Slashdot Mirror
Spotify Denies Allegations It's Putting Fake Artists On Popular Playlists To Cut Costs (factmag.com)
Last year, music industry publication Music Business Worldwide (MBW) claimed Spotify was putting fake artists in some of its popular playlists. The publication listed 50 artists it claimed were not real. Why would they do such a thing? To keep royalty costs down. MBW claimed that Spotify "was asking producers to create music to specification and paying them a flat fee to own the track outright," reports FACT Magazine. "These tracks -- which MBW alleged were being used to bulk up numbers on ambient, chillout and piano playlists -- are said to be owned by Spotify so that the company could circumvent royalty payments on playlists that have millions of subscribers." From the report: The claims were brought to wider attention by a feature published by Vulture last week, which picked out acts called Deep Watch and Enno Aare as examples of "fake artists" that had racked up two million and 15 million streams despite having no public profile. In a statement given to Billboard last week, Spotify refuted the allegations made by both MBW and Vulture. "We do not and have never created 'fake' artists and put them on Spotify playlists," the company said. "Categorically untrue, full stop. We pay royalties -- sound and publishing -- for all tracks on Spotify, and for everything we playlist. We do not own rights, we're not a label, all our music is licensed from rightsholders and we pay them -- we don't pay ourselves. We do not own this content -- we license it and pay royalties just like we do on every other track." In a piece published yesterday, MBW challenged Spotify's statement, citing anonymous sources in the music business who claimed that the practice has been going on for a "long time."
Aren't most of them fake artists, really?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Produce a bunch of garbage and hope people think its a positive.
record companies did the same thing back in the day. top songs covered by unknown talent and sold as ALL the HITS on one ALBUM.
Maybe they're making typos in the artists' names.
The music corporations see it as a problem because they want everyone to pay them a fee every time a song is played, heard, recorded or experienced in any other way. If they could scan your brain and catch you remembering a song, they'd want a payment.
So. No problem.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Enno Aare seems like a real person to me.
Has anybody attempted to look him up on Youtube? Enno has three videos and he actively responds in the comments. He posted a link to the sheet music he created for Water Ripples.
After about a 20 minute search I've established that Enno Aare is a man of Estonian descent. I was unable to get a listing for the man in Estonia, so he could either be unlisted or lives abroad.
Fake artists in playlists? Well, where are the screen shots? Or doesn't Spotify show clearly what is playing when?
I skimmed the first link in TFA which supposedly was an earlier article about the same issue, and it didn't show any screen shots or any other form of evidence other than some vague allegations. For now I have to put this in the "fake news" corner.
You need to install Spotify on that phone for some cool, soothing, Definitely Not Fake - We Don't Own This ambient music.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Especially since all techno sounds the same anyway.
And if they bring in new, upcoming artists, that benefits everyone except the entrenched record labels. (boo-hoo)
Someone stop them!!
I think you're right about that. Google and Spotify just hoover up all the recorded music they can and some of that is bound to be lame covers and public domain background music.
I've been working on getting Spotify and Google to improve their multi-genre playlists. That's where their algorithms seem to break down a bit. Pandora, on the other hand, does a great job with their "stations". If I add artists across genres, it doesn't miss a beat, and if I tell it that I don't like a particular record (like maybe a live version of a song I want that was recorded 30 years after the original), it manages to pick up on my preferences.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Its like a newspaper buying a photo. The photo get printed and the readers are happy.
The readers buy the newspaper again the next day and more images are found to fill the pages.
Does the reader really care what deal was done per image everyday?
Each and every photographer got paid in some way for their work and understands what the image will be used for.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
They are all actually aliases of Aphex Twin.
The tracks were put on flash drives left in the parking lot of the Spotify offices.
Did the music deliver what people want? If so, good. If not, they'll switch to something else. Who gives a fuck who made it? Do I care what carpenter made my table? What I care is whether the legs are equal in length and the surface is flat but not for the name of its maker.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I get a very strong feeling that MBW and Vulture are either voluntary shills or paid off by RIAA and the big labels, to tarnish Spotify's reputation. There are licensing negotations ongoing with the major labels, and they obviously want to put Spotify in as bad a light as possible, so they can steamroll over them with demands.
As mentioned in other comments, a bunch of those "fake artists" are absolutely real people.
Eat the rich.
Now that I've learned that Spotify might be screwing the RIAA, my interest has peaked enough that I am considering actually trying the service now.
I've been using Pandora since forever, and the client I use saves every track its played to my hard drive. Its called Time Shifting and the supreme court has ruled it legal. Go fuck yourself RIAA.
"His name was James Damore."
Also, fake artist sounds concerning as fake faux leather in today's climate, post the death of talent.
Requiem for the American Dream
The word "artist" in the broader sense of this context refers to the one (or ones) who directly created the work of art in question. A piece of music is regarded as a work of art for this purpose, and in the specific context of a piece of music "the artist" usually refers to the performers, often by band name. But not every piece is a recording of a performance, so the word "artist" is used in place of a more awkward title, such as "performer or whatever term applies"
And it's sometimes profitable for the composer/artist.
But this exposes not the profit motive of Spotify (and whatever other service is currently 'getting away' with it), but the marketing foundation of the music industry. Some music genres are so focused on marketing the same formula to the same audience that they are no longer creative, but industrial. Apologies to the industrial music genre.
But I still buy (I know, outmoded but I love owning the music I want) electrionica, dance, bass, and classic rock which is another industrial phenomenon. Yard sales yield treasures for pennies, and my library is recovering from the last (2001) devastation.
