[munksbeer]

I'm not sure I follow your logic.

100 people subscribe to spotify and listen for 100 hours a month each, for $10 a month. You listen to your favourite artist for 50 hours and other stuff for 50 hours. No-one else listens to your favourite artist.

I assume that if this is band is treated as the "average" Total listening hours = 100 * 100 = 10,00. Total money: 100 * 10 = $1,000. They get: 50 / 10,000 * $1,000 = $5

That seems fair? Obviously some bands won't have negotiating power when they first start and might get less, or some get more, but that feels like how the industry always worked, and not something to do with spotify?

[Dylan16807]

You don't see the problem because you're using the same number of hours for everyone. When you have some accounts using 500 hours and others using 50 there are problems. And the 500 hour account is more likely on autopilot and reinforcing whatever's already popular.

[munksbeer]

Why is that unfair? Do the maths for me please?

[arnvald]

Let’s say I listen to 10h a month of a single artist, nothing else. So 100% of my payment (minus Spotify take) should go to that artist.

Let’s say you listen 90h to another artist, and nothing else.

In the current model both artists are put together, 100h and let’s say $20 to split. Your artist gets 90% because they’ve been listened to for 90h, so they get $18 and my artist gets $2

In my model my artist gets $10 because they get 100% of what I pay and your artist gets $10 because they get 100% of what you pay.

The difference is 50/50 vs 90/10 split

[munksbeer]

Ah right, I get it now, thanks.

[HDThoreaun]

The unfairness comes when you spend an abnormal amount of time listening. If you listen less than the average user then the bands you like won't be getting x% of your money that lines up with your listening habits.

[munksbeer]

Why is that unfair? Do the maths for me please?