Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- spotify [2026/09/01 11:16] – ultracomfy
+++ spotify [2026/09/15 11:57] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 <fs xx-large>Spotify</fs></WRAP>
-Spotify is a music licensing and streaming service from Sweden, founded in 2006. Spotify launched during a time dominated by peer-to-peer filesharing using applications such as Limewire or Kazaa. Limewire and Kazaa made it possible for users to easily share files, including audio, between users directly //for free//. While this was great for many users, it came with multiple drawbacks. **For one**, filesharing is rather risky business because you do not know who is sitting on the other end of the connection, and you do not know the exact contents of the file you received. While you could see the file name, file extension and the file size, any information beyond that was hard to ascertain and you always risked malware intrusion. **Secondly**, filesharing like this is illegal because it constitutes piracy. As an end user, you were at risk of getting sued yourself (though that happened much less than they had wanted you to believe), and you also knew that Limewire and Kazaa were not permanent solutions, as those were going to be shot down eventually as well.
+Spotify is a music licensing and streaming service from Sweden founded in 2006, a time dominated by peer-to-peer filesharing using applications such as Limewire or Kazaa. Limewire and Kazaa were programs that let two and more users send files to each other directly, making it possible for users to very easily share audio between users, directly, //for free//. While this was great the users, it came with multiple drawbacks that Spotify would later solve. For example, of these drawbacks was that filesharing is rather risky business. You do not know who is sitting on the other end of the connection, and you do not know the exact contents of the file you received. While you could see the file name, file extension and the file size, any information beyond that was hard to ascertain, and the user always risked malware intrusion. **Secondly**, filesharing like this is illegal because it constitutes piracy. As an end user, you were at risk of getting sued yourself (though that happened much less than they wanted you to believe), but much more problematic was that Limewire and Kazaa were going to be shut down over copyright lawsuits. Therefore, programs like these were only temporary solutions.
-Spotify provided a convenient alternative: For the low low price of nine dollars and ninety-nine cents, you could listen to all the music for free, legally, and on-the-fly. Of course people don't //want// to pirate - if they can find a way to listen to their music and make sure the artist gets paid, that would be ideal. Spotify offered all that. Remember that, before Limewire and Kazaa, you had to buy CD's. With Spotify, you could now listen to virtually all the music. Whether you listened to 20 songs from what would be just one CD, or 500 songs from 500 different CD's, you were still paying the fixed price of 9.99, and you wouldn't have to go through the hassle of either switching around CD's or downloading all these tracks manually, which was always kind of risky with Limewire or Kazaa. In many respects, Spotify was objectively cheaper and a natural evolution for both the consumer and the industry. ....and the industry.
+Spotify provided a convenient alternative: For the low low price of nine dollars and ninety-nine cents, you could listen to all the music for free, legally, and on-the-fly. One of the particular advantages of this is that, fundamentally, users don't //want// to pirate. In the same way that commuters don't //want// to fare dodge, it is often a hostile environment (ie. things cost too much) that would compel people into doing it anyway. However, if users can find a way to listen to their music and make sure the artist gets paid, that would be ideal. Spotify offered all that at a reasonable rate. This was in part because music production, so far, required expensive storage mediums such as CD's. But with Spotify, you could now listen to virtually all the music. Whether you listened to 20 songs from what would be just one CD, or 500 songs from 500 different CD's, you were still paying the fixed price of 9.99, and you wouldn't have to go through the hassle of either switching around CD's or downloading all these tracks manually, which was always kind of risky with Limewire or Kazaa. In many respects, Spotify was objectively cheaper and a natural evolution for both the consumer and the industry. ....and the industry.
 ====== 1. Monetization ======
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 </WRAP>
 {{page>Templates:Accuracy}}
-So, back in the day you would have bought a disc, a digital album, a cassette or even a record. This could have been a ~15€ purchase and then you'd stick that into the playback device of your choice and you'd be good to go. These 15€ would go to the label of the artist, who has a contract with the artist regulating their payout. In general, a label needs to balance its spending on manufacturing (CD's or cassettes cost money), employees, equipment etc. with their spending on the artist. This hasn't changed today (except you don't pay for CD's or cassettes anymore), but with Spotify in the mix it's now a bit more complicated. Consider this example: Instead of buying a disc, you now pay 13€ to Spotify and listen to Artist A exactly one time. Then, you log off and don't use Spotify for the rest of the month. At the end of the month it's payout time: First things first, Spotify takes a 30% cut for the amazing service they provide you with. Then the remaining 70% should go Artist A, right? Well, that would be the fair thing to do, but Spotify is smarter than that.
