Aimee Mann: “My Record Isn’t on Spotify. Artists Don’t Make Money on Spotify.”

Actually, she’s wrong: Metallica is making money off of Spotify. But Metallica structured their deal as a powerful, rights-owning label, not as an artist.  And artists still don’t make anything from this platform.  “My record isn’t on Spotify,” longtime indie Aimee Mann told Telegraph journalist David Gritten today, the latest penniless protester.

“People may be outraged, but artists don’t make money from Spotify.”

But are they (ie, music fans, artists, people) really that outraged?  One question is whether a broader group of protesting artists will ever snowball, and, whether enough fans will ever actually care.  Mann is now part of a holdout group that also includes heavy-sellers like Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Rush, and the Black Keys.  Others, including Adele and Coldplay, have instituted long windowing delays based on similar financial concerns.  But that’s still not a huge group.

hand-left February 28th, 2012: Spotify Attacks Windowing as ‘Hostile,’ ‘Wrongheaded,’ & ‘Mind-Boggling…’

And it doesn’t seem to be dissuading subscribers, curbing funding, or spooking Wall Street supporters like Goldman Sachs.  Instead, Spotify is confidently plotting a dominant future, and telling artists to either get on board, or get lost in the shuffle. “Really, you risk being on the sidelines,” Spotify chief content officer Ken Park recently told Fast Company.

 “You risk people not caring about your music.”

Which is, according to Mann, part of the bigger problem here.  “I think people have a totally different relationship to music these days.  There’s a feeling that it’s cheap, easy, disposable – and it’s free and it’s there.

 

“Then you start thinking it should always be free, and always be there.”

68 Responses

  1. Casey
    Casey

    Spotify is a very small part of the music industry. No one is going to get rich off of them being so tiny. This is common sense.

    Reply
    • If her songs are not on Spotif
      If her songs are not on Spotif

      If her albums are not on Spotify, then it would make sense that she doesn’t make any money off Spotify.
      If you are indie and you own the rights and you put it up on Spotify, they will pay you
      $4,277.39 for 798,783 streams (or $0.00535 per stream)
      This was July to September 2011 number.

      AND Digital Music News has quoted this number before.
      Using the same rate, if your album which has 12 songs is streamed by 1 million people, Spotify will pay you
      12 million x $0.00535 = $64,200.
      Is your album good enough that it will be listened to 1 million time?

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “If you are indie and you own the rights and you put it up on Spotify, they will pay you $4,277.39 for 798,783 streams”
        Hm, do I want $4K from Spotify — or $0.5M from iTunes?
        Decisions, decisions…

        Reply
        • Tony UK
          Tony UK

          798,783 streams does not equal 798,783 itunes downloads and therefore your $0.5m is simply wrong. I’m not sayng Spotify pays out more than iTunes but you seem to be assuming people download a song and only listen to it once…or maybe you just don’t have much faith in your music.

          Reply
          • Tony UK
            Tony UK

            Though over the course of a lifetime it is not unreasonable to assume your iTunes download would be listened to at least 100 times, probably even in the first few months. This would in fact translate the 798783 streams into maybe 8000 downloads and then, after a year or so, the numbers start to favour Spotify…just saying.

      • Visitor
        Visitor

        To reach 798,783 streams it requires a lot of marketing. Which, for starters defeats the idea that Spotify can be used as a marketing tool, but also it can take a long time for an album to to reach 798,783 streams (60,000 plays per song on a 12 track album).
        if you aren’t a superstar but a genuinely good artist, it could take 6 months (which is good going!) to reach 798,783 total. So from Spotify you’ve recieved $4277.39, which is only $712.89 a month. Take out of that roughly 8% collection society fees to $655.85. Then label comission @15% = $557.47. Then another 20% manager fees takes it to $445.98 a month. Divide that amongst a 40hr week in that month takes you to $2.57 an hour.
        Not that there are other income sources that artists can persue, jus that Spotify isn’t the best.

        Reply
    • HansH
      HansH

      Huh? Her latest album is on Spotify! Here is proof.

      This is what the Spotify API says. Album Charmer by Aimee Mann available in countries: AD AL AT AX BA BE BG BY CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FO FR GI GR HR HU IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MD MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RU SE SI SJ SK SM UA VA
      It’s not available in the US and the UK though.

