I prefer a world that supports artists to one that doesn't, but from a purely selfish perspective, there's already so much recorded music that I do love or will, if/when I eventually discover it, love, that I wouldn't run out of novel, great material that's to my taste, in two lifetimes. There are whole major genres I've barely even touched so far.
The effect on my lifetime QOL would be basically zero if no new commercial music were created ever again.
Between dead artists and art-for-art-sake artists we're not gonna run out of stuff to listen to, even if intellectual property was abolished tomorrow morning (as it should be). It only works for the 1 percent at the top anyway (due to power law distribution).
Can you or jrm4 explain why Spotify's royalty system (a 70/30 split in favour of the rights holder) is unfair?
If I had to guess I'd say it convinces artists to license their work for less money than they'd make if they stuck it on Bandcamp, but I'm not certain, and neither of you has explained it.
I specifically said "hasn't improved much" instead of "unfair" because I do realize that it wasn't particularly fair before?
At present, it seems like the most fair thing would be to just be honest about the fact that royalties from Spotify and royalties from piracy for the vast majority of artists is roughly equal. :)
Well , it’s either I listen to it using this easy platform for us common folk, or I don’t listen to them at all. Or i pirate. It’s not that deep , you can get off your high horse.
There's no high horse. Your message doesn't answer the argument. The fact (A) that one wouldn't buy music if Spotify weren't available is not related to (B) not caring about how Spotify treats artists.
Even if A is true, it doesn't imply that one has no empathy for artists.
If you consume music then surely, you want the artists and musicians you support to be paid fairly for their work.