+So, back in the day you would have bought a disc, a digital album, a cassette or even a record. This could have been a ~15€ purchase and then you'd stick that into the playback device of your choice and you'd be good to go. These 15€ would go to the label of the artist, who has a contract with the artist regulating their payout. In general, a label needs to balance its spending on manufacturing (CD's or cassettes cost money), employees, equipment etc. with their spending on the artist. This hasn't changed today (except you don't pay for CD's or cassettes anymore), but with Spotify in the mix it's now a bit more complicated. Consider this example: Instead of buying a disc, you now pay 13€((12.99€, as of September 15, 2026)) to Spotify and listen to Artist A exactly one time. Then, you log off and don't use Spotify for the rest of the month. At the end of the month it's payout time: First things first, Spotify takes a 30% cut for the amazing service they provide you with. The remaining 70% are distributed to the artists/their labels in a way very intelligently designed and calculated by Spotify.
 When you listen to music from Artist A, your "listen" is thrown into the pool of //all// listens out there. This means that if you listen to Artist A once, and you are Artist A's only listener, Artist A will get paid the same as every other Artist on Spotify that had only one listen. Even though you paid the price of what could have been a full CD from Artist A, they now get 0,004€((Based on various sources that claim an average rate of 0,003 to 0,005 per play.)) and the remaining <wrap lo>12,99€ - 30% - 0,004€ ≈</wrap> 9,93€ now go to Taylor Swift((This is a joke on the basis that Taylor Swift is the most streamed businessperson on Spotify, which means that she will get the largest cut. I am using "Taylor Swift" here as a stand-in for all the largest and large creators on the platform.)).
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 The way this works is that the total amount of money collected from end users is, at the end of the month, distributed to all artists equally, proportionally to their share in plays. This isn't about how many plays they got in absolute terms, it's about how many plays they got in comparison to everyone else. Example: If 30% of all plays in a month go to Taylor Swift (completely made up number), she will get 30% of the available money. So, regardless of how much you play Artist A, 30% of your money put into the platform //will// go to Taylor Swift. Trying to change this, for example by inflating Artist A's numbers (which is mathematically impossible to do legally)((Even if you go out of your way to listen to your favorite artist a lot to bolster their numbers. Not only would 1000 listens or 10,000 listens barely make a dent in the overall percentages, you as someone trying to help are still competing with listeners from other artists, who do the same thing. Proportionally, you're just cancelling each other out. And, funnily enough, that doesn't even matter because you will //never// outcompete stream farming bots who can inflate stream numbers at unimaginable rates.)). Spotify has - of course by "accident" - created a [[zero-sum]] game that will make everyone pay the big ones while small artists are fighting over the scraps. And the cool thing about //not// being one of the big artists is that it is essentially impossible to become one, because to do that you would have to the percentage of plays of other artists. If Artist A does somehow win, then that by design means that other artists will get (proportionally) less plays((And sure, they may get more plays in absolute terms, but that means nothing if you still get less of a share.)). If you, as an artist, become successful, you are doing that by increasing your proportional share of plays, which necessarily comes out of the share of plays of everyone else.
-You can imagine this as trying to sell books from your garage, but you only get 0,004€ per book sale - not because your books are shit, but because Amazon just sells //more//. Amazon has whole warehouses of books that they sell using freighters, planes and trucks, and because they sell 99,999999999% of books in the book market, you're just shit outta luck. Again, not because there is a problem with your books, it's solely because you're not the monopoly holder. In music terms, this means that even if you are a local legend and hold concerts in your hometown with a few thousand listeners from your community, that still only puts you ahead of 0,00000245% of artists on Spotify. Therefore you get paid like a 0,00000245%.\\
+You can imagine this as trying to sell books from your garage, but you only get 0,004€ per book sale - not because your books are shit, but because Amazon just sells //more//. Your books are perfectly fine and you could easily sell them - depending on the book - for between 5€ and 50€ but, because you only sell 3 books, you can only sell them for 0,004€ per book because, on the same day, Amazon sells 5 Million books (I don't know what the real number is). You would be a big winner if Amazon only sold 2 books themselves, but as long as your sale volume is as low as it is, you have to accept selling a 25€ at 0,004€.
+In music terms, this means that even if you are a local legend and hold concerts in your hometown with a few thousand listeners from your community, that still only puts you ahead of 0,00000245% of artists on Spotify. Therefore you get paid like a 0,00000245%.\\
 Making Spotify a zero-sum((ie. capitalistic)) game means that it is - by design of the structure - impossible to win.
