Browse by topic

News

Lady Gaga earned $167 from 1 million plays via Spotify

21 November 2009 19:10 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 40 comments

According to a report today from Expressen.se and translated by TorrentFreak, blockbuster star Lady Gaga made a measly $167 USD (SEK 1150) from the STIM (Swedish Performing Rights Society) after her song "Poker Face" was played one million times via Spotify over a 5-month period.

Spotify, the digital music service seen by some as the best chance the labels have to slow down piracy, appears to not reward the artists, while at the same time adding to the bottom line of the labels that control about 12 percent of the company.

Adds Swedish rapper Dogge Doggelito on the situation: �It is totally sick. We musicians have no rights, you may not charge [for music] anymore." Doggelito adds Lady Gaga could have made much more money driving "an illegal taxi cab."

From the other side, the Swedish music producer Alexander Bard said anything is better than what she made by having her music on The Pirate Bay and other torrent trackers. At least the number was ��more than zero,� he said.

Both have points, but the real questions should be who is making the money off these services and how could any artist of less popularity than Lady Gaga expect to make any money off them.

Permalink to this article | Topic: Online music services

Spotify for Android updated for 2.0 (17 December 2009)

Woman arrested for taping minutes of 'Twilight' film with camera (5 December 2009)

Spotify now available on Symbian phones (23 November 2009)

'Zombieland' director speaks of piracy, gets angry via Twitter (21 November 2009)

Majority of students prefer downloading music over streaming (11 November 2009)

Kazaa, Skype founders start unlimited music subscription service (15 October 2009)

French music streaming service Deezer receives more capital (13 October 2009)

My wishlist for Spotify (11 October 2009)

Spotify signs ISP deal (8 October 2009)

Spotify offline now available to PC users (2 October 2009)

« Previous news article
Proposed UK law would force ISP sanctions against file sharers

