Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Always tilted by the megastars that pretend to be part of the protest when in fact their asymmetrical comp is a large part of why small musicians get such as a low payout


It’s almost like they’re funneling wealth from masses to a few superstars.

One might be a paid subscriber and only listen a few small musicians, and yet majority of their money would go to the superstars and almost none to the musicians they listen to.


What you are describing is not a subscription service, but the "label/artist" relationship. If you remove streaming services from the equation, this exact same system crops up with precisely the same RIAA middlemen. It's why we call it "the music industry" now; rightsholders get the ultimate say.


Though with a record label, the sales of small musicians do not actively go to the superstars, they may receive a higher percentage of their sales but not the money from small musicians.

I’m not supporting music labels, but Spotify is not a good company either.


It’s not like superstars are responsible for other artists not becoming one.

The whole system follows a brutal power law induced by network effects and engagement feedback loops.


Superstars demanding a greater share of revenue than their share of playtime is directly responsible for lower payouts, however.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: