Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdcravens | Hacker News Reader

Youtube pays 2/10th of a penny (on average) per stream to artists (and most platforms pay more)

https://virpp.com/hello/music-streaming-payouts-comparison-a...

I expected this reply and it's good to debate the fairness of platforms towards artists, but I don't really want to get into that.

My point is that if you're freeloading music then the artist gets precisely 0.00 which is less even than the worst platform.

I would have to do more research to confirm, but I believe the platforms pay the artist for all streams, not just premium ones. In that case, you’re only stealing from the platform.

Again to clarify I'm also referring to the listener who uses some means to download the content locally to consume and therefore doesn't rely on any platform to use the content.

Ok, much of the conversation in this thread revolves around accessing streaming services via adblockers rather than downloading files.

Fair. To be honest I'm only half paying attention here sitting in the pub doing open mic

It's a pitiful amount.

I listened to 7000 tracks last year (I think that's well above average), so if that had been on YouTube it would have given $14 to the artists.

People used to spend more on music, even if they only bought a couple of CDs a year.

Is that for streams to free users or premium ones?

That's unclear. Playing any recorded music typically requires a license fee to be paid even when it's "free" to the listener (for instance, the radio or a public venue)

Spotify pays based on payments from Premium users, as well as ad revenue. I presume others have similar arrangements.

https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com