does the artists i listen to get paid?

Can you andser me this please Andres - is a play on Spotify considered as a physical sale or like a radio airplay? These are both remunerated very differently to the content creators and normally paid to artists at very different rates.... Can Spotify clarify this please? ( Delete or Edit)

I see what you mean, I don't want some bands or labels getting funds from me to continue... ( Delete or Edit)

The reason I'm asking is I have the option to advise my friend to either allow or not allow his band's music on spotify. If he won't get paid, he'll loose any revenue he would have received from CD sales. It does matter to some. ( Delete or Edit)

I'd have thought it would run alongside the PRS system? ( Delete or Edit)

There's a difference between labels being paid and artists. Also there's the question of how much spotify is paying out per listen. This should be publicly available information - or at least available to artists who participate. ( Delete or Edit)

Cheers! I'll pass that along! ( Delete or Edit)

"PLEASE PAY US!"

Are you implying that you have music on Spotify that somebody is listening to and you haven't got paid? If not, I can't really understand why you would add that last part to your message. ( Delete or Edit)

No, not at all. It's just that Spotify doesn't seem to disclose how much of the revenue goes to artists labels and publishers. I couldn't find that information easily so possibly more transparency is needed. I should probably apologise as today I find myself working in Sweden, and whilst I haven't discovered the figures, I do understand that artists do actually benefit from plays properly, which is as I had hoped. I am a fan. This is the future. People aren't interested in the physical purchase any more, just the listening experience. So if it operates rather like a personalised radio station then that is the future once the software is available on smart phones and iPods. ( Delete or Edit)

That sounds like an ill informed preconception to me. If the labels are paid then the artists would get whatever their deal with their label says. The question is whether it is considered a physical sale or like radio airplay, as they are both normally paid to artists at different rates.... Can Spotify clarify this please? ( Delete or Edit)

well you are accurate in that it is a preconception but one that the industry brought on them selves, were they use the artist in the debate but keep larger parts of the income for them selves. It's a most hipocritical industry and it's got nothing to do with the artists getting paid or not. ( Delete or Edit)

You sound like a serial torrent filesharer foffen... then nobody at all gets paid.

It's an industry trying to make a commercial model out of a creative product. Which is difficult - and most of the industry has been caught with it's pants down by the whole digital thing, and now they've realised it's a bit too late...

I don't know why you have such vitriol for the industry as a whole? ( Delete or Edit)

While i may agree in some part with an argument that the artist doesn't get paid nearly as much as they should, with many record labels signing the artist in to a contract worth lets say £1 million. That normally comes with clauses that the artist must release 4 albums in 8 years etc.. And yes the record label knows the music sold if marketed well will make more than £1 million over the course of that artists contract. We can't forget that it's a business the record label are here to make money as much as the artist,t he artist still gets paid regardless.

Sure the label sticks restrictions on certain artists comparitively crushing their creative visions but those restrictions are normally lifted once the artist proves successful. It is all a business and everyone gets paid, the only way no one gets paid is through illegal downloading and thats the irony. These freedom fighters, fighting for the rights of the artist through downloading and not paying for music in some petty "if we don't pay the label dies" argument. They all lose even the artist as if the label doesn't get their money the artist doesn't, or worse the artist gets dropped and falls into mere obscurity never to be heard again. ( Delete or Edit)

No one wants the artists to not get payed and no one can legitimately refuse the record labels their right to make a profit.
All we want, in the age of the internet, is GLOBAL RELEASES and NO REGIONAL RESTRICTIONS. Is that really too much to ask?
I and many others are often put in the situation where the only way we can obtain something that we are willing to pay for is by nefarious means, as the producers of the product we want to pay for are unwilling to sell it to us! ( Delete or Edit)

Are you answering my reply or not? If not I'd be interested to hear your views on what I said. ( Delete or Edit)

To digithed:

Apologies, I meant to answer to foffen...
I agree with your comments really, same applies though more strongly to the US film and TV industry. Why do we always get treated in the UK like second class market, getting things late? Series like Lost, 24, Heroes always end up here way behind, so the only way to see them is by those "nefarious means" you mention (good name for it!)

To foffen:

So, are you suggesting the industry shouldn't earn money from it? I don't really see why you have such a huge downer on the music business, in favour of the artists.

That's what a lot of press articles like to sell papers with as scandal, but the reality is we're pretty much on the same side. The problem with the music business now, from an artist's point of view, is that there are no new deals being done because the companies don't know how to make back the money they've invested. That's what I mean by "caught with their pants down".

There are some other quite wise and well rounded posts on this thread you might do well to take a look at.... ( Delete or Edit)