UK to Investigate Apple Music and Spotify Over Fair Pay for Artists

[tzm41]

The problem is, artists and labels should never have signed the contracts the streaming services offered, long before Apple got into the streaming market. It was a way to dilute the value of their songs and albums. It was always a horrible model. The problem is, now that ship has sailed, people have come to expect being able to stream anything and everything from the artists for $10 a month, and the artists are not going to get the album sales back.

If someone came to you and said, “I know you’re making thousands of dollars a month with album/song sales, but with our new streaming service, you can be making tens of dollars a month, just sign here!”, why jump on it?

I seem to recall the excuse given early on by Spotify and others was, “well, but if we pay the artists more the service won’t be profitable.” Well, that’s a sign that your service isn’t charging what it needs to. Somehow convincing your suppliers to sell to you at well below their cost, so your business model can be profitable to you, is a pretty neat trick. If your other argument is, “well, but the customers won’t pay more that $10 for our service, so you have to sell to us at below cost”, then maybe that’s a sign that you don’t have a viable business model in the first place. And rather than saying, “GTFO”, the artists/labels figured, what, they’d “make it up on volume?” By treating Spotify as a charity?

Okay, but what if the business model for artists and labels to avoid streaming at all cost and just mint their own CDs isn’t viable anymore? It is not like there aren’t big name artists who have been holdouts for streaming. I don’t think any of those efforts proved meaningful.

And you would argue that streaming wouldn’t exist if there weren’t a handful of greedy, shortsighted labels and artists who signed the devil’s contract early on, that changed the habit of listeners. Almost as if all labels should form an anti-competitive pac and reject streaming in unity, right? History has taught us that the market usually crushes these types of efforts if there aren’t interventions, maybe except the diamond market...

Unfortunately the music industry doesn’t seem like a seller’s market anymore, and so the cake will just keep getting smaller if they couldn’t find a way to make people pay. The price is not resting on an equilibrium solely between streaming services and artists, but one among customers, streaming services, and artists.

 

[4jasontv]

🤦‍♂️If you care about artists investigate the labels.🤦‍♀️

 

[LeeW]

have to get up early in the morning, I drive to work, have to work all-day

That's either about your choice, motivation or ability. Just because others don't have to do what you do to make money does not mean they are worth less than you.

 

[4jasontv]

That's either about your choice, motivation or ability. Just because others don't have to do what you do to make money does not mean they are worth less than you.

Could be wrong but I think his point was that they aren’t worth more.

 

[ruka.snow]

I hope you are joking or you have a very limited interest in music.

I tend not to joke, I have way more than enough music to ever want to listen to from Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. And even some newer stuff from the 80s and 90s.

 

[Saturnine]

If the artist mentioned in the article received £8 for 90,000 streams, that’s 0.0088p per stream which is significantly more than any of the streaming services are supposedly paying - so something doesn’t add up.

Others have already made very valid points. If the artists are signing up to streaming services directly, they’re free not to do if they don’t like the terms offered.

If the artists are selling the rights to their songs to publishers and distributors then surely the argument is with them. Signing away the rights to your art is always fraught with danger.

 

[neuropsychguy]

If the artist mentioned in the article received £8 for 90,000 streams, that’s 0.0088p per stream which is significantly more than any of the streaming services are supposedly paying - so something doesn’t add up.

Others have already made very valid points. If the artists are signing up to streaming services directly, they’re free not to do if they don’t like the terms offered.

If the artists are selling the rights to their songs to publishers and distributors then surely the argument is with them. Signing away the rights to your art is always fraught with danger.

It's your math that's off. £8 for 90,000 plays is £0.000089 per play. Spotify pays £0.002 per play. He received only 4.44% of the going rate. 90,000 plays at .002 is £180. Either he's with a label that's taking too much (and it's their fault) or he should have received much more from Spotify (and it's Spotify's fault). Or he didn't really have 90,000 plays and it's the artist's fault.

 

[gnipgnop]

If we take song price = £0.79, the artist needs to have 134 iTunes plays, 208 to 345 Spotify plays, or 1519 Youtube plays to get the same money as from me buying that song. I can see why they would be complaining. How come Youtube pays less than one tenths of what Apple pays?

When you see it framed in those terms, it really is kind of pathetic.