      Reply
      • Simon Phoenix
        Simon Phoenix

        I see Aimee Mann on Spotify, and I’m in the US. However, maybe as a premium subscriber I am able to stream/sync her music. Where as ad based free user’s are not?

        Reply
    • Free music
      Free music

      Are there any people still willing to pay to listen to/download music, when they can find it online for free and in high quality?

      This year, I have met nobody so far (who is not a musician) that gave even a single penny to listen to/download music.

      Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      the problem is not you “not listening” to her, the problem is everyone else is listening for free. spotify is nearly free, and the translates to almost no money for the artist. I agree with her.

      maybe in a year, she’ll put it up on spotify, which really might be the right thing.

      Spotify is the digital cut-out bin. The place you put your music after it’s been so devalued that getting paid by “weight” is better than not getting paid at all.

      Reply
  2. David
    David

    The article’s contrast with Metallica is misconceived. As the Telegraph interview makes perfectly clear – if you bother to read it – for the last 13 years Aimee Mann has released her music through her own record label – just like Metallica. There is no reason why she should not have a Metallica-type deal with Spotify – except perhaps that Spotify has no particular motive to stuff her mouth with money. Since Spotify’s deals with labels and artists are secret (which seems to suit Spotify just fine), we have no way of knowing whether Spotify give some artists special deals as a publicity stunt. The fact that Metallica got a satisfactory deal is no reason to assume that other artists – with less publicity value – would be able to get the same.

    Reply
    • Metal Dude
      Metal Dude

      Yes there is a reason why Aimee Mann won’t get the same or similar deal that Metallica has with spotify.
      Simply compare the number of platinum albuims Metallica has sold with the number of platinum albums Aimee Mann has sold (you can even toss in Til Tuesday).
      That is all you need to determine the chances of Aimee getting the same or similar deal.

      Reply
  3. Dan
    Dan

    You’re right: Artists Don’t make Money on Spotify.
    But what they do make, is new fans. New fans go to shows. People who go to shows buy merchandise. People who buy merchandise advertise your band.
    FOR THE 100th TIME: stop thinking about spotify as a solution to declining CD sales. We are beyond the point of getting CD sales numbers.
    People expect your music to be on Spotify. If it’s not they won’t keep looking for your music in other ways. They will just forget about you.

    Reply
    • steveh
      steveh

      “But what they do make, is new fans.”
      There is no hard evidence that Spotify makes new fans.
      “New fans go to shows. People who go to shows buy merchandise.”
      Oh for fuck’s sake!! Yet another stuck record “it’s OK you can sell T shirts” post.
      This is so tired!

      Reply
      • Simon Phoenix
        Simon Phoenix

        It’s a piggy back affect…if you like to search for new music and spend hours and days listening to find it, then Spotify is great. Their related artists feature same as iTunes etc is how “new fans” are created…by finding new similar artists and so on and so on.
        Regardless why is this even an issue, when her music is on Spotify?
        I guess Aimee Mann is just taking her cue from where her Portlandia cameo finished off (btw great episode)

        Reply
      • Tbird
        Tbird

        I concur …

        And that could be the issue here. Metalicca sells a TON of t-shirts and can always get people to live shows. Artists like Aimee Mann (and nearly everyone else as their fans reach 35 and older) just cannot sell t-shirts and make up the money in live performances. I don’t have a solution (I’d be a millionaire if I did) but the “sell t-shirts” argument is tired and just isn’t going to be true for many artists going forward.

        Besides … saying music is worth nothing unless bundled with something else? That says music is worth nothing.

        Reply
    • conordee
      conordee

      It’s “declining sales”, (not CD sales, but paid DLs, etc.), that are part of the problem. And a growing number of consumers who think that file sharing (a/k/a THEFT) is totally cool.

      Reply
    • hippydog
      hippydog

      Quote Dan “People expect your music to be on Spotify. If it’s not they won’t keep looking for your music in other ways.”
      The “people” your referering too, the ones who are her fans or would be attracted TO her type of music..
      Probably would not care much if spotify was on this earth or not..
      they are called “fans” for a reason..
      The digital age has proven that the “medium” does NOT control the access.. does one artist matter? of course not.. but for every one outspoken about it, there are 100’s more thinking it..

      Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “People who go to shows buy merchandise”
      Tell that to the songwriters.
      You know, the dudes who write the hits on the charts…

      Reply
  4. QSDC
    QSDC

    It would have been great if Aimee provided more details about what she expects from Spotify.

