Follow the conversation before interjecting then?
"Unlike physical sales or
downloads, which pay artists a fixed price per song or album sold, Spotify pays royalties based on the artist's "market share"—the number of streams for their songs as a proportion of total songs streamed on the service. Spotify distributes approximately 70% of its total revenue to rights holders, who then pay artists based on their individual agreements. Multiple artists have criticised the policy, most notably
Thom Yorke and
Taylor Swift, who temporarily withdrew their music from the service"
"Spotify faces particular scrutiny due to its free service tier, which allows users to listen free with advertisements between tracks. The tier has led to a variety of major album releases being delayed or withdrawn from the service"
"Spotify has also attracted media attention for several security breaches, as well as for controversial moves including a significant change to its privacy policy, "pay-for-play" practices based on receiving money from labels for putting specific songs on popular playlists, and allegedly creating "fake artists" for prominent playlist placement, which Spotify denies"
"Spotify, together with the music streaming industry in general, faces criticism from some artists and producers, claiming they are being unfairly compensated for their work as music sales decline and music streaming increases."
"The variable (and some say unsustainable)
[4] nature of this compensation, has led to criticism. In a 2009
Guardian article, Helienne Lindvall wrote about why "major labels love Spotify", writing that the labels receive 18% of shares from the streaming company—something that artists themselves never actually receive. She further wrote that "On Spotify, it seems, artists are not equal. There are indie labels that, as opposed to the majors and
Merlin members, receive no advance, receive no minimum per stream, and only get a 50% share of ad revenue on a pro-rata basis (which so far has amounted to next to nothing)."
[5] In 2009, Swedish musician
Magnus Uggla pulled his music from the service, stating that after six months he had earned "what a mediocre
busker could earn in a day".
[6]"
"
Norwegian newspaper
Dagbladet reported in 2009 that the record label Racing Junior earned only NOK 19 (US$3.00) after their artists had been streamed over 55,100 times.
[7] According to an
infographic by David McCandless, an artist on Spotify would need over four million streams per month to earn the U.S. minimum monthly wage of $1,160.
[8] In October 2011, U.S. independent label
Projekt Records stated: "In the world I want to live in, I envision artists fairly compensated for their creations, because we (the audience) believe in the value of what artists create. The artist's passion, dedication, and expression is respected and rewarded. Spotify is NOT a service that does this. Projekt will not be part of this unprincipled concept."
[9]
"
In March 2012,
Patrick Carney of
The Black Keys said that "Spotify isn't fair to artists",
[10] and further commented that streaming services "are becoming more popular, but it still isn't at a point where you're able to replace royalties from record sales with the royalties from streams. For a band that makes a living selling music, it's not at a point where it's feasible for us."
[11] Replying to Spotify board member Sean Parker's claim that Spotify would make more money for the music industry than
iTunes, Carney said: "That guy has $2 billion that he made from figuring out ways to steal royalties from artists, and that's the bottom line. You can't really trust anybody like that."
[10] In May 2012,
British Theatre vocalist and
Biffy Clyro touring guitarist Mike Vennart stated: "I'd sooner people stole my work than stream it from [Spotify]. They pay the artists virtually nothing. Literally pennies per month. Yet they make a killing. They've forced the sales way down in certain territories, which wouldn't be so bad if the bands actually got paid."
[12]
"
Singer
David Byrne of
Talking Heads criticized streaming services such as Spotify in October 2013, writing: "If artists have to rely almost exclusively on the income from these services, they'll be out of work within a year." Byrne concluded his piece by admitting "I don't have an answer."
[13] In March 2014, American funk band
Vulfpeck exposed a loophole in Spotify's royalty calculation model. The band created an album titled
Sleepify, which consisted solely of silence. The band asked users to stream the album on a loop while they slept to increase the amount of money earned. The album was pulled by Spotify in April 2014, citing unspecified service violation. Vulfpeck had accumulated enough streams to result in around $20,000 in royalties before the album was pulled.
