[batmanthehorse]

There were multiple responses questioning how this was different, so I'll respond here:

- 2 users, A and B, each pay $10/month

- User A listens to 20 Taylor Swift songs

- User B listens to 5 Radiohead songs

- Spotify gets a 30% cut

Currently:

- Spotify gets $6

- Taylor Swift gets $11.20

- Radiohead gets $2.80

If each subscriber's bill was split separately:

- Spotify gets $6

- Taylor Swift gets $7

- Radiohead gets $7

So this change would benefit artists that less active Spotify users listen to.

Right now the less active users are paying to support the listening of the most active users.

Personally this would make me feel like my money is more directly supporting the artists I care about.

[matwood]

Why is everyone ignoring the user side? It's not that there are equal users and a Taylor Swift person just listens more, there are millions of more users listening to Taylor Swift. Radiohead could actually do better with the much larger user base Swift brings. Without more data, it's hard to know.

[morkalork]

I was going to make an example of what if restaurants used the Spotify model and how people would hate it because they'd be paying for other people's tables but I guess that's buffets and all you can eat sushi places are like. Not exactly shining examples of quality for the end user though.

[jbverschoor]

> - Spotify gets a 30% cut

This is where you're wrong..

[batmanthehorse]

1. The article literally says ‘ “Spotify already pays nearly 70% of every dollar it generates from music to the record labels and publishers that own the rights for music, and represent and pay artists and songwriters," it continues.’

2. It’s a simplified example for explanatory purposes

[jbverschoor]

Sure, that's the general narrative of spotify.. But it's false. It's more like half of that 70%.

There's a reason Spotify is ending their service in Uruguay, and it's not because they're enough.