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
8134 readers
75 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
sure, but why platforms get to be rich and the actual artists dont?
Because they have all the customers.
If you don't like the rate the current major platforms give, you could choose to use one of the many alternatives that (presumably) exist.
And if they really don't, I could build you one in a couple of weekends with all the open source resources and federation protocols available today.
But none of that matters because all the paying customers are on those major platforms. And until you convince users to move off those platforms, you're basically their bitch. They'll pay you whatever they happen to feel like paying you.
Actually while typing that out I thought more about the technical architecture of such distributed alternative streaming service that pays artists fairly, and it does sound like it could be fun to build.
But everyone in the fediverse already knows how difficult/impossible it is to get the average person to switch to open source software. It would most likely be a waste of time.
Here's a person who knows way more about the music industry than all of us in this thread out together. And he's thought a lot about this, too
Not so much the fediverse side of it, but the legal, and financial/jobs side of things.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here's
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I don't think you can get people to agree on what's "fair" but it's always fun to think about. What would your fair payment scheme look like?