Next news article »
YouTube adds automatic captions for deaf viewers

Post your comment

Discuss this article!	There are more user comments available, read them here
mikecUSA (Junior Member) 22 November 2009 12:48
I agree there are elitists, and they don't stay elitists by thinking we don't count. The things we matter to them about are things we're willing to spend our money on, things we're willing to do for money and we give them ourselves to control, by who we bvote for and even when we don't vote at all. Now, I wish we all lived in a world where we all got what we wanted and didn't need any money but that will NEVER happen. It's just not realistic. So money is the conduit to all that we want and don't want. Never forget for a second that we don't matter to the elites. We do. Even they don't want to live in a world where only them and their type exist. They need us to give life its "color" and meaning--their existence would be menaingless without us and ours would be less interesting without them too. It really is quite ingenius when viewed long term and thoroughly. I'm a "fair use" guy living in a quickly becoming non-fair use world. I don't like it. I was happier before when a Sony would fight in court for the right of consumers to own a Betamax Video recorder and time shift TV shows and rental movies. But I will continue to buy movies I like and create backups for myself. I know that's not allowed but I bought the g-d movie, I will make a backup as long as its possible. I will just not feilshare. Feilsharing copyrighted material is wrong. If someone wants a copy of something they should buy it legally. Michael Cowles Springfield Virginia USA [ + quote]
scorpNZ (Senior Member) 22 November 2009 12:57
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3052145.stm nough said [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 22 November 2009 13:18
mikecUSA Lovely use of strawmen there, keep it up big biz will hire you as a shill someday. [ + quote]
mikecUSA (Junior Member) 22 November 2009 18:02
quotes from the article that you reference: "downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales. "We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said. " "That's just human nature." 'nuff said. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 22 November 2009 18:19
*Originally posted by mikecUSA:* quotes from the article that you reference: "downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales. "We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said. " "That's just human nature." 'nuff said. Yes you are just saying because it is there they shared it..... downloading is what it is friends shearing crap across a city block or building on a greater scale. People still consume regularly and with this will assist them in thinning out the dieing and stagnating parts of the industry to keep it healthy. [ + quote]
lawndog (Member) 23 November 2009 0:55
Mike you sound like your actually employed as a spokesman, perhaps a lawyer noting your word usage, or should I say lack of word usage. Let me ask you this.......... What is the average age of a file sharer? (not the people that burn and turn)copy and sell)) If I had to take a guess.......15-30?? High schoolers, collage, and up and comers. Where money that is made by these people is NOT going to go to music. I agree with you in the fact that musicians wouldn't be where they are had it not been for the labels. But is it proper to persecut the ones that are downloading their music and advertising it for them? Especially for the amounts that they are? Most companies over the last 1/2 centuray have had to restructure their companies to keep up with the times. But the music industry has not. "It's a formula that's worked for every major artist since the mid 60's." Sounds like their passing the blame for their own mistakes. Just my thoughts [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 23 November 2009 1:00
*Originally posted by lawndog:* Mike you sound like your actually employed as a spokesman, perhaps a lawyer noting your word usage, or should I say lack of word usage. Let me ask you this.......... What is the average age of a file sharer? (not the people that burn and turn)copy and sell)) If I had to take a guess.......15-30?? High schoolers, collage, and up and comers. Where money that is made by these people is NOT going to go to music. I agree with you in the fact that musicians wouldn't be where they are had it not been for the labels. But is it proper to persecut the ones that are downloading their music and advertising it for them? Especially for the amounts that they are? Most companies over the last 1/2 centuray have had to restructure their companies to keep up with the times. But the music industry has not. "It's a formula that's worked for every major artist since the mid 60's." Sounds like their passing the blame for their own mistakes. Just my thoughts Music....film.. media in general is stuck in the mud..... [ + quote]
scorpNZ (Senior Member) 23 November 2009 1:23
*Originally posted by mikecUSA:* quotes from the article that you reference: "downloading tracks did lead to a significant drop in the number of singles being bought, with just 13% of the 500 people surveyed saying they went on to buy singles in shops after getting them on the internet. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) told BBC News Online there was "an element of truth" in the survey's findings, but that it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales. "We did a survey in April that asked people the reasons why they downloaded, and 65% said because it was free," a BPI spokeswoman said. " "That's just human nature." 'nuff said. What's your point ?? The point of me linking the article is file sharers are the ones who BUY the most music,it's A fact from all other studies done over the years all draw the same conclusion. Drop in cd sales..lol..of coarse can't play a cd on an ipod or zune can ya,there maybe a drop in cd sales there is also an omitted increase on online purchases,don't see that mentioned often by the RIAA how convenient,CD'Ss are nothing more than yesterdays vinyl records it's a dying media,well sort of apparently there's a resurgence in vinyl being bought http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...ll-1812776.html [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23 November 2009 1:33
bam431 (Member) 23 November 2009 9:23
*Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* Well...at least she made some money while standing up.... Oh Burn [ + quote]
mikecUSA (Junior Member) 23 November 2009 10:11
