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

[Expos of 1969]

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).

I was not referring to COVID at all and that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The topic is the remuneration paid to artists from having their music streamed. Nobody is guaranteed a living for doing something they love just because they wish it did, hope it did or feel it should. If there are not enough people, companies etc. willing to pay for this artistic output / product then it is not sustainable.

 

[Expos of 1969]

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

What are you talking about? My comment was to the poster who feels that 191 songs is all she needs for the rest of her life.

 

[kyjaotkb]

The UK government has better problems to solve and this is essentially spin to deflect attention from the lack of support to creative industries they have been showing during the pandemic onto tech companies. And everyone is piling on.

The way music streaming services operate is simple. They pool the revenue they collect from users into a bucket. Then they divide a share of that bucket (roughly 70% across master and publishing rights) each month between rights holders pro-rata of the total number of streams generated across all users on the platform.

The average effective per play is lower on Spotify because of its mixed business model (freemium) and because Premium subscribers are highly engaged, which is a sign that the service is healthy (more engagement means users keep coming back and churn goes down, as shown in their financials).
It it higher on Apple Music because there is no Free tier - but equally, much fewer users and streams. And perhaps users stream fewer tracks each month on average on Apple Music than on Spotify Premium.
YouTube is mostly ad-funded. So of course it pays less than a paid service. But the volume of streams and user base are higher. And equally the feature set on the ad-funded version of YouTube is much more limited.

There are solutions if, as a consumer, you want to throw more money at artists through a streaming subscription: Tidal Hi-Fi, Amazon Music HD, Qobuz, Deezer Hi-Fi...

 

[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

FWIW and as you probably already know: Tidal Music has a streaming service - costs extra of course - which streams at lossless bit rates. And the sound quality is readily discernible from other streaming services.

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

Live performance will always be the most profitable activity for musicians.

Only the most popular artists see significant returns from album sales.

Streaming music services will never make musicians rich, so I’m not sure what this investigation is supposed to prove. Artists will *never* be able to live on streaming royalties alone. Everyone in the music industry knows this.

So what are streaming services good for from an artist’s perspective? It’s the marketing. Apple Music and Spotify help promote concerts and tours, both directly and indirectly.

 

[jayducharme]

I can attest to this. I know I'm not Bruno Mars, but after nearly four years of streaming, I've earned about $12 from thousands of plays. I earn the same amount from just five downloads or physical sales. Obviously with physical sales there are material costs involved. But for downloads, how is that so different from streaming? It's all digital and there are no extra costs to the distributors. So why does streaming pay so much less (unless you have a multi-million seller)?

 

[AppleMad98004]

If you don't like the terms pull your music. Simple. Go setup a website on your own. No one forces you to these services. Governments can do all the investigation they want but these private contracts that are signed freely.

 

[hot-gril]

If you don't like the terms pull your music. Simple. Go setup a website on your own. No one forces you to these services. Governments can do all the investigation they want but these private contracts that are signed freely.

Yes, someone does force you, music pirates. YouTube will be full of your CD rips if you don't sell them the rights. No consent there.

 

[tzm41]

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.

It's likely you are right. And then it's a bigger problem to solve, and we can't really blame it on streaming services. Whether it's the tyrannical label taking away all the profit, or it's people not valuing music enough, we can fix neither by letting the government demand how much the streaming services should pay artists.

I think labels or Spotify can pay the artists a bit more for sure, but regardless of the negotiation situation, it is a bit too wishful to hope that streaming alone can keep all artists afloat. Many rely on gigging, performances, big or small, to make a living. And it is no different than any other merchandise in the world, governed by supply and demand. It's hard to stop people from willing to pay less to get what they want legally, privacy issue aside.

After all, what do cinema-going or live concert experience offer that streaming or privacy cannot is what artists might want to focus on. It is like you invented a screwdriver and signed a contract with a factory to take 10% the profit, but then it's selling for $100 and no one wants to buy it, especially when people can just pick a piece of wood from the sidewalk to drive their screws; now you signed a contract with another factory who sells it at $10 but give you a 1% cut. So it turns out people only want to pay $10 for the screwdriver, but it's not the latter factory's fault.

