[rossmohax]

I can't pinpoint where I got it from, it is kinda common knowledge (or so I thought).

Seems that TIDAL is the good one.

> TIDAL will be the first streaming service to pay artists with the money of subscribers who have actually listened to the artist. Other major music services such as Spotify and Apple Music now aggregate their users' money and give most of it to the artists with the greatest success. As a user, you actually pay musicians you never listened to. Many unions and artists have been criticizing this system for years. It favors stars and leaves little for the smaller musicians.

Source: https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per...

[stdbrouw]

I can't imagine this makes much of a difference unless users with a paid Spotify account have vastly different tastes than the non-paying ones, and even then it would depend on how much less the revenue per user they get from commercials is compared to the revenue for a paid user. Otherwise, whether a band gets paid 50% of the revenue from a single listener or 5% from the revenue of that listener plus ten non-listeners is immaterial. The money is most definitely not allotted without regard for what users listened to.

[c7b]

Strange - normally you use pooling to even out the distribution, not to take from the poor to give to the rich.

[rossmohax]

Fair payouts empower independent labels, obviously biggest players in the music market are opposing it