The article quoted give lip service to the idea that downloaders buy "more music". This is supposedly stated by the downloaders themselves. "it was "disingenuous" to suggest downloading could boost album sales. " Most of the downloaders, MOST, don't pay for anything. What's the difference between a ripped CD at Flac or Mp3 320 kBIT, or a torrent of an entire catalog of an artist at FLAC or 320kbit Mp3? No difference. SO what's really going on is some people will buy a CD to put on a shelf these are "collectors". But the majority of downloaders do not behave this way. In reference to me being a Lawyer or an industry shill. No, I am a 48 year old mobile DJ that works in Bars and Private functions and have been doing that for 30 years. I buy my music legally and most of what I play comes from a music service I pay for that are for promotional purpses EXPLICITLY, where the artist is paid, the record company is paid and the distributor is paid. Performance rights IE: ASCAP and BMI fees are paid by the venue in which I find myself. If I sound like an industry shill or a little like a lawyer it is only because I've been dealing with this for years. The majority fo my competitors do not use legal music collections, adn they undercut me by charging less because they don't have the same expenses that I have. I can relate to the damage caused to anyone dependent on the music industry and how they are hurt by people acquiring their music collection without paying for it. [ + quote]
mikecUSA (Junior Member) 23 November 2009 10:19
So anyway, The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion. The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenaon all happening at the smae time, true megastars will become fewere and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We''l all be less better off as a result. [ + quote]
scum101 (Inactive) 23 November 2009 10:23
I guess you still stick to the false premise that every download is a lost sale? come back some other time.. my last cd sold MORE because it was available as a free download.. (as many people went and commented on my download site.. and some even drove miles to get a physical copy as there were no outlets in their region) people who liked it wanted to have the real full quality printed product. I don't class every download as a lost sale, in fact I class them as totally irrelevant in the scheme of things, apart from being a nice bit of advertising that doesn't cost me anything. No big record company involved (just a little local label dragged out of 10 years retirement to actually press and distribute the items.. they have been printing disks of bloody photoshop tutorials and crap like that for the last 10 years.. They released all my bands things over the years and were well pleased to finally get to complete the set of 4).. The big cartel conglomerates simply aren't required these days, and the artists should bloody well work it out. Wankers like Arctic Monkeys personify the shitty attitude these shills have.. they get big by being free download and live.. soon as they get a bit of success they turn their backs on the people who made them.. and where are they now.. forgotten by the wayside, that's where.. Dinosaurs who have milked us and treated us like sheep for far too long. their days are numbered.. stick iTuners in there as well.. it's all BS .. people have always sourced music for free.. right back to the days of the bloke sitting in an upstairs room punching copies of fairground organ cards by hand, or copying music manuscripts... Yes, we give you 100% free, no strings attached email! Just send us your address and we will send you as much free email as you could ever wish for [ + quote]
emugamer (Senior Member) 23 November 2009 16:21
*Originally posted by mikecUSA:* So anyway, The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion. The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenaon all happening at the smae time, true megastars will become fewere and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We''l all be less better off as a result. You imply that it's ridicuous to say that file sharer's buy more. Well, it's also ridiculous to say that most don't buy anything. You're assuming, and your opinion is just as invalid as the opposing one. I'm not going to pretend that I believe either. There's no way to tell. I realize you've been dealing with this for years. I'm just sorry you're head has been in a fog all this time, because apparantley you don't understand how people enjoy music. I'm glad you buy music legally. Good for you, after all, you get paid to play it. I read most of your rant, but it's the same as all industry propoganda. Mindless drivel aimed at criminalizing music sharing. People have been sharing music for decades. Instead of monetizing every instance of a song, the artist needs to focus on their true fans. Those are the people who will buy their music, go to their shows, buy their merchandise, etc. Anyone else shouldn't be a factor in the profit equation. In the end, the artist will make what the artist truly deserves. Once the song hits the airwaves, all IP rights should be null and void. Art and capitalism are like oil and water. I wonder how much longer the industry is going to try to stir the two together before they believe they've convinced us that they belong. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23 November 2009 16:22
DXR88 (Senior Member) 23 November 2009 17:37
the art of music was always about public performance, it wasn't until music was industrialized that all this mess came about. you can't put a price on art. [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 23 November 2009 20:55
