Spotify to Pay Songwriters About $150 Million Less Next Year With Premium, Duo, Family Plan Changes
www.billboard.com
Spotify will potentially pay songwriters about $150 million less in U.S. mechanical royalties next year after bundling its plans with audiobooks.

When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.

By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
    91·
    7 months ago

    Spotify can die in a fire for all I care. Sail the high seas and if you like an artist buy physical releases/merch/tickets.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      7 months ago

      I still buy everything on CD that I can get from good bands. Nothing beats CD quality and durability. My CDs from 30+ years ago still play just fine except for the few that have too many scratches from abuse.

      After I get a new CD I rip it to high quality MP3 and add it to my personal streaming library.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        7 months ago

        I’ve seen quite a few download codes included with vinyl releases that have 24 bit wav/flac files available. Some will even offer 88.2/96kHz files.

        You could argue that the quality difference isn’t detectable between those and an MP3 rip of a CD though.

    • jumjummy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      15·
      7 months ago

      So instead of having the artists make the small per stream income, you suggest they get $0? Buying their releases/merch/tickets is irrelevant to the platform. If anything, the model of these streaming platforms is just further shifting to advertisement for artists to drive people to shows.

        • jumjummy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          7 months ago

          Of course they do, but those suggested options are the same for Spotify users too. I’m not seeing the connection here unless you’re saying Spotify users are less likely to buy merch or tickets. Pirate what you want, but trying to spin the argument this way is just disingenuous.

          Edit: and to add to this, I would argue that platforms like Spotify and other subscription models are key ways for new people to be introduced to a bad. (Short of having your song blow up on something like Tik Tok of course)

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
            12·
            7 months ago

            Pirate what you want, but trying to spin the argument this way is just disingenuous.

            I’m not following you. Spotify is notorious for paying out very little to artists, so therefore they don’t deserve my business, fuck 'em.

            Instead I like to support the artists directly.

            As to your second point, I’ve never had a problem discovering new music.

            • jumjummy@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              7 months ago

              My point is people saying “Spotify doesn’t pay artists enough so just pirate everything” is disingenuous. Nothing about paying for a platform (Spotify, TIDAL, Apple, YouTube, etc.) precludes you from supporting artists through other means as well.

              The second point didn’t imply that this is the o ly way to discover music, but it absolutely is an avenue where many people discover new artists.