Spotify follows the same game-book as the record companies did in the early 00's.
Pay nearly-nothing to the artist, take money for themselves and charge the consumer. Nothing has changed other than an online-internet enabled application than a CD.
You don't even have your own physical copy, once you hit cancel you loose all. So your locked in to a model where if you wish to listen to music you are forced to pay, otherwise unless you head for the sea's and download which IS illegal and where the artist gets completely nothing, you've got nothing. Where at any point is that fair?
If Spotify sent you a CD of your top-listens of the year then that would be something.
> Pay nearly-nothing to the artist, take money for themselves and charge the consumer.
No they don't, they pay out 70% of all their taking.
The problem is that almost all artists work through labels still. Spotify pays the label who then screws over the artist in the same way they always have.
You are misdirecting your anger, just like the RIAA wants you to.
Maybe so, could of done royalty google-fu before hand but still, my anger is more focused at today's subscription models and my point still stands where you own nothing in return.
I don't use Spotify, nor any subscription model for that matter. If I can't own it, then oh well. This goes for consumer products too.
But that's my point, people never made money from this previously. Why is Spotify being demonised because bands have bad contracts with their labels?