 

[Expos of 1969]

The importance and worthiness of the arts is a touchy subject. I love music, going to art galleries etc. I have spent considerable funds over the past 45 years on buying albums etc. But in my opinion, nobody is guaranteed a living just because he/she picks up a guitar and sings. Or if they want to put paint to canvas. The government and/or society cannot provide funds to support everyone who has a creative urge. That is the reality of life.

 

[Shadow Puppets]

The importance and worthiness of the arts is a touchy subject. I love music, going to art galleries etc. I have spent considerable funds over the past 45 years on buying albums etc. But in my opinion, nobody is guaranteed a living just because he/she picks up a guitar and sings. Or if they want to put paint to canvas. The government and/or society cannot provide funds to support everyone who has a creative urge. That is the reality of life.

If you're referring to the current state of the arts due to Covid, the issue that most artists / musicians / venue workers / crew etc etc have, is that the majority are happy to get other jobs (most do anyway), BUT without financial backing for the INDUSTRY as a whole, there will be no venues or artistic establishments to go back to once this is all over in a year or two. That's the crux of it... it is government regulations that are making their jobs no longer viable / not currently viable, so surely in that case the industry as a whole should be offered more help so that it can stay afloat long term. The world would be a god-awful place in a couple of years if 40% of arts venues are forced into closure (which is the latest estimate in the UK).

 

[hot-gril]

I tend not to joke, I have way more than enough music to ever want to listen to from Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. And even some newer stuff from the 80s and 90s.

I've stumbled upon a lot of great classical or otherwise old music on YouTube (the free one). You might not know what you're missing. I have a local iTunes library too.

 

[WiseAJ]

Typical Spotify, they never want to pay their fair share for anything.

 

[hot-gril]

Okay, but what if the business model for artists and labels to avoid streaming at all cost and just mint their own CDs isn’t viable anymore? It is not like there aren’t big name artists who have been holdouts for streaming. I don’t think any of those efforts proved meaningful.

And you would argue that streaming wouldn’t exist if there weren’t a handful of greedy, shortsighted labels and artists who signed the devil’s contract early on, that changed the habit of listeners. Almost as if all labels should form an anti-competitive pac and reject streaming in unity, right? History has taught us that the market usually crushes these types of efforts if there aren’t interventions, maybe except the diamond market...

Unfortunately the music industry doesn’t seem like a seller’s market anymore, and so the cake will just keep getting smaller if they couldn’t find a way to make people pay. The price is not resting on an equilibrium solely between streaming services and artists, but one among customers, streaming services, and artists.

Yes, but there's still an equilibrium. If artists who attract many listeners aren't making enough money, something's wrong with the negotiation chain. Neither Apple Music nor Spotify has a monopoly in music streaming. Is there some tyrannical label company in the UK?

It's possible the problem starts with the listeners not valuing music very much. They say streaming killed piracy, but streaming still has to compete with piracy. Jobs got many artists signed onto the og iTunes store with the idea that you either make it easy to buy your music (vs buying physical CDs) or people will find ways to easily steal it.

 

[John.B]

As as musician, I wholeheartedly support this!

 

[bigchrisfgb]

I don't see the value in these services, it is only 79p a song and I have all 191 I want to listen too. Why pay a monthly sub for them?

It depends on how much music you listen too and how much you buy.
If you like to listen to the same songs and don’t spend much on music than a music streaming service probably isn’t for you.
If you listen to a wider range of music and would often spend quite a bit on music each month or over the year, then a music streaming service is probably better for you.
For what it’s worth, I was very recently in the listen to mostly the same music and hardly buy any music camp.

 

[Shadow Puppets]

I will admit to have almost no sympathy with some artists.
Why you ask?
Well, I. Like many of you, have to get up early in the morning, I drive to work, have to work all day, be creative with both my mind and my hands, I get paid for my time there, them I come home, and this continues over the entire year.

Say I spend a day making an item, I get paid for my time that day and that's that.
Tomorrow I want to get paid again, but that means, me using my mind/hands to create something else.

I don't make an item, then sit on my arse for the rest of my life being paid constantly for that work I did 5, 10, 30, 50 years ago.
If I want more money today, I have to do more work today.

Hence my struggle.
Does the guy who makes a hammer, expect to be paid for the rest of your life, perhaps 1 cent for every nail someone bangs in with that hammer, and the hammer is in essence free to copy.

So he spends 1 month crafting 1 hammer, than can be mass copied, and then expects to be paid for making that hammer for the next 60 years perhaps?

