I don't know how to feel about any of this.

First and foremost, I feel like Spotify is scummy. I don't like what they did when they were founded, I don't like what they do to artists.

I hate the hyperscalers being in this business (Google, Apple, Amazon) as that's another thing they do that devalues an otherwise healthy market. Bringing in outside business division revenues to dump on another market's prices is ecologically unhealthy for optimal capitalism and healthy competition.

On the one hand, while I want cheap media, I also want artists to make money. While Spotify puts real price pressure on artists, piracy brings artists absolutely nothing at all.

I get Gabe's value prop with Valve. Make the service easy, cheap, convenient, good, and piracy begins to diminish.

But if there are cheap services and cheap avenues (that still underpay artists), why then switch to a mode that pays artists nothing at all?

Do Bandcamp. Buy merch. Do something to support the artists. I feel like paying piracy services is the opposite of that.

But ethical quandary - doesn't Anna's Archive also support spreading research papers, etc.?

Complicated feelings.

I wish we had better ways to pay originators of things. Art, music, authors, researchers, ICs, ...

I feel like studios and middlemen and companies themselves are entities that exist because rewarding work or value or happiness at the site of exchange is hard/intangible.

> I don't like what they do to artists.

Global distribution. For $40/year. That was fucking unheard of 20 years ago. Spotify is the best thing that ever happened to artists. Don't let the mediocre one's who blame their lack of success on Spotify fool you. They don't make money because they likely suck and can't book dates because no one wants to see them.

I’d love to see a streaming service where my payment goes to artists I listen to.

Spotify pays 70% of their music revenue to publishers based on the total number of listens. All revenue is put together and split based on the global numbers. Which means that niche band I like will get next to nothing. Instead if they account for 50% of my listening time in one month, they should get 35% of what I paid to Spotify that month. Unfortunately big labels will never agree to that.

> I don't like what they do to artists

Not sure if you're aware, but it's the labels, not Spotify:

> It pays roughly two-thirds of every dollar it generates from music, with nearly 80% allocated to recording royalties and about 20% to publishing, though how much artists and songwriters ultimately receive depends on their agreements with rights holders, which Spotify does not control. [0]

Spotify is frantically trying to escape the record label's death grip (hence podcasts), because they know they can squeeze it for just about anything with licensing deals. It's a terrible business model! Spotify keeps a third for their costs (& finally some profit in the past year or two), ie. about the same that Apple takes from App Store for basically nothing[1].

How the record labels convinced the world that Spotify is the bad guy here is beyond belief.

--

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sofiachierchio/2026/01/28/spoti...

[1] Certainly app store costs are nothing when compared to the infrastructure that Spotify needs.

I've always liked China's business model for music. In China, all music is free to stream and download. Musicians make their money the more traditional way, through performances, merchandise, promotions/advertising, etc.

If I like an artist I buy a physical copy of the album.

I just brought Light Years on cassette by Nas.

I’m an hobbyist musician and I’m going to sell actual cassettes and donate the profits. I’m never going to get the 500 million streams you need to make money off Spotify

people that get their music from AA would never buy it or pay spotify for it, so the "loss" is completely imaginary. same goes for movies, videogames etc

> piracy brings artists absolutely nothing at all.

This has historically been unclear. Lots of artists make more money from touring and merchandise than from record sales, and piracy is likely to boost those.

> why then switch to a mode that pays artists nothing at all? Do Bandcamp. Buy merch. Do something to support the artists.

I don't like this perspective because it puts the onus on the individual consumer. Many people who listen to music struggle to make ends meet. They do not have the extra money to afford buying albums off of bandcamp, yet they are contributing members of society and they deserve to be able to listen to music.

Meanwhile there are billions of dollars floating around in the music industry. Spotify absolutely has the spare cash to pay their artists more; they just choose not to.

As much as I love the idea of Gabe's "piracy is a service issue" philosophy, I think the real truth is likely that piracy is an issue of capitalism and wealth inequality.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that many more people want to create music, than the number of artists that people want to listen to.

So there’s a heavy supply/demand imbalance, and distribution/discovery thrives there.

The entire record industry is scum and Spotify is just a part of that. It can just die a swift death, would be for the best. Bandcamp is much better. Much lower barrier to entry for everyone and it has my favorite artists.

> First and foremost, I feel like Spotify is scummy. I don't like what they did when they were founded, I don't like what they do to artists.

> While Spotify puts real price pressure on artists,

You know that Spotify doesn't pay artists, right? That Spotify pays 70% of its revenue to rights holders before it sees a single cent itself? And that it's rights holders who pay artists?

I wish the angry pitchfork mob for once managed to attack the actual culprits: the Big Four. Nope, that day will never come.

[dead]