Read on Twitter
Right now, if you are an average consumer of music, most of your subscription streaming fee is *not* going to the music that you listen to.
It is going to music that you may not even like or, indeed, approve of.
It is going to music that you may not even like or, indeed, approve of.
You can work out how much of your subscription is going to what you listen to...
Listened to 500 tracks this month? That's 500 x £0.005 or approximately £2.50 that @Spotify are paying to music you listen to.
Of £10.
Listened to 500 tracks this month? That's 500 x £0.005 or approximately £2.50 that @Spotify are paying to music you listen to.
Of £10.
@spotify pay £7 to music and keep £3. To get your £7 to go *solely* to your music, you have to listen at least 1400 tracks per month.
Which, from Spotify statistics, appears to be significantly more than double average listening habits, closer to triple in fact.
Which, from Spotify statistics, appears to be significantly more than double average listening habits, closer to triple in fact.
But there is an alternative to this called 'User-Centric Payment'. This means your subscription can only go to your music. If you listen to one song this month, that one song gets £7.
Listen to 500, like an average user? That's £0.014 per track, nearly triple what @spotify pay.
Listen to 500, like an average user? That's £0.014 per track, nearly triple what @spotify pay.
At present the system can be scammed. You can 'farm' streams to get paid more.
Presently one user can play 5000 tracks in a month and farm £25 of value from £7 in their subscription. With UCPS this becomes impossible.
Presently one user can play 5000 tracks in a month and farm £25 of value from £7 in their subscription. With UCPS this becomes impossible.
When you're next in a cafe or hairdresser try and find out if they are using a personal account to play background music all day long.
If they are, there's every chance your subscription is paying for that.
If they are, there's every chance your subscription is paying for that.
UCPS could replace the existing licensing system that allows Major Labels to secretly set different rates of pay for their music.
The consumer would set the price, not the companies.
The consumer would set the price, not the companies.
Meaning transparent accounting for artists.
The licensing deals would not need to be protected by NDAs because no favourable terms for any individual music company or distributor would need to exist.
Market dominance gets suppressed.
The licensing deals would not need to be protected by NDAs because no favourable terms for any individual music company or distributor would need to exist.
Market dominance gets suppressed.
UCPS may well have some disadvantages, but, for me, it appears like the possible wins massively outweigh the negatives.
I mean 'my money, my music' seems obvious enough to me.
What about you?
#BrokenRecord
#MyMoneyMyMusic
@Deezer @soundcloud
I mean 'my money, my music' seems obvious enough to me.
What about you?
#BrokenRecord
#MyMoneyMyMusic
@Deezer @soundcloud