And no, I do not need vinyl any more than I need Dolby B cassettes or 15ips reels.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I wish I had mod points for you, sir. Bravo.
Musicians have to fight tooth and nail to make a dollar off their music and then someone comes along and makes it even tougher to get a dollar out of the fat cats. If people on Slashdot don't see the correlation to American programmers being replaced by H1B visa workers then they really aren't paying attention.
As a life-long musician, I call BS.
Technology and civilization have moved on, and so now selling recordings of music is simply no longer a valid business model, just like making buggy-whips after the rise of the automobile. If you're a musician and want to make a buck, play a live gig and sell merch and quick-burned discs of that show. Go on tour. Play casinos and cruise ships.
Performing live shows is where the money is at for musicians these days. Unless you're already so popular you're a household name, the labels and "music industry" organizations are nothing but a millstone around artist's necks bleeding them dry like bad loan-sharks.
Sorry labels/RIAA/etc etc. You had a good run but it's over now, the world and technology have moved on. Please have the grace to go quietly into that good night. It's not like you've got a lot of choice. You're done, regardless.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Streaming is a legitimate means of advertising one's material to a larger audience thereby earning more gigs. I'm sure that as a life-long musician with an illustrious career that you understand the need to use many different avenues for advertising your work to new markets. So no of course the royalties from streaming is worth next to nothing but the marketing you get from having people actually hear your music is. If the charts are ate up by a bunch of filler, there's no room for yooouuuuu
So basically they did what every video game that has music has done ever and honestly most films as well. So what? You want royalties, ask for them. You want contracted composition work, then do that. Whatever the artist wants is fine honestly.
Piqued.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
ah yes thank you.
It really didnt look right to me, but I knew peeked was wrong.
"His name was James Damore."
If the charts are ate up by a bunch of filler, there's no room for yooouuuuu
And the labels/RIAA/etc etc are to blame for putting streaming services in the position that they feel pressured to use filler to reduce costs so they can remain in operation and pay their people.
Besides, since I already do occasional session work, I may be able to get well-paying session gigs to produce their "filler".
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Spotify reported $3 billion in revenue last year, so I imagine that they're doing okay. I'm sure that they'd say that they were on a shoe-string budget if you asked them though. I do commend you for pulling in solid cash doing session work. It does speak to your skill. Charging a flat fee (at what I'm sure is a premium price) is smart too. Then you don't have to worry about whether the act is getting screwed over by his label or whatever. Don't get me wrong, good music is good music, "filler" or not. And you're absolutely right - it's up to an artist to demand the value of their work. What I see is that Spotify is doing really well off a royalty system and feels the need to push the royalty rates even lower by contriving competition by commissioning music. It's whatever. Gotta play to win, right?
Spotify reported $3 billion in revenue last year, so I imagine that they're doing okay. I'm sure that they'd say that they were on a shoe-string budget if you asked them though.
Large gross receipts do not equal large (or even any) profits. Hosting, data rates, licensing, royalties, compliance costs, lawyers...none of that is cheap, especially at the amounts, sizes, and amount of pure red tape involved. Much of that income is also from streaming non-US/RIAA artists and content as well.
Ultimately, the labels and RIAA-type organizations are doomed. The very nature of how people acquire and listen to music has totally changed and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
I do commend you for pulling in solid cash doing session work. It does speak to your skill. Charging a flat fee (at what I'm sure is a premium price) is smart too. Then you don't have to worry about whether the act is getting screwed over by his label or whatever.
I'm in a band that I perform live shows with. The session work is a nice side-income and networking resource. It allows more flexibility in choosing when & where we perform when the pressure to make money is lessened. It allows us to do things like play more benefits for homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other similar charities & causes. I can so I do because if I don't, who will?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Large gross receipts do not equal large (or even any) profits. Hosting, data rates, licensing, royalties, compliance costs, lawyers...none of that is cheap, especially at the amounts, sizes, and amount of pure red tape involved. Much of that income is also from streaming non-US/RIAA artists and content as well.
Ultimately, the labels and RIAA-type organizations are doomed. The very nature of how people acquire and listen to music has totally changed and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
I still see it as a race to the bottom. My issue isn't whether this affects the labels' bottom line. I write my own music, I perform my own music, I'm interested in copyrighting my own music, I want to use Spotify to provide another avenue for listeners to hear my music. If I get lucky enough to get featured on a playlist, I'd like to think people would actually hear my work, not maybe hear it after listening to fifty fluffer tracks that Spotify put in there. I know better than to expect to become rich from the streaming, but you know what if I put out a hit that I spent my own time/money on equipment, mixing, mastering, copyrighting, all that jazz, I don't want someone reneging on the rate that we agreed to. I just don't understand how you don't see this practice as unethical of Spotify. If it were ethical, I am certain that they would have no problem being forthcoming about the practice.
I just don't understand how you don't see this practice as unethical of Spotify.
It would only be unethical if Spotify were misrepresenting the works. As long as they're not misrepresenting the works as created by another artist or an artist that does not exist, I see no problem. I'm sure they paid the people that made the tracks in question. Session and studio musicians gotta eat and keep the lights on, too. Heck, I'd consider laying down some tracks for Spotify to use as filler if the pay is decent. Why not? Just another paying contract gig. Bend like the reed when it meets the wind, Grasshopper. Adapt and use it as a new opportunity and resource.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.