this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
233 points (95.3% liked)

Music

9193 readers
194 users here now

↳ Our family Communities:

➰#Music

Music.world - !music@lemmy.world

Jazz -!jazz@lemmy.world

Album Art Porn - !albumartporn@lemmy.world

Fake Album Covers - !fakealbumcovers@lemm.ee

Obscure Music - !ObscureMusic@lemm.ee

Vinyl and LP's - !vinyl@lemmy.world

Electronic Dance Music - !edm@reddthat.com

60's Music - !60smusic@lemmy.world

70's Music - !70smusic@lemmy.world

80's Music - !80smusic@lemmy.world

90's Music - !90smusic@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They aren't. The fees are supposed to benefit the streaming companies.

I hope the bill discussed in the article helps rectify that.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

homie the only thing streaming benefits right now is music publishers, spotify and the artists are losing money like it's oil being produced during the industrialization.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The last update that I saw was that Spotify would be in the green if it didn't have to give severance pay to a large number of employees after mass layoffs, and also some real estate expenses that seem pretty unusual for a streaming service to have...? They should just ask Wisconsin to build them a place for free, those idiots will do anything for industry.

they would be in the green if they didn't outsource music publishing, ironically.