 ====== 2. Consolidation of power structures ======
-Another thing about Spotify is that people like its algorithm. We get music recommendations from Spotify, which has a pretty big influence over what kind of music people listen to. As an outstanding observer... Isn't it convenient how Spotify is structured in a way to benefit big artists and, with its algorithm, also gets executive control over who the biggest artists are in the first place? Like, it just so happens that Spotify went out of its way to create a monetization "system" that works like an oligarchy and with its recommendation system also has a major, if not overwhelmingly large, say in who becomes an oligarch? And here is a little, dark secret that you may not even want to know - if they control who most people listen to... they also control who will //not// be listened to. So, uh, any bets on who we think is **not** going to get recommended a lot by the algorithm? Because, I think I have the hunch that Spotify will like to use its algorithm to reinforce the rigid and hostile monetization structure.
+Another thing about Spotify is that people like its algorithm. We get music recommendations from Spotify, which has a pretty big influence over what kind of music people listen to. Now, I'm an outstanding observer, and I see how much people rely on the algorithm, a program designed and deployed by Spotify, giving them a lot of power over what people listen to. It makes me think... Isn't it convenient how Spotify is structured in a way to benefit big artists and, with its algorithm, also gets executive control over who the biggest artists are in the first place? Like, it just so happens that Spotify went out of its way to create a monetization "system" that works like an oligarchy and with its recommendation system also has a major, if not overwhelmingly large, say in who becomes an oligarch? And here is a little, dark secret that you may not even want to know - if they control who most people listen to... they also control who will //not// be listened to. So, uh, any bets on who we think is **not** going to get recommended a lot by the algorithm? Because, I think I have the hunch that Spotify will like to use its algorithm to reinforce the rigid and hostile monetization structure.
-Because, this isn't so much about the exact names of the oligarchs at the top as it is about keeping the total number of oligarchs low. The goal is closing the door behind yourself so that the top keep earning a lot more than anyone else.
+Because, ultimately, this isn't so much about the exact names of the oligarchs at the top as it is about keeping the total number of oligarchs low. The goal is closing the door behind yourself so that the top keep earning a lot more than anyone else.
 The invisible loser is, always, the local legend, the community rock band or even just renowned bands from your state (especially those). Ask any //actual music person// who is passionate about their work and wants to immerse themselves and others with their artistic way of self-expression - nobody, **nobody** likes Spotify. The only reason they use it is because they have to. If you don't, you get overrun by the monopoly and eventually have to close down.
@@ Line 37: / Line 39: @@
 ====== 3. Loss of ownership, loss of control and prisoners in walled gardens ======
-<wrap lo>Satirical, made up strawman person:</wrap> "But, you know, who cares about local artists, right? Those are all pussies, anyway. If you don't make enough you're not working hard enough. They should improve their music and cut down on unnecessary expenses. Less Netflix, it's a distraction, anyway. **I** make enough money to pay for a monthly Spotify membership and I get all the service I want. I get the music I care about, I can listen to it at 256kbit/s as opposed to the peasantly 128kbit/s (and can definitely hear the difference), the music I listen to is only from people who actually made it as individuals, so I don't have to listen to the riffraff."
+As much as Spotify is designed to not compensate small artists, it is also problematic on a societal level. Spotify puts a price tag on not just listening to music that month, but on listening to music at all, for as long as they can keep you tied to their platform. The problem here is that having 12.99€ in a month for music is a //privilege//, not the norm.
-The problem in reality is, unfortunately, that you and I are riffraff ourselves. The same structural mechanics keeping people from earning livable wages on Spotify is (just about) why you and I are barely making any money in our own lives. If you can buy a Spotify membership you may not be a Taylor Swift, but you definitely enjoy a good amount of [[privilege]]. That's good for you, but in this case the privilege is **required**. For many of us this problem is real. Very real. Some of us have to accept massive cuts in their quality of life if they want to do something as basic as listening to music through Spotify. And this may sound acceptable if you consider that Spotify is a service offered to you, but people have their entire music library on there. If you stop paying for Spotify for //whatever// reason, then that's it for you (Covid happens? Trump tariffs happen? Inflation? Price hike? Job loss? Healthcare/Surgery costs? Had to fix your washing machine? Just "didn't get as lucky and were born into a poor household"? Make your pick!). Even the music you downloaded, it's gone, you're //fucked//. You do not own anything on Spotify. When you submit yourself to Spotify, you accept that Spotify is in control of your access to music. If they don't like your face, or if you stop paying the membership fee for any of the three quadrillion possible reasons, you get kicked out.
