> “imagine being and artist and having nearly 8 million monthly listeners on spotify but earning more money from having 1000 people subscribe to pictures of your feet,”
Sad thar everybody is concentrating on the onlyfans side of this story rather than on the spotify side.
The problem predates streaming. Labels will take your money either way - 8 million "listens" has never equated to a sale, period.
I hate to say it, but the entire concept of digital music having value was an RIAA invention as a response to Napster. In effect, the feet pics are valueless as well but more profitable since they can be distributed direct-to-customer and are effortless to manufacture.
Oh not this shit again. People keep using the evil bad RIAA as their excuse for not paying anything to small independent labels or artists direct. I am not familiar with this artist at all, but 8 million streams of her songs in a calendar period suggest she's providing a fair degree of entertainment to people. Dismissing this as worthless is nonsensical.
People are paying money to Spotify to stream content and remit payment. It's about $12/month, if we assume Spotify listeners love music or podcasts and listen for an average of 2 hours every day, that works out at ~20 cents/hour, or a penny per ~3 minute pop song. Scale that up by 8 million plays, and it's $80,000, of which Spotify is taking at least 87.5%, probably more. This is most likely worse than whatever the RIAA was collecting (via its member labels) from artist music sales.
The whole argument you're making is that digital music is worthless because it's easy to steal and RIAA bad. Frankly streaming platforms seem to be worse than physical media publishers, so (although I'm sure you didn't mean it this way) the argument seems to boil down to 'because fuck you, that's why'.
This is why artists go on tour. People pay serious money to see them perform.
Her feet don't look particularly good to me: https://www.wikifeet.com/Lily_Allen
> “imagine being and artist and having nearly 8 million monthly listeners on spotify but earning more money from having 1000 people subscribe to pictures of your feet,”
Sad thar everybody is concentrating on the onlyfans side of this story rather than on the spotify side.
She rose to fame in the days before streaming was a big thing. Did she not make enough money to last her into her 30s? I’m confused.
Techbros will tell themselves this means feet pics have more value than music
The problem predates streaming. Labels will take your money either way - 8 million "listens" has never equated to a sale, period.
I hate to say it, but the entire concept of digital music having value was an RIAA invention as a response to Napster. In effect, the feet pics are valueless as well but more profitable since they can be distributed direct-to-customer and are effortless to manufacture.
Oh not this shit again. People keep using the evil bad RIAA as their excuse for not paying anything to small independent labels or artists direct. I am not familiar with this artist at all, but 8 million streams of her songs in a calendar period suggest she's providing a fair degree of entertainment to people. Dismissing this as worthless is nonsensical.
People are paying money to Spotify to stream content and remit payment. It's about $12/month, if we assume Spotify listeners love music or podcasts and listen for an average of 2 hours every day, that works out at ~20 cents/hour, or a penny per ~3 minute pop song. Scale that up by 8 million plays, and it's $80,000, of which Spotify is taking at least 87.5%, probably more. This is most likely worse than whatever the RIAA was collecting (via its member labels) from artist music sales.
The whole argument you're making is that digital music is worthless because it's easy to steal and RIAA bad. Frankly streaming platforms seem to be worse than physical media publishers, so (although I'm sure you didn't mean it this way) the argument seems to boil down to 'because fuck you, that's why'.