    For example:

    – What payment per stream does she expect?
    – Is she expecting some kind of advance payment for allowing her music on Spotify?

    Reply
    • FarePlay
      FarePlay

      Agreed, what do artists need to get paid by Spotify to make it work? This is an important piece. Interesting to see if the numbers can work.
      This promo/exposure pitch becomes more precarious with a service designed to eradicate paid downloads and cd sales. We are seriously cutting off revenue streams for artists while cutting compensation for plays.
      This does not bode well for the financial survival of musicians.

      Reply
  5. @mattadownes
    @mattadownes

    I’ve watched Spotify from the distance for the last 4 years and finally swiped my credit card this January. Its just too easy to take 15m tracks with me on my phone wherever I can access the web. While I’m in my office I have zero-commercial access to that same library? This is a no-brainer $120 a year.

    If you’re an artist with control, I’d reach out to Spotify and begin discussing a deal. All other artists must look at this as another arm of promotion until something better comes along.

    Reply
  6. Kent
    Kent

    Im the manager of a very small indie record label. I have all my artists on spotify. Yes we don’t make that much money right now with spotify but i guarantee you in 4-5 years we will.

    Reply
    • Faza (TCM)
      Faza (TCM)

      It’s great that you’re optimistic, but I can equally well guarantee that you won’t be making lots of money in that time frame – unless you have some insider information relating to changes in the way Spotify plans to charge its cutomers or compensating your label; or, alternatively, you plan to splurge on catalogue – not just any catalogue, mind, but pure, solid-gold, evergreen hits. Not just one such hit, either, but tens or even hundreds of them.
      You can find a detailed analysis of why, here: A Realistic Look at Spotify and Streaming. Run the numbers yourself and then reconsider your options; unless you have a realistic perspective of becoming very big within the next 4-5 years, your Spotify situation is unlikely to change.

      Reply
      • HansH
        HansH

        Great piece Faza.
        I agree, popularity of your music is the most important key. If your music gets more popular you will make more money. With streaming or sales. Easy as that.
        Just being on Spotify isn’t enough but it may help to gain populairity. Not being on streaming services cuts you off from millions of music lovers, that’s what I call stupid.

        Reply
        • steveh
          steveh

          “Not being on streaming services cuts you off from millions of music lovers, that’s what I call stupid.”
          I dispute this.
          Please show me clear proof that subscribers to streaming services listen to music only on streaming and employ no other means of music consumption, access or exposure.
          You cannot prove this – therefore you cannot say that not being on streaming “cuts you off”.
          We live in a multi-channel world.

          Reply
          • HansH
            HansH

            Okay, it doesnt cut you off for 100%. But once you have Spotify and have imported all your local files it sort of becomes your default music player.
            Everytime you wanna listen to music you start with firing up Spotify.
            Maybe it is just me, could be…

        • Faza (TCM)
          Faza (TCM)

          Sorry, but you seem to have missed the main take-away: with streaming services like Spotify, popularity doesn’t translate into revenue in any predictable way.
          In fact, it’s perfectly possible that you may see increased popularity and decreased revenue at the same time.
          The reason is dead simple: usage has nothing to do with how much you pay for the service. A Spotify subscriber pays the same fiver or tenner regardless of how much music they actually listen to.
          The more music they’re listening to, the harder that fiver or tenner has to work, so to speak. If they only listened to one artist – that artist would be entitled to the whole of whatever share Spotify pays out. If they listened to a hundred artists, it would have to be divided amongst those hundred artists, which is how we get to per-play amounts in the fractions-of-a-penny range.
          In short, your own absolute popularity (meaning the number of fans you have) is completely meaningless – the only thing that matters is your relative popularity: what percentage of total Spotify listening is your songs. That’s where majors shine, because they have oodles of hits and standards from thousands of artists and a period of several decades.
          This post of mine from way back when Spotify was still in private beta (and I hadn’t even heard of it) illustrates the mechanism in practice:
          Free Music Myths I

          Reply
          • HansH
            HansH

            Okay popularity may not be the right word. I was more referring to the number of streams. I know the rate varies, but the last few months they have been rather stable at about $.005 per stream.
            If Indie artists in Sweden can make $20,000 a month on streams the system is probablly not that bad.
            About the majors you are right. They are not paid per stream. Major labels get a % of revenues based on their marketshare. So they shine even if no one plays their songs.

