that pay for streams of my songs.

Suddenly one of these services altered their terms to the above.

And just to clarify, I’m not trying to be difficult. The fact of the matter is that my content has been taken by a third-party, and instead of paying out based off of an agreement, they have decided to take money from the content, creator, and instead use it to pay other artists (it is my strong suspicion that they did in order to not have to pay for transactions, even though this was all part of the arrangement from the beginning).

They have effectively saved themselves $40 million and more popular artists feel better because they are making more money, and the only people that lose out are people that have no real leverage in the situations.

I completely agree three dollars is very little money and is pretty insignificant. But it doesn’t change the fact that this was very strategic and the money that is generated is coming from creators, who have paid to have their content hosted, in exchange for money generation.

If you remember how big of a deal limewire was, this is a similar situation for songs under 1000 streams per year. It is distribution of music, without the consent of the artist, and worse off the platform is monetizing it and the artist does not get that money.

This is a very different situation than something like YouTube ad sense paying out after 1000 views, given that a content creator directly uploads content to YouTube and agrees to their terms.

Well, when you published your stuff you have certainly signed a contract saying that terms may change in the future. Hell, Spotify may even shutter in the future.

The argument that this is only benefitting “popular artists” and hurting small artists is really quite misleading here. It invokes the Taylor Swift against everyone else image, but it’s really not that. This friend of mine is very far from a big shot, but when she publishes a new title, she posts it on social media, and within the hour, probably minutes actually, the 1000-stream threshold is hit. And they’re giving a year… I don’t have stats but I have a feeling that this is going to primarily hit borderline plagiarizing (or actually plagiarizing) content mills than real artists. Not passing any judgement on you naturally, I don’t even know if you’re quitting out of principle or practicality.

It's not really about the $3 to the artist. Spotify gets value from having all that material in their inventory, and doesn't pay anyone for it, and it wasn't a natural resource that they harvested, someone had to create it.

Actually worse, they say they do pay someone for it, they spread it among the other creators who they ARE paying.

You could try to think up ways to rationalize it like "publishing fee", but I don't see any reason why anyone should.

Do they actually pocket it, or do they roll it over to the next pay period until it reaches the threshold?

All royalties are in a pool. They go to artists that meet the threshold. Also, the 1000 streams threshold is for a year.

Is it 1000 streams for a track or the artist?

1000 stream per year per song. 2/3 of all music will be demonetized. There’s very successful artists with lots of songs in their back catalogs that don’t hit that threshold.

And pointing how low the royalties are is not a valid argument for not paying artists anything!

A small correction, from the article mentioned in the post, the $40m is not going to Spotify, it is going to the other artists with more than 1000 streams annually.

Updated my comment, thanks

correction to your correction…that $40 million will mostly end up in the hands of the record labels that have pushed this change.

Sounds like your beef should be with Distrokid not Spotify.

distrokid charges a flat fee to put your stuff on the distributors. they're holding up their end

spotify is distributing without paying the artists

Correct. Distrokid isn't the problem here, they've not altered any terms.

I’d only argue that Distrokid and other distributors are part of the problem though. They should be advocating vigorously for their clients and I haven’t seen any of them put out any kind of statement about this.

Unfortunately, this is actually a problem because of the legacy format of distribution for music. In order to add contact to classic music sales platforms like iTunes, you needed to go through a music distribution platform. CDBaby is a good example of an older 2010s company that offered similar services.

When streaming became an option, music distribution platforms that appeal to a lower barrier of entry became more popular.

If the industry were refreshed today, it would make more sense to directly upload content directly to the streaming platform, like Apple Music or Spotify, just like we do with social networks.

Unfortunately, this put Spotify in a weird position because while they are a distributor, they are a secondary distributor. Unlike YouTube, or other platforms that directly host the content. (yes, I know they're hosting the audio files, but they are still secondary, because distro kid is primary).

Again, I pay for distro kid, everyone who uploads music to platforms, pays their distributor. So unfortunately, it's more complex than monetization and ownership rates around content on YouTube or something like that.

I'm sure they'll miss you given you weren't even breaking their pitifully low stream threshold for payout. If you don't like the platform's terms, don't choose them as a place you want DistroKid to put your music. This comment is so entitled and pathetic.

> If you don't like the platform's terms, don't choose them as a place you want DistroKid to put your music.

That's precisely what he's going to do. Did you read the comment?

> This comment is so entitled and pathetic.

Ironic.

Pitifully low stream threshold? They are about to demonetize 2/3 of all tracks on their platform.