[mfoy_]

Isn't this payment scheme similar to Spotify's model? I thought that was broken too, considering some artists have 10min "silent" songs that they encourage their fans to play over and over during the night so they can get some more revenue.

Why are services like this using such a fundamentally flawed model to pay their content creators? Why not just allocate funds based on users usage? Is it that much harder to implement?

---

For those who aren't familiar with spotify, they also have a "pot" they pay out of, and they pay out based on your content's consumption (measured in minutes) as a percentage of all content consumed that payout period. So you could have one single Spotify subscriber who listens to your music 24/7 causing you to be paid more than than subscriber pays Spotify. Alternatively you could have a couple subscribers who listen exclusively to a single artist a few times a week and the artist will receive substantially less than those subscribers share of money, since other artists may have a more voracious fan-base.

[ar0]

I think services are using such models because honestly they don't care very much. As the original article states itself, in a first iteration it's not Amazon who suffers but the legitimate author (same with Spotify, it's the legitimate musician who receives less due to this).

These flatrate plans, where the authors receive a 'part of the pie' are actually a great deal for these companies, because a lot of business risk is transferred to the authors / musicians.

[nathancahill]

By "some artists" you mean Vulfpeck's Sleepify album? A stun/statement about the flawed music royalties model, used to fund a free tour?

[mfoy_]

I don't particularly remember, or particularly care, I just remembered the "hack" such as it is, and how it highlights the inherent flaw I'm talking about in these proxy metrics.

The issue is that the platform uses "minutes listened" or "pages read" as a proxy for "interest" or "value brought to the platform". Because these proxies are measured poorly, lazily, or have exploitable loopholes some content creators suffer for it.

In you specific example, Vulfpeck literally is taking money out of the pockets of their fellow content creators. There's a set amount of money in each payout pot. If they have their fans game the system to take a larger share than their "genuine" content would merit them then isn't that almost theft? Of course I don't really take issue with that. I take issue with the spotty (ha, get it) system that enables such behaviour.

[cwyers]

With Spotify, the trouble is that paid listeners subsidize free listeners. Artists and labels are not going to consent to a plan where free listens cost less than paid listens.

[emodendroket]

I thought that was the way it worked.