          • Faza (TCM)
            Faza (TCM)

            Relative number of streams.
            The $0.005 rate is the long-term average. With my work, I’ve seen rates anywhere from double to one-tenth the amount – often in the same month.
            If you are getting more streams, but everyone else is getting even more – your revenues will go down. That’s how Spotify differs from most other forms of monetisation.

          • HansH
            HansH

            I run a small label myself.
            It all depends on the aggregator you are using. Over the last half year I have received $.005 for all my streams. Free, Unlimited, Premium, they all bring in $.005.
            Just have a look at this spreadsheat of a recent royalty statement I got from my distributor Zimbalam/Believe Digital.
            I know i.e. CDbaby uses a different and far more confusing method of reporting.

    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “we don’t make that much money right now with spotify but i guarantee you in 4-5 years we will”
      I’d be careful with the guarantees…
      If artists continue to run away from Spotify — and it looks that way — there will be no Spotify in 5 years.

      Reply
  7. R.P.
    R.P.

    Get off of Spotify’s dick already, the shit isn’t going anywhere. sheeeesh
    Aimee, have your lawyer contact Spotify to take you off of it. It’s pretty simple and they won’t care.
    Never would have heard of you if it wasn’t for Spotify though, so that has to count for something.

    Reply
    • A rose by any other name...
      A rose by any other name...

      I am responding to the above comment. I call bullshit on you.
      You didn’t discover Amee Mann on Spotify because she isn’t on Spotify.
      So I wonder if you read the article, and even if you didn’t, why would you lie about this?
      I can assume you have one agenda, which is to try and promote the idea that even if artist don’t benefit financially from Spotify, they will get “exposure”.
      I think being in a major motion picture has given Amee Mann a hell of a lot more exposure ( Magnolias ). And oddly enough, they PAID her for the sync license, too.
      She was one of the first artists to recognize the power of indie distro via the web, but isn’t studied enough to think that one emerging platform is gonna make or break her career.
      Commercial radio, not streaming streaming services, break records, because they control what the listener hears.
      Unless you choose the radio option,mand happen you luck upon hearing Amee Mann, you will never hear her music on Spotify if you don’t already know she exists.
      So who sent you, shill?

      Reply
      • R.P.
        R.P.

        the article is about Spotify right? and Aimee, correct?
        Never heard of her before this article. Make sense now?
        and.. stil haven’t discovered her because I haven’t listened to her music yet…

        Reply
  8. Adam
    Adam

    Aimee Says: “I think people have a totally different relationship to music these days. There’s a feeling that it’s cheap, easy, disposable – and it’s free and it’s there.”
    Exactly. So now just do what needs to be done to make a living. But it does keep her out of a lot of people’s collections if she’s not on spotify. I just wish more people in the US joined and paid the $10 so the pool of money being paid out would grow. The more people subscribe, the more money the artists are going to make. Plus someone like Aimee man should have a manager who can help her become her own label and license directly, if she has the negotiating power.

    Reply
  9. Grant
    Grant

    I manage an Indian Classical musician, Ustad Ghulam Farid Nizami. While I have mixed feelings about Spotify, I will say this…
    Within a few months of putting one of Ustad Nizami’s albums on Spotify, album sales in iTunes, CD Baby and Amazon nearly quadrupled.
    Now… this increase can also partially be attributed to a ramped-up social media marketing campaign, in which links to his music on Spotify were posted on various social media sites. These links were always paired with links to his music for sale on his own Web site. Furthermore, he is not doing nearly the volume of sales that acts like Metallica are doing – so quadrupling his sales is not as daunting of a task as it would be for a group of Metallica’s size, but it is still difficult to argue with the increase in sales…
    Again, I still have mixed feelings about Spotify as a listener, a manager and a musician myself, but I figured I would share this information for further discussion.

