• Gravitywell.xYz@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Its mostly Sony, UMG, and all the other leeches who would get paid less for their share holders.

    I dont feel like editing the image but imagine the guy with most of the cookies in this picture was UMG and the artists are the guy on the right.

    • Mihies@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes, sure, but if those don’t get paid, artists don’t get paid. And artists are not forced to pick a label, they are free to go solo, but they still prefer labels, so it’s not that black and white labels bad, artists good

      • cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I’m not sure how you think Spotify compensation works, but it is not a “one stream and you get paid”-deal, but rather a revenue share model where artists are compensated from a large pool by total streams. The main share of your Spotify monthly subscription that goes to compensating artists goes to Taylor Swift, Bad Bunny etc. Being a top listener to your favorite, but underground band contributes negligibly to what they actually get paid.

        If you care about their compensation, buy the album as directly from them as possible, or buy merch/go to concerts, and recommend their msuic to other people so they might end up paying customers. Subscribing to Spotify and thinking they get a fair deal out of that is not the way, and increasingly not the way (with their GenAI-shenanigans).