2026-01-16 16:37 UTC
@mrchimp@cupoftea.social @jonhicks@mastodon.social
In ideal world I would say yes, I would also say artists should just remove their music but I understand they use it for advertisement in hopes they will break out somehow.
In practice paying that money costs more then the money itself and that's a silly waste. Whole system is broken.
I like the systems some companies use for their product, free to use if you are small, costs money if you are making money.
In that way small artists would get 100% of the cut, if you are making more then 10k per year from Spotify they then take whatever cut they take out of money over the 10k.
But that would fair, so not going to happen.
Replies (2)
-
@mrchimp@cupoftea.social 2026-01-16 16:47
@Landsil@infosec.exchange @jonhicks@mastodon.social Yeah I also think that people's subscription should go towards the artists that they listen to and not just put into a pot and then split based on plays, but that's a whole other conversation
-
@lukasz2@social.vivaldi.net 2026-01-16 16:53
@Landsil@infosec.exchange @mrchimp@cupoftea.social @jonhicks@mastodon.social in ideal world each artist would self-host their shop ans player, but that also would cost them to do both time and expense on hardware and electricity bills