+In the same way that small artists get fucked on Spotify, we get fucked when we put ourselves under the employement of another company. Admittedly, if you can buy a Spotify membership you may not be a Taylor Swift, but you definitely enjoy a good amount of [[privilege]]. That's good for you, but in this case the privilege is **required**. For many of us this problem is real. Very real. Some of us have to accept massive cuts in their quality of life if they want to do something as basic as listening to music through Spotify. And this may sound acceptable if you consider that Spotify is a service offered to you, but people have their entire music library on there. If you stop paying for Spotify for //whatever// reason, then that's it for you (Covid happens? Trump tariffs happen? Inflation? Price hike? Job loss? Healthcare/Surgery costs? Had to fix your washing machine? Just "didn't get as lucky and were born into a poor household"? Make your pick!). Even the music you downloaded is gone. You do not own anything on Spotify. When you submit yourself to Spotify, you accept that Spotify is in control of your access to music. If they don't like your face, or if you stop paying the membership fee for any of the three quadrillion possible reasons, you get kicked out.
-When you're kicked out, you're done. Spotify is a deliberately designed walled garden with no way of migrating to another platform easily. You do anything on Spotify that you care about - for example finding new music or creating playlists - then now that's it. You have to keep paying Spotify until the end of your life, 13€ per month. If you live another 60 years then you'll be paying 9360€ just to keep being allowed to listen to your music. Does any normal person ever get close to spending anywhere that much on music? My friend, you could buy a car from that and listen to music on any other platform instead. Subscription prices rack up fast. And if you fail to pay, at any time, for any reason, you're excluded from the party.
+Spotify is a deliberately designed walled garden with no way of migrating to another platform easily. You do anything on Spotify that you care about - for example finding new music or creating playlists - then now that's it. You have to keep paying Spotify until the end of your life, 13€ per month. If you live another 60 years then you'll be paying 9360€ just to keep being allowed to listen to your music. Does any normal person ever get close to spending anywhere that much on music? My friend, you could buy a car from that and listen to music on any other platform instead. Subscription prices rack up fast. And if you fail to pay, at any time, for any reason, you're excluded from the party.
 And also, you will listen to music the way //Spotify// wants you to. So you will be using //their// audio player, regardless of whether you like it, you will //not// be getting access to the actual audio files to use them in personal/private projects, Spotify controls for you which music they allow or disallow on their platform, and if you want to do //anything// with their music you will use only the tools Spotify gives you to do it. If their tools don't allow you to do what you want to do, then you're just another subscription-paying customer. Spotify killed its external API's and 3rd party playback support. Everything is kept proprietary so that only Spotify has control over how their product is used((Which, to be clear, isn't inherently wrong, but makes the product inherently shitty.)). If Spotify changes their tune in the future and becomes more predatory to the consumers, either through monetization practices or restriction of functionality, then you can be outraged for a bit, but then you will go back to paying the membership again, because that's what you'll do anyway.
@@ Line 51: / Line 53: @@
 ====== 4. Piracy ======
-To executives, piracy is a variable to consider in business, not a matter of ethics where we are trying to "do the right thing" or "care about the artists" (right, about that...). Remember, these are the same kind of people that would prefer people dying and paying for the resulting lawsuits, rather than paying for proper staffing, maintenance and safety checks. You know, unlike executives, people are conceptually actually willing to do the right thing (especially when you make it as convenient as Spotify does). People be willing to pay if companies get the pricing right. That's why Spotify is working, at least a little bit, to reduce piracy.
+To executives, piracy is a variable to consider in business, not a matter of ethics where we are trying to "do the right thing" or "care about the artists" (right, as if they haven't designed a monetization model that goes out of its way to fuck them over). Remember, these are the same kind of people that would prefer people dying and paying for the resulting lawsuits, rather than paying for proper staffing, maintenance and safety checks. You know, unlike executives, people are conceptually actually willing to do the right thing (especially when you make it as convenient as Spotify does). People are willing to pay if companies get the pricing right. That's why Spotify is working, at least a little bit, to reduce piracy.
-Ultimately though, Spotify is another in a long list trying profit at your expense, with the objective "Reduce piracy" being a literal stand-in for "maximize profit margins", **not** whatever **you** think is good about reducing piracy.
+Ultimately though, Spotify is another in a long list of companies trying profit at your expense, with the objective "Reduce piracy" being a literal stand-in for "maximize profit margins". Whatever good **you** think lessening piracy will do is **not** what Spotify is aiming for. You might think less piracy means artists get paid, but that is //not// the case with Spotify, //even// when it demonstrably //does// reduce piracy.
 //If you want, continue reading on [[Spotify (Level 2)]]//