    Reply
  10. davidmorphius
    davidmorphius

    This problem has been discussed a lot lately, and Aimee actually appears in a great spoof of the situation on an episode of Portlandia where she gets a temp job cleaning Fred & Carrie’s house to pay the bills.
    Sure everyone out there wants to be able to listen to music for free on Spotify, but Spotify isn’t paying the artists enough to be a viable way for them to live. I see royalty statements for hundreds of artists every month in my line of work, and even the most commercially successful of them are getting almost nothing from Spotify (who is making loads of money off of their music).
    Maybe the money doesn’t matter to Jay-Z, Kanye, Beyoncé, Timberlake, Swift, or Bieber any more, but what about the next possible star? I guess they’ll have to make their breakthrough album in between shifts putting oil & vinegar on your sub.
    So if you think your favorite singer is still gonna be able to crank out great music when they have to get a job as a sandwich artist @ Subway, then Spotify is perfect for you…

    Reply
    • Justin
      Justin

      “Maybe the money doesn’t matter to Jay-Z, Kanye, Beyoncé, Timberlake, Swift, or Bieber any more, but what about the next possible star? I guess they’ll have to make their breakthrough album in between shifts putting oil & vinegar on your sub.”
      I’m sorry, what is this fantasy world where most musicians don’t have day jobs? If you go see a local unsigned act play some club, one of the band members is a barrista, one’s a waiter, one works in IT, and the other one works at Best Buy.
      Full time musicians are like hens’ teeth.

      Reply
  11. David Nevue
    David Nevue

    IMO, Spotify is getting a bad rap in regard to their payouts to artists. For a long while, I was on the anti-Spotify bandwagon with most other artists… I certainly wasn’t thrilled about it when I took a look at the software, which to me didn’t seem to make it easy to BUY songs… but I’ve always felt my music needed to be where music fans were… and a LOT of music fans use Spotify… so I went ahead and distributed my music there.
    I was pleasantly suprised when I actually started to see a regular income stream from Spotify. At this point, I make more digital sales income from Spotify than any other digital store EXCEPT iTunes and Amazon.com MP3. So in other words, Spotify is my #3 biggest source of digital music sales revenue right now. It’s not life-changing money, but nothing to sneeze at either. It’s more than I’m seeing from Rhapsody, a company with similar visibility that no one is complaining about.
    I think being #3 after iTunes and Amazon is fairly impressive.
    So I’m pro-Spotify now…
    David

    Reply
  12. Econ
    Econ

    The days of music fans buying full albums without having listened to them first are rapidly coming to an end. Those days never even existed for the 98% of the people who aren’t music enthusiasts.

    Reply
  13. Sales Figure
    Sales Figure

    Coincidentally, no retailer ever made money from selling Aimee Mann records. I wonder what SuperEgo Records’ return policy is on unsold copies?

    Reply
  14. Just Wondering
    Just Wondering

    This is purely out of my own ignorance, but why would you withold your product from Spotify altogether as an indie artist? I can understand if Spotify hurts your sales in other avenues to the point of those losses being greater than the little bit of extra income you would get from streaming, but is that the case for indies? If I’m an indie artist, I’m trying to get my stuff out and earn income in any and every way possible, even if it is just a little here and a little there.
    So if you are an indie artist (and I’m sure it varies from person to person), have you found that you loose more than you gain when releasing your material on Spotify?

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “why would you withold your product from Spotify altogether as an indie artist?”
      I’m an indie artist and I would use Spotify if it made any sense.
      But it doesn’t.
      On the contrary.
      Let’s say you have 139 fans 🙂 and they look for your song on Spotify.
      They find it, they love it and they listen to it — for free — all day long.
      Now, say your song is not on Spotify. Then your fans have three options:
      1) Forget it.
      2) Steal it.
      3) Buy it.
      Make your own guestimate. Mine says that 50% will forget it, 35% will steal it, and 15% will buy it on iTunes.
      Here’s the fact:
      If just one of your 139 fans buys your song, then it is the right decision to stay away from Spotify.

      Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          Thank you. I did made a mistake though, so I’ll post a corrected version.
          Paul, if you see this would you then please delete version #1?

          Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “why would you withold your product from Spotify altogether as an indie artist?”
        I’m an indie artist and I would use Spotify if it made any sense.
        But it doesn’t.
        On the contrary.
        Let’s say you have 139 fans 🙂 and they look for your song on Spotify.
        They find it, they love it and they listen to it for free.
        Now, say your song is not on Spotify. Then your fans have three options:
        1) Forget it.
        2) Steal it.
        3) Buy it.
        Make your own guestimate. Mine says that 50% will forget it, 35% will steal it, and 15% will buy it on iTunes.
        Here’s the fact:
        If just one of your 139 fans buys your song, then it is the right decision to stay away from Spotify.

