Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfraze | Hacker News Reader

If only we had some kind of machine that was capable of computing these complex models for us...

EDIT: my point being, if the model is fairer, we can deal with a little extra complexity.

It's a zero sum game. Spotify isn't going to pay any more in total, no matter how the rules change. That means for every winner under a new scheme, there will be a loser. If those losers are the popular artists that the service can't exist without, you have a non-starter.

Wow great catch on the the fact that any system that results in necessary artists being payed less, simply won't happen if Spotify wants to continue existing. Really applies to the entire scope of the article and not just the comment you replied to.

That assumes that those artists are already on the verge of quitting spotify, which is a bad omen for the continued existence no matter what.

It would be up to the smaller artists and their fans to pressure this change, and I'd bet there are some popular artists willing to join the cause at a small personal loss. It's good to consider the incentives, but people are invested in having an equitable society as well.

> That means for every winner under a new scheme, there will be a loser.

No, that doesn't follow. Imagine one artist is receiving all the money, and the other 10,000 artists are receiving none. Spotify could move to another payment model that would result in 10,000 winners and one loser.

Not really. Right now streaming services barely manage to pay even the top artists anything meaningful. This scheme would mean everyone gets paid barely anything, and the bigger artists may leave, which is an existential threat to the business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com