Music fans and artists hit back as Spotify CEO claims "the cost of creating content" is "close to zero"

[usonian]

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2024, 11:54 PM - Edit history (2)

https://www.nme.com/news/music/music-fans-and-artists-hit-back-as-spotify-ceo-claims-the-cost-of-creating-content-is-close-to-zero-3761004

His comments come after the streaming giant reported profits of over €1billion

(so if distribution is worth over €1billion, and the cost of creating content is "close to zero" then people are paying Spotify billions for distributing "nothing". Is this the perfect dream of capitalism? .... Inquiring minds want to know!)

Artists and music fans from across the globe have hit back at Spotify’s CEO, after he claimed that “the cost of creating content” in today’s world is “close to zero”.

Daniel Ek, the CEO of the streaming giant, sparked backlash following the comments he made yesterday (May 29) – implying that it is easier and more affordable than ever to create “content” thanks to modern technology.

Writing on X/Twitter, he shared an update which read: “Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero, people can share an incredible amount of content. This has sparked my curiosity about the concept of long shelf life versus short shelf life.”

He continued: While much of what we see and hear quickly becomes obsolete, there are timeless ideas or even pieces of music that can remain relevant for decades or even centuries. For example, we’re witnessing a resurgence of Stoicism, with many of Marcus Aurelius’s insights still resonating thousands of years later.”

He asked "what are we creating now that will still be valued and discussed hundreds or thousands of years from today?”

Music will still be valued in a hundred years. Spotify won’t,” one wrote in response.

MY QUESTION: WHERE DO WE FIND SUCH ASSHOLES?

Sheesh.

Blistering replies at the link.

EDIT TO ADD:
And please see reply 6 from highplainsdem - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10356999#post6 -
for information on how Spotify is using more and more music it owns to avoid paying royalties to real artists they'd have to pay.
⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆

[unblock]

1. How much did Shakespeare spend on ink, paper, and pen?

Artists have always been able to create content with minimal expenses.

But that misses the entire point.

[highplainsdem]

8. See reply 6. Spotify is streaming more and more music by fake artists that they pay no royalties on, music they own.

[msongs]

2. and spotify is gonna lower payouts using accounting and marketing tricks. nt

[highplainsdem]

7. It's already doing that. See reply 6.

[Shellback Squid]

3. "get your money for nothin and the chicks are free"

[The Unmitigated Gall]

4. F Spotify. I'll never go back

One day nearly a year after signing on, Spotify decided to stop getting along with my VPN. Locked out completely with no explanation for what was happening. Finally got back in with girlfriend’s help (she’s a google ninja) and the rep told us the VPN would be a continuing problem. Found while signing back on they had deleted my playlist as well. Goodbye Spot…hello alternative!

[catrose]

5. When I first started publishing my mysteries, I included a Spotify playlist

In my innocence I thought I was supporting artists by driving traffic to them. I used YouTube this last time. I don't know if that's any better and would be glad to hear about an alternative method. I may be reduced to typing the list.

[highplainsdem]

6. It's even worse. Spotify is filling playlists with tracks they pay NO royalties on. Work for hire & AI music.

This was brought up by Ted Gioia in one of his Honest Broker posts in April, and he brought it up again in a video with Rick Beato last month.

https://www.honest-broker.com/p/the-rise-of-the-anonymous-music-star

The Rise of the Anonymous Music Star
Do streaming platforms view famous artists as a threat to their brands?

TED GIOIA
APR 12, 2024

How do you generate more Spotify streams than Michael Jackson or Elton John? Swedish composer Johan Röhr pulled off that impressive feat in the strangest way possible.

He hid behind 656 different pseudonyms.

Röhr isn’t famous, but that hardly matters. He has generated an astonishing 15 billion streams on Spotify, and his invisibility strategy got lots of support from the platform. These pseudonymous tracks showed up on 144 official playlists with 62 million followers in aggregate.

In some instances, Röhr accounts for 40% or more of a single playlist, albeit under a variety of artist names. Sometimes this unassuming musician is known as Ralph Kaler, at other times he goes by Sherry Novak or or Jospeh Turley or Miu Hayashi or some other identity.

-snip-

Much more at the link.

With something like this going on, it's all but guaranteed that this is work for hire and Spotify owns the songs, the tracks, and pays zero royalties.

Ditto with AI music. Gioia was made aware of a lot of it being pushed on Spotify, similar tracks with different titles and under different artist names.

All of it pushing real artists with their own music - which Spotify has to pay for - off more and more playlists.

That interview with Rick Beato, from May 14, and the part concerning what he wrote about in the post quoted above starts about 8-1/2 minutes in:

[highplainsdem]

9. I've posted in GD to link to this thread and my reply 6 here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219001472

[CaseyMoses]

10. Music fans and artists hit back as Spotify CEO claims "the cost of creating content" is "close to zero"

This user attraction policy is really great

[Iggo]

12. And the Spotify CEO creates what now?