*Quote:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* Well...at least she made some money while standing up.... Oh Burn What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~ *Quote:* *Originally posted by mikecUSA:* So anyway, The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion. The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenaon all happening at the smae time, true megastars will become fewere and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We''l all be less better off as a result. You imply that it's ridicuous to say that file sharer's buy more. Well, it's also ridiculous to say that most don't buy anything. You're assuming, and your opinion is just as invalid as the opposing one. I'm not going to pretend that I believe either. There's no way to tell. I realize you've been dealing with this for years. I'm just sorry you're head has been in a fog all this time, because apparantley you don't understand how people enjoy music. I'm glad you buy music legally. Good for you, after all, you get paid to play it. I read most of your rant, but it's the same as all industry propoganda. Mindless drivel aimed at criminalizing music sharing. People have been sharing music for decades. Instead of monetizing every instance of a song, the artist needs to focus on their true fans. Those are the people who will buy their music, go to their shows, buy their merchandise, etc. Anyone else shouldn't be a factor in the profit equation. In the end, the artist will make what the artist truly deserves. Once the song hits the airwaves, all IP rights should be null and void. Art and capitalism are like oil and water. I wonder how much longer the industry is going to try to stir the two together before they believe they've convinced us that they belong. IMO I look at CP and "monopolized art" and came to this conclusion that CP/IP is meant to give exclusive right of profit to the owner since time after time mere distribution is shot down via and's,if's,or's and butt's. So distribution is a red haring something to distract you from the truth, and that truth is people still consume and consume en mass thus what needs to be protected is licensed profit streams, if its not licensed it can not make money for any reason and can not be touched until so. Its that cut and dry. [ + quote]
creaky (Moderator) 24 November 2009 17:55
Spotify Isn�t Ripping Off Artists, The Labels Are *Quote:* According to new information received from music industry insiders, it turns out that Spotify isn�t ripping off the artists, the labels are. Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS/WPA ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 4node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G v3.1, WRT54G2 v1, WRT54G v5. * Forum Rules * [ + quote]
scum101 (Inactive) 24 November 2009 18:04
gasp .. the LABELS?? .. rip people off??.. never !! As John Lydon said "ever get the feeling you have been cheated?? Yes, we give you 100% free, no strings attached email! Just send us your address and we will send you as much free email as you could ever wish for [ + quote]
bam431 (Member) 24 November 2009 20:23
*Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* *Quote:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* Well...at least she made some money while standing up.... Oh Burn What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~ *Quote:* *Originally posted by mikecUSA:* Nothing that was a nice burn [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24 November 2009 20:24
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 24 November 2009 20:27
*Originally posted by bam431:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* *Quote:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* Well...at least she made some money while standing up.... Oh Burn What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~ *Quote:* *Originally posted by mikecUSA:* Nothing that was a nice burn Well someone had to say it :P Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Ah modern gaming its like modern film only the watering down of fiction and characters is replaced with shallow and watered down mechanics, gimmicks and shiny-er "people". http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/ [ + quote]
bam431 (Member) 24 November 2009 20:28
*Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* *Originally posted by bam431:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* *Quote:* *Originally posted by ZippyDSM:* Well...at least she made some money while standing up.... Oh Burn What? Nothing wrong with being blunt. ^_~ *Quote:* *Originally posted by mikecUSA:* Nothing that was a nice burn Well someone had to say it :P Glad you did I lol'd [ + quote]
Mrguss (Member) 24 November 2009 20:57
*Originally posted by mikecUSA:* How many super star artists are there right now without major record label backing? None! Without huge so called "SUPER GREEDY MUSIC, MOVIE AND MEDIA, WALL-STREET OR EVEN INCLUDING THE GOVERMENTS MAFIA CARTELS" record companies AND OTHER CORPORATIONS ALIKE......... So shut up about things you have not authority to comment on. You're pathetically ACCIDENTALLY suicidal. With out us......you are no body.....remember: "WE, THE PEOPLE" Why is not in this so called "Artis-Industry Contract" do not espesify on "Gold Numbers" the cuantity of Copies this Company is aloud to produce and sale.....and after the number is rich.....the Artis Creator of his Music or Wherever; It became the Absolute Owner of his Creation !!!! Why the Company or Corporation is STILING somebody else creation forever...... Who is the real "Bad Guy" here ? [ + quote]
Mrguss (Member) 24 November 2009 21:09
*Originally posted by mikecUSA:* No, I am a 48 year old mobile DJ that works in Bars and Private functions and have been doing that for 30 years. If I sound like an industry shill or a little like a lawyer it is only because I've been dealing with this for years. I am 43 years old and I am a DJ and VJ since high School....and I own the real stuff like you (Promo Only) and others..... Not because you feel the competition around you......you just want to grab a gun a shot at everybody the way you try to do it here....... [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 24 November 2009 21:22
*Quote:* *Originally posted by mikecUSA:* How many super star artists are there right now without major record label backing? None! Without huge so called "SUPER GREEDY MUSIC, MOVIE AND MEDIA, WALL-STREET OR EVEN INCLUDING THE GOVERMENTS MAFIA CARTELS" record companies AND OTHER CORPORATIONS ALIKE......... So shut up about things you have not authority to comment on. You're pathetically ACCIDENTALLY suicidal. With out us......you are no body.....remember: "WE, THE PEOPLE" Why is not in this so called "Artis-Industry Contract" do not espesify on "Gold Numbers" the cuantity of Copies this Company is aloud to produce and sale.....and after the number is rich.....the Artis Creator of his Music or Wherever; It became the Absolute Owner of his Creation !!!! Why the Company or Corporation is STILING somebody else creation forever...... Who is the real "Bad Guy" here ? That's another thing I do not get the system works like this by luck or chance you get signed and they take most of the money and own most of the rights, all the "small" people involved in production,ect have already been paid so the only entity in the process "losing out" on anything is the media origination that bought the rights or the