[theZilber]

The language of the article implies that Spotify rips artists off while their executives earn millions.

The problem is the millions the executives make do not come directly from Spotify's revenue, they come from stocks which are only loosely related.

Don't get me wrong, Spotify has many issues. And should be rightfully criticized. but if you are going to parody them makes sure it is a humoristic pretence that most people would understand. Juxtaposing CEO stock selling revenue with how much artists actually make, is more misleading than it is humoristic - as stocks prices are merely loosely linked to company income, and by extension loosely linked to the artist's cut.

So I would assume that if a case to be made for taking down the website - it is because it did not convey it is a parody and was edging defamation.

[gruez]

>So I would assume that if a case to be made for taking down the website - it is because it did not convey it is a parody and was edging defamation.

IANAL but under US law that most certainly wouldn't apply because spotify isn't a "non-public person".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

My guess is that they used the (still spurious) excuse of trademark infringement, since it uses "spotify" in its name and you could plausibly argue that consumers would be deceived into thinking it's an official spotify site. Most would probably realize it isn't, but the use of "spotify" in its name, and the fact it doesn't disclaim the it's a non-official site probably exposed itself to legal threats.

[miunau]

Who do you think created all that stock value for him?

[theZilber]

What creates stock value is public hype and arbitrary numbers. Company revenue is only loosely related to stock value, and more strongly related to the trend of the stock.

Also a big part of a stock price is how much currently is circulated by big funds in that particular investment sector.

If you want to compare how much yhe company actually takes away from creators - you should substract income from ads and subscriptions from money paid to creators. Not stock selling price which are are speculative at best.

[gruez]

Who do you think creates all the stock value for social media companies? Do you think such users should be equally outraged that their social media site has billions in market capitalization but paid them $0?

[miunau]

I wasn't aware it takes years of training and possibly expensive schooling to make a social media post. My bad

[gruez]

Effort doesn't entitle you to money. You could get a phd in mongolian basketweaving but that doesn't mean you should be entitled to a decent living from selling baskets. If the economics are not there (ie. the average person not valuing music at more than $10/month, tons of artists lining up to drive down the price) but you go into it anyways, you only have yourself to blame.

[pas]

um, many users are absolutely. this is still one ot the most frequent critique of these sites. for example Reddit with its IPO, and their bossing around of their unpaid mods, and so on.

at least YT pays some money to creators.