        Reply
        • Visitor Chris
          Visitor Chris

          Now I can see why artists make such poor businesspeople.
          Even with your correction, your conclusion doesn’t make sense to me.
          139 fans x 15% (fans who buy your song) = 21 fans. 21 x .75 (guesstimated payout) = $15.75 … forever.
          139 fans listening for free (okay not all day long, lets say 10 times on one day) 139 x 10 = 1390 x .005 = $6.95 … on every day they do that.
          BUT.. this is completely irrelevant because if you don’t have (many) thousands of fans, you’re not gonna make money being an artist anyway (sorry), so why not get your music out there for people to find and enjoy (and $hare)?
          Please correct me if I’m wrong.

          Reply
  15. Cd truly
    Cd truly

    I guess I am curious how new fans are generated on Spotify as I listen to their radio, not being a premium member and they decide what I listen to and have actually had some repeats within 3 hours- strange. People have to know about the artist to add them to a list, so it is still up to the artist and team to drive traffic to Spotify or ITunes or even shows and driving the fan base to Spotify only lessens the artists bottom dollar and brings the ‘said 139 fans or so’ to a medium where they get your music for free, no? Having 700,000 spins to get $4000 for an indie artist with 1000 true fans might take years- to make $4000. That is ludicrous, no?

    Reply
  16. MrIt
    MrIt

    Here is the issue in a nutshell, most music due to iTunes is about a dollar or a little more. I beleive it is completely disrespectful that Spotify gets paid for playing the music of people who have toiled and labored to give their all to their craft, and a company such as Spotify can legally get away with paying less than 10% to the artist for streaming their music. Its beyond ridiculous, similarly it comes down to one thing, Spotify; like so many other platforms that “tried” to re-invent the wheel, wants to be the greedy corporate giant who collects the majority of the money and pay out pennies to accrue a fortune. Anyone that does not understand this probably doesnt understand economics either. CAPITALISM and its destructive ways corrode anything until the life is drained out of it until the very last drop, (if you need proof of this go watch the documentary; Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore). It is a very simple matter which requires common sense, which apparently should be renamed to rare sense, since very few seem to possess it. Music takes a writer, a musical composer/producer, and a singer (often more than one depending upon how complex the vocals are), and and musicians. WHOEVER THINKS these people only deserve “5 cents” for their work to be heard are dellusional. Morover the issue goes back to what people value, it is a sad sad day when people will spend more money on one cup of coffee, a meal, or a bottle of water that literally costs pennies to make and lasts but for a moment, in contrast to music thats lasts a lifetime.

    Reply
    • Chrissy
      Chrissy

      Your outrage is misplaced. No one ever promised the music industry, anything. Just like any other business, if musicians and record labels can’t remain relevant in spite of our changing technology, thaaaat…. sucks for them.

      Look I get it. The music industry had it very good for a very long time BUT ONLY BECAUSE, at the time, they could strictly control who could listen to music, for how much and when. That time has ended and, I’m sorry, there is no going back. That’s why Aimee Mann is silly. Not because she wants to get paid for her work, but because she thinks it’s her work she will be paid for. The price of music has plummeted. Now musicians sell streams, views and likes. It’s advertising deals, it’s ticket sales. Anything else, anything even remotely similar to what the music industry had before, and we would have to distroy the internet. The policing alone would be outragous not to mention all of the restrictions and limits on the internet. Are you prepared for that? Have you even thought about it? You think Spotify is the problem? It’s not. Changing technology is the problem. If Aimee Mann would like to boycott that, too, she can be my guest. Otherwise, while she may not be on spotify where she at least can generate some revenue. she is on youtube, and no one pays her a dime for that. Which, again, brings me to …

      What a silly woman she is.

      Reply
      • Frutsrated
        Frutsrated

        So, you idiots are quite happy to allow a corporate group to rape artists and make HUGE sums of money for doing so – millions for their shareholders on a product that they have absolutely no actual share in regarding production and investment; arguing that the artist is of absolutely no value 0.00005 of a cent?!
        Spotify, must PAY the artist a fair and just percentage equal to the profits they make off the backs of the music they exploit to their own monopolistic advantage – the artist is the product, the artist is the investor, the artist is the music – they are entitled to a profitable share of the spotify platform!
        WAKE UP!!!! THIS IS DIGITISED SLAVE LABOUR

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *