231
How are musicians supposed to survive on $0.00173 per stream?
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
231 points (95.3% liked)
Music
9875 readers
37 users here now
↳ Our family Communities:
➰#Music
Music.world - !music@lemmy.world
Jazz -!jazz@lemmy.world
Album Art Porn - !albumartporn@lemmy.world
Fake Album Covers - !fakealbumcovers@lemm.ee
Obscure Music - !ObscureMusic@lemm.ee
Vinyl and LP's - !vinyl@lemmy.world
Electronic Dance Music - !edm@reddthat.com
60's Music - !60smusic@lemmy.world
70's Music - !70smusic@lemmy.world
80's Music - !80smusic@lemmy.world
90's Music - !90smusic@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They aren't. The fees are supposed to benefit the streaming companies.
I hope the bill discussed in the article helps rectify that.
homie the only thing streaming benefits right now is music publishers, spotify and the artists are losing money like it's oil being produced during the industrialization.
The last update that I saw was that Spotify would be in the green if it didn't have to give severance pay to a large number of employees after mass layoffs, and also some real estate expenses that seem pretty unusual for a streaming service to have...? They should just ask Wisconsin to build them a place for free, those idiots will do anything for industry.
they would be in the green if they didn't outsource music publishing, ironically.