 

[hot-gril]

It's likely you are right. And then it's a bigger problem to solve, and we can't really blame it on streaming services. Whether it's the tyrannical label taking away all the profit, or it's people not valuing music enough, we can fix neither by letting the government demand how much the streaming services should pay artists.

I think labels or Spotify can pay the artists a bit more for sure, but regardless of the negotiation situation, it is a bit too wishful to hope that streaming alone can keep all artists afloat. Many rely on gigging, performances, big or small, to make a living. And it is no different than any other merchandise in the world, governed by supply and demand. It's hard to stop people from willing to pay less to get what they want legally, privacy issue aside.

After all, what do cinema-going or live concert experience offer that streaming or privacy cannot is what artists might want to focus on. It is like you invented a screwdriver and signed a contract with a factory to take 10% the profit, but then it's selling for $100 and no one wants to buy it, especially when people can just pick a piece of wood from the sidewalk to drive their screws; now you signed a contract with another factory who sells it at $10 but give you a 1% cut. So it turns out people only want to pay $10 for the screwdriver, but it's not the latter factory's fault.

Exactly, if the govt wants to set price floors, it's possible the floors will be higher than the ceiling piracy sets. IDK what they can do about it other than trying to prevent piracy. I don't think price floors do any good regardless, esp for things people don't need to survive.

 

[jonnysods]

Strange, I thought Spotify were all about the little guy and Apple were the meanies?

 

[gsurf123]

The UK Department of Culture, Media, and Sport is launching an inquiry into music streaming services, including Apple Music, Spotify, and YouTube, to ascertain whether musicians are paid fairly (via BBC News).

The inquiry comes after complaints from artists that the payments they receive for their work are "negligible."



The inquiry is set to begin next month, and will seek to gather evidence from industry experts, artists, record labels, and streaming services themselves.

Apple Music pays the most at £0.0059 per stream, followed by Spotify at £0.002 to £0.0038 per stream. The lowest paying service is YouTube, which pays about £0.00052 per stream. These funds are then divided between rights-holders, resulting in artists receiving just 13 percent of revenue on average.

It is reported that in May, violinist Tamsin Little received £12.34 for millions of streams over a period of six months, and electronic artist Jon Hopkins made just £8 for 90,000 plays on Spotify.



In addition to the matter of pay for artists, MPs will investigate how streaming services' playlists and algorithms can distort the music market, and whether new music is being suffocated by the dominance of popular artists such as Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, and Drake.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

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

How about looking into Microsoft and Google for creating music formats and then abandoning them leaving their customers? That is the biggest ripoff when it comes to music.

 

[[AUT] Thomas]

If artists would only find a way to sell their songs for a reasonable amount as FLAC and most importantly without any DRM BS...

The music industry really brought that upon themselves... The greed of the labels ruined it for the artists.

These funds are then divided between rights-holders, resulting in artists receiving just 13 percent of revenue on average.

13%. That's the real joke. Start to investigate there.

The lowest paying service is YouTube

Plattform with the most ads pays the least amount... ironic...

 

[hot-gril]

How about looking into Microsoft and Google for creating music formats and then abandoning them leaving their customers? That is the biggest ripoff when it comes to music.

It's not like anyone paid upfront for those and got scammed. They're subscription services.

More like, customers should look into not using Goog products anymore. Goog already has the bad reputation. MS actually has a very strong track record for supporting things. I mean, they made Windows Vista and still didn't die because people were happy enough with XP, and MS supported XP. But MS and music don't mix.

 

[Gasu E.]

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?

The artist doesn't get £0.79 when you download the song. What the artist gets depends on a whole set of deals they made that proceeded that download. The amount depends on whether they are the writers as well as the performers, whether they self-published, whether they self-produced, whether they hold the copyrights on the mechanicals, etc. Even if they owned all that, it still wouldn't be 100% of the end price. And even if you owned some of those rights, almost all artists have to sell of some to get a distribution deal, unless you are mid-career Taylor Swift.

I'm not saying Spotify and Apple are paying enough. Streaming is killing actual sales, and it's fairly clear artists are making less than they used to. The rates for streaming were set low when artists were making money from CD sales, and piracy was the biggest concern; legal streaming services were seen as a way to convert some of the pirated plays into revenue. But now, in terms of number of plays, streaming dominates sales. Just recently, RIAA had to change the way they count chart positions and gold/platinum record definitions to weight streams more; if you see an album ranked #1 now, in most cases, it's almost all streams.

 

[Gasu E.]

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"

Interesting analogy. Do you invent an entirely new hammer design every month? What about the months in which you make a hammer that no one wants; do you get paid for that, too? Also, when you say the hammer is "mass copied", does this mean you made a magic hammer that doesn't require some well-funded person to build an actual physical factory, so you're not forced to give them a huge cut to access their factory? As it happens, I do know a few serious full time artists, and they work 100 hour weeks; in some cases, making as much money as you do, but often less. The ones that make a living are thrilled to be able to survive while doing something they love; so there's that.

 

[jimbobb24]

I love it when the govt takes sides in private payment contracts. I pray for when the govt decides my boss isn’t paying me enough and gets involved. Come on politicians ... me me me.

 

[Piggie]

I suspected as such, and my post was of course going to be controversial.
However it is interested to see just how many people did not agree with my observation about long term payments.

It is odd though.
If I train for years to become a doctor, a mechanic, a metalworker, a lawyer, a Police officer and thousands of other jobs which will take me years of training/exams etc to be able to do.

I do not expect to do something at the age of say 25, and still be paid, over the next 40, 50, 60+ years for this work I did aged 25.
It's odd really that anyone should think for one moment that I should do.

Perhaps if a nurse saves someone's life, that person could pay the nurse 10 cents a day for the rest of the nurses life?
Why not?

 

[matrix07]

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"

Then goes create some music. Problem solved?

 

[Piggie]

Then goes create some music. Problem solved?

Just pointing out, it's odd how we chose to reward others a lot less than someone who can sing a song.
We expect the nurse to go to work saving lives every day to get paid.
Yet we are happy to reward the singer for 60 years for her one song.
Despite all the many years of study the nurse had to do to help others.

 

[AdonisSMU]

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.

Not True. Revenue is up YOY and has been since Apple Music entered the market. The label and artists are making more money than ever. Secondly, the piracy is less desireable for many/most folks. Also there is a noticeable abscence of YouTube on this. They get the most streams out of any of the services. I’m fine with government potentially getting involved on behalf of the artists but it needs to be fair and consistent.

 

[Michael Scrip]

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.

Exactly.

Back in the old days with a $16 CD... $14 went to the labels... and only $2 went to the artists, songwriters, etc. Or something like that. Don't quote me on the exact percentage... but the general idea is the same.

The artist is basically an employee of the label... and the label always gets paid first (and most)

If streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify have to pay more in royalties... the labels will be seeing the most increase... with less so for the actual artist.

Concerts and T-shirts is always where the artist makes their big money. It was true back then with CD sales... and it's still true today in this age of streaming.

 

[matrix07]

Just pointing out, it's odd how we chose to reward others a lot less than someone who can sing a song.
We expect the nurse to go to work saving lives every day to get paid.
Yet we are happy to reward the singer for 60 years for her one song.
Despite all the many years of study the nurse had to do to help others.

You have security of your job. Artists don’t. Royalty didn’t happen out of the blue but for a reason.

 

[Piggie]

You have security of your job. Artists don’t. Royalty didn’t happen out of the blue but for a reason.

This will sound very harsh.
But perhaps if they studied hard, and learned a serious profession, like the Nurse I used as an example, then they would have the security of a job.
If they decide not to do that, then that's up to them.
It's just sad that so many seem to think if I sing a song I'm worth vastly more money than someone who will save people's lives.

 

[ctrlzone]

Just pointing out, it's odd how we chose to reward others a lot less than someone who can sing a song.
We expect the nurse to go to work saving lives every day to get paid.
Yet we are happy to reward the singer for 60 years for her one song.
Despite all the many years of study the nurse had to do to help others.

this comparison makes no sense
so making music is not studying decades?
Singing per se is not making music, that's just singing. like learning one instrument.
what are People thinking what music is, pressing a button on a Computer and here it is?

you compare streaming with a nurse ....great
streaming has the value that you have pretty much any song available at any time, in good quality, like the entire library of humanity's music. thats the value there

so you say that a person that can sing gets payed more than a nurse?
even a lot more? that's so out of this world....
the vast majority of people that can sing, don't make dime at all.
that's just how it is.