Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
>> I want an even playing field where everyone gets the same rates.

So no freedom for artists that want to market themselves with higher or lower rates? Should the Taylor Swifts of the world not be free to negotiate higher rates? Should not the upstart be able to accept a lower rate in hopes that doing so will get their music more recommended/played by the service?

For a radio-type service, I don't think anyone should be able to negotiate higher rates. I think there should be mandatory licensing.

For negotiating a lower rate... I wouldn't try to make it illegal, but I still don't like it. I have no particular reason to think it will be an upstart or an entity that you could say 'deserves' more attention. And taking less money for more exposure doesn't sound like something I want to encourage.

loading story #42483422
This is further complicated by how Spotify actually divvies up payments.

If they did it proportionally per subscriber you’d suddenly find money being distributed in a much fairer way.

Instead they divvy it up on a global aggregate basis so even if I were to pay the subscription and just listen to indie artists, my money goes towards pop megastars and artificial slop.

This is the actual problem, and something that should be properly regulated.

I would hope that the money I paid, after the Spotify cut, went to the artists/labels that own the music I actually listen to, proportionally.

The fact that it goes to some Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga annoys me more than Spotify adding their own slop to slop playlists.

The proper regulation is copyright expiring after 10 years.
I don't see how that does anything but fuck over artists and allow corporations to exploit them even further.
“Artists” are not a monolith. For example, music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it. This reduces spend available for new artists.

Excessive copyright terms go from incentivizing creating art to incentivizing rent seeking. Society also spends a ton more resources litigating disputes and avoiding them.

This seems like an incredible naive way of thinking about how artists should be rewarded for their work.

> music streaming services have to spend most of their money on artists that performed many decades ago, otherwise no one will buy it

Music streaming services should spend their money on artists their customers are listening to, however old that music happens to be.

> however old

Eh, I don't think there's a very convincing argument that the world is better off paying artists for things that were made more than 50 years ago.

(Yes I know the person above said 10, I think 10 is too aggressive.)

Probably depends on whether or not they’re still alive after whatever arbitrary time period and some other factors, sure
Wouldn't the Taylor Swifts of the world get more money at the same rate, due to being streamed more?

The unknown upstart's stuff is not being searched for and played. Is that not already the lower rate that they accept? Does the revenue also have to be lower from those few plays they got?

Theoretically, it does not have to be.

Practically, the big names are not going to accept less than the maximum they can get. Just like almost all people would if they were negotiating multiple equivalent job offers.