Hence me having VERY little sympathy for "some" artists.
You want more money ever day?
Well work like the rest of us and create new "product" ever day.
Don't expect more money when you stop "Producing"

Absolutely pathetic post by someone with literally no idea of the actual argument here.

The argument is that pre-streaming, it was relatively "easy" (perhaps not the right word to use, but "viable") to be a musical artist. I have friends who were very very successful, independent, made good money every year from music SALES and touring etc.

Then in the past 5 years, streaming services have essentially completely undercut many of their revenue streams. My friends could easily sell 100-150 CDs / vinyl at one 300 capacity show 5 years ago, and they could sell a few thousand albums on iTunes. Now, sales have dried up because people understandably see the value as a consumer to subscribe to Spotify / Apple Music. But the artist never sees the money. You could, fairly easily, make a decent respectable living when music was SOLD.

The latest streaming figures show that, to earn £8.35 per hour (minimum wage in the UK), it would take over 3000 Spotify streams AN HOUR!!! Or over 7000 YouTube plays per hour. It's RIDICULOUS. And that's as an independent artist with no record label. Artists on record labels have an even worse deal.

These services are worth nothing to anyone without the millions of songs that have been lovingly crafted over weeks months and years, and the fundamental truth is that the creators have been put right to the back of the queue for fair remuneration, whilst the CEOs a billionaires.

So getting back to your post... you want musical artists to create something new every day OF QUALITY. Let's pretend that that is even possible for a second, which we know it is not (not to any great quality). Then what... put it out into the world and what? It doesn't answer the problem. It just creates a world full of piss-poor art.

If an artist puts out one album of quality every year (which is just about doable). Let's for arguments sake say that pre-streaming they could easily sell 10,000 copies of that album at £10. That's £100,000. To make that same money from streaming you would require over 35 MILLION streams. The disparity is ****ing ridiculous.

 

[gregohb]

I hope you are joking or you have a very limited interest in music.

When I buy a CD and rip it - I can listen to it for the next 20 years without paying a monthly fee.

 

[2979382]

I don't quite believe that's how all this works, especially not these days. Most artists are not independent, so have very little to no say about where their music gets streamed. The business is between the labels and the streaming platforms. Music portfolios often get bought up en-masse by a bigger label, then an even bigger and so on. If anything, it's the labels that need serious scrutiny over their business model. Album sales are also a poor argument. It often costs more to buy the Mp3 download than the CD. The only medium that either kept its original price and even improved over the last decade is vinyl, but that is still a niche market, so profits remain low. What artists make the most money from are events + merchandise and endorsements. The lifestyle the often flaunt is also more for show and marketing pushed by the labels themselves. In truth, many artists are in debt with the label for a long time. Sure, over time, things get better and they do start making serious money, but it's far less of a clear-cut situation than most people think.

My experience with streaming is quite long. Been a fairly early adopter of Spotify Premium, and recently moved to Apple Music and I can absolutely tell the difference in sound quality. I am also pleased to hear that Apple pays more/play than most services out there, though, again, not sure how much of that gets into the artist's pocket when it comes to big labels like Universal Music. I also use YouTube Premium, but that's mostly to get rid of ads, which with Youtubers resorting to in-video promotion, starts getting less and less worth paying for. Then, because I collect music, I often end up buying the vinyl as well, so technically an artist should get a cut 3 times from my streaming and purchasing habits. That's what I tell myself anyway...

 

[ctrlzone]

I will admit to have almost no sympathy with some artists.
Why you ask?
Well, I. Like many of you, have to get up early in the morning, I drive to work, have to work all day, be creative with both my mind and my hands, I get paid for my time there, them I come home, and this continues over the entire year.

Say I spend a day making an item, I get paid for my time that day and that's that.
Tomorrow I want to get paid again, but that means, me using my mind/hands to create something else.

I don't make an item, then sit on my arse for the rest of my life being paid constantly for that work I did 5, 10, 30, 50 years ago.
If I want more money today, I have to do more work today.

Hence my struggle.
Does the guy who makes a hammer, expect to be paid for the rest of your life, perhaps 1 cent for every nail someone bangs in with that hammer, and the hammer is in essence free to copy.

So he spends 1 month crafting 1 hammer, than can be mass copied, and then expects to be paid for making that hammer for the next 60 years perhaps?

