[ddulaney]

The mechanism is kinda like the Spotify fake songs case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-musician...

In the same way, there was a fixed pot of money available split up by popularity, so making thousands of songs and streaming them as much as possible with bot accounts is profitable, even though each bot account cost a few dollars per month.

Here, the bots you use to juice your numbers don’t even need a subscription fee!

[reaperman]

Which is why spotify should pay a percentage of MY subscription fee to only the artists that I listen to. My money shouldn’t go to Taylor Swift if I don’t listen to Taylor Swift.

That would eliminate direct financial payment from botting. But botting could still affect trending or “related” recommendations for indirect financial boost.

[suzumer]

The issue there is that the listens from people who listen to less music would be worth more than the listens from people who listen to more music.

[reaperman]

That's not an issue, that's accurately reflecting reality. If I'm paying the same $10/month just to listen to $OBSCURE_ARTIST for 10 plays per month, then each play of that _is_ worth more to Spotify than each play from a 10-year old listening to the same track of $SUPERSTAR one thousand times in a month.

In one case, 10 plays brought in $10 of revenue to Spotify, and those 10 plays should get $PERCENT of that $10.

In the other case, 1000 plays brought in $10 of revenue to Spotify, and those 1000 plays should also get the same $PERCENT of that $10.

[knutzui]

A fixed monthly subscription amount with unlimited usage will always carry this deficiency. A solution that addresses this would be usage-based pricing.

[reaperman]

I don't understand how this is a deficiency.

[imtringued]

That's not an issue. That's the entire point. You track listens per account and if you're only listening to a single niche musician, all your money (not someone else's) goes to that musician.

The real mystery is why it should work any differently, because the cross subsidy seemingly creates a perverse profit incentive for bots to scalp off some of that cross subsidy. The economics are broken. This is socialism for the rich and popular.

[imtringued]

I find that court case very off putting, since it was Spotify that stole the royalties, because the same mechanic applies to simply being popular. When will someone sue Taylor Swift for stealing royalties?

Also, since they didn't change the economics, they have done nothing to prevent this from happening again. Any economist that sees that he can earn $12 from a $11 payment would keep doing this until the risk adjusted return is equal to the interest rate. Ironically this will remain profitable until the cross subsidy is gone. I.e. there is an incentive to use the bots to boost real musicians who lose out from not being the recipient of the cross subsidy.