[14][15][16] In July 2015,
Neil Young removed almost all of his music from Spotify and other streaming services, citing low sound quality as the primary reason. He stated that he did not think his fans deserved the low quality they were receiving, and said it was bad for his music.
[17] Young's music later returned to Spotify and other streaming services.
[18]"
"Worldwide, 30.000 musicians have joined the organization UnionOfMusicians (UMAW). UMAW organized protests in 31 cities in March 2021 and its campaign #JusticeAtSpotify is demanding a compensation of one cent per stream.
[19] Moreover, they are asking for a fairer redistribution system, as smaller artists are disproportionately disadvantaged on Spotify.
[19]"
"On 29 June 2021, Digital Music News released an article titled "Spotify Executive Calls Artist 'Entitled' for Requesting Payment of One Penny Per Stream". The article covers the story of a Spotify Inventor Jim Anderson, who on 14 June 2019 responded in front of a live audience to the general allegation of unfair compensation when confronted about it by Ashley Jana, a producer/singer/songwriter who happened to be recording the event.
[20] Jim Anderson was described on the Sync Summit June 2019 Agenda as "The man who built out the system architecture of Spotify".
[21] Ashley Jana released excerpts from his response in the form of an audio recording on YouTube on 26 November 2020.
[22] Some of the comments that Jim Anderson made were the following: "So, maybe I should go down the entitlement road now? Or should I wait a few minutes?", "The problem is this. Spotify was created to solve a problem. The problem was this - piracy and music distribution. The problem was to get artists' music out there to solve a problem. The problem was not to pay people money", and "I think that Taylor Swift doesn't need .000001 cent more a stream". Following the release of the Digital Music News article, Business Insider also released their own take on the story with their article titled "Taylor Swift 'doesn't need' to earn streaming royalties according to a former Spotify boss who said the company is a distribution platform that wasn't built to pay artists money."
[23] Business Insider reported that "Spotify declined Business Insider's request for comment"."
And there is more.....in the same article. Your google search skills sucks.
So on and so forth. Nothing regarding Joe Rogan.
Scarlett Johansson sued Disney over Black Widow Disney+ release.
WB said all their movies were going to be on HBOMax then Christopher Nolan left WB due to that decision.
Tom Cruise fought for Top Gun to have a Theatrical only relase.
David Zaslav said this:
“We’ve looked hard at the direct-to-streaming business,” Zaslav said. “And our conclusion is that expensive direct-to-streaming movies in terms of how people are consuming them on the platform, how often people go there or buy it or buy a service for it and how it gets nourished over time is no comparison to what happens when you launch a film in the theaters. And so this idea of expensive films going direct-to-streaming, we cannot find an economic case for it. We can’t find an economic value for it.”
So, my statment of: Studios are trying to figure out this shit is a categoric YES. And also yes, the pandemic is irrelevant. because is about money and the machinations of how this money is distributed among all the parties.
No.
I am talking about the implications (good-bad) of game desing when a game is designed with a subscriptions service in mind.
There is nothing of truth in such statment. Is just (as i stated before) just a PR/Bullshit comment.
Talking about moving the goal post.
My comment was about how sony (the supposed blockbuster of gaming, unable to adapt to new business models) introduced PS+ before Xbox.
Futhermore they bought Gaikai showing interest or pro-activness towards streaming.
And even more, explicitly showing a plan to invest on GaaS
All this examples show a company with the oppostie quality compared to blockbuster.
Because people (as i already said to you) tend to be hyperbollic and talk in a general way .
The same as above.
Is about AAA.
And that is the point (why don't you see that?)
Q: Who are the parties involve in this shit?
A: Microsoft and Sony.
Q: What kind of games games Sony has found the biggest success in recent years? A: AAA ones.
A+B = C
Is about AAA games (first party).
I am just going to finish with this:
If Starfield comes out with a super deluxe version in which you pay 80-90 or whatever dollars to be able to play it -lets say- 5 days early: "PAY TO PLAY EARLY"
I will be proven right.
Is this way MS will circumvent the "the day one promise"
Effectively founding a way to have a paywall to play a game, have a "macro transaction" to get access to the game.
to those comments is annoying.