Hence me having VERY little sympathy for "some" artists.
You want more money ever day?
Well work like the rest of us and create new "product" ever day.
Don't expect more money when you stop "Producing"

you have no idea what you are talking about
as if a song is made in one day....
there is a lot to learn & know & lot's of equipment to pay for, just like any other business.
why don't you make music and try to live from that income, then tell us how it went.

this is not about greed, artists get almost nothing, it really is a joke.
all the money was in gigging, and thats basically gone for god knows how long

 

[hot-gril]

If we take song price = £0.79, the artist needs to have 134 iTunes plays, 208 to 345 Spotify plays, or 1519 Youtube plays to get the same money as from me buying that song. I can see why they would be complaining. How come Youtube pays less than one tenths of what Apple pays?

Because if you don't agree to YouTube's terms, copies of your song will pop up all over YouTube anyway, and you'll make 0.

 

[hot-gril]

If you don't like the pay, don't use the service...

If you use it because other means will earn less money, you agree the service is worth the price

These prices aren't necessarily the free market at work. Free market assumes people can't steal the product. Music piracy sets a price ceiling, and I suspect it's the root of the problems here. Not like the UK govt can do anything about it either.

Maybe that's why "music these days" is so bad

 

[LeadingHeat]

I always thought that the big money making comes from concerts anyways? Regardless, I think this argument is more to be had with the labels vs artists, as they take 70% most times of the cuts.

 

[rgbrock1]

I use Spotify. (And, on occasion, Apple Music.) But I mostly use Bandcamp. And Bandcamp pays their artists much more than all the other streaming services combined. But, then again, Bandcamp doesn't have "artists" like Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande and all those other "musicians."

I also regularly purchase music while still pay for streaming services. I do so with a fervent hope that the artists I listen to will see more $$$.

 

[rgbrock1]

I've got an Apple Music subscription but I still buy albums regularly (lossless digital format normally, although I do also buy Vinyl and the occasional CD).

I use Apple Music for the convenience and music discovery: If I find an album I really enjoy, then I'll buy it but if it's one I only listen to occasionally, I just use my subscription

There are 2 reasons for this: Firstly, I prefer the quality of lossless music (and I can absolutely tell a difference with a decent amp and headphones), and secondly I like to support artists who create quality content

That's exactly what I do. I purchase music from artists I listen to and support and stream new music to see if I might buy it.

 

[2979382]

I will admit to have almost no sympathy with some artists.
Why you ask?
Well, I. Like many of you, have to get up early in the morning, I drive to work, have to work all day, be creative with both my mind and my hands, I get paid for my time there, them I come home, and this continues over the entire year.

Say I spend a day making an item, I get paid for my time that day and that's that.
Tomorrow I want to get paid again, but that means, me using my mind/hands to create something else.

I don't make an item, then sit on my arse for the rest of my life being paid constantly for that work I did 5, 10, 30, 50 years ago.
If I want more money today, I have to do more work today.

Hence my struggle.
Does the guy who makes a hammer, expect to be paid for the rest of your life, perhaps 1 cent for every nail someone bangs in with that hammer, and the hammer is in essence free to copy.

So he spends 1 month crafting 1 hammer, than can be mass copied, and then expects to be paid for making that hammer for the next 60 years perhaps?

Hence me having VERY little sympathy for "some" artists.
You want more money ever day?
Well work like the rest of us and create new "product" ever day.
Don't expect more money when you stop "Producing"

OK, let's get real for a second. What's really the problem with your statement? The fact that an artist collects royalties, or that you're stuck in a 9-5 job paying less than what they make? You're also trying to compare the traditional manufacturing model with people in the arts and the model they have been following for hundreds of years. You simply cannot compare the two.

You're also wrong about the hammer analogy. You'll be happy to know that if you come up with a new hammer idea, you patent it, and then that patent gets licensed to a manufacturer, you will get paid for every single hammer made using that patent. The Phillips screw is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_F._Phillips Every song is unique therefore the artist deserves to be remunerated for every copy of that unique invention.

The problem is not the artist here, but society that makes you and most people believe that "hard work" and "career" is what your life should be about. It's a load of bollocks that the top 1% of the world wants you to believe and defend. Kudos to them for brain-washing nearly 99% of the world's population... What you and every human should strive for is to work as little as possible and still live a great life. Sounds like utopia, but what you're proposing sounds like hell to me, so I'd rather work on getting even an inch closer to that utopia than be complacent and advertise hell as the appropriate lifestyle for humans.