[matthewkayin]

> why then switch to a mode that pays artists nothing at all? Do Bandcamp. Buy merch. Do something to support the artists.

I don't like this perspective because it puts the onus on the individual consumer. Many people who listen to music struggle to make ends meet. They do not have the extra money to afford buying albums off of bandcamp, yet they are contributing members of society and they deserve to be able to listen to music.

Meanwhile there are billions of dollars floating around in the music industry. Spotify absolutely has the spare cash to pay their artists more; they just choose not to.

As much as I love the idea of Gabe's "piracy is a service issue" philosophy, I think the real truth is likely that piracy is an issue of capitalism and wealth inequality.

[procaryote]

There would be no money floating around the music business, spare or otherwise, if no one paid for music

I guess you could fund it with taxes?

[hansvm]

Sure, why not? Current US music revenue is $6/mo per US taxpayer. For less than half the cost of Spotify you could 5x the income going to musicians if you skipped the middleman and magically just paid them directly. That doesn't seem like a bad deal.

[Planktonne]

> yet they are contributing members of society and they deserve to be able to listen to music

By the same token, artists are contributing members of society and they deserve a host of things, including enough to make a living.

You can't demand one group's output as a right for everyone else unless you also grant them rights in return.

[NeutralWanted]

No one 'deserves' to listen to music. It's not a right. It's a luxury that you can either afford or you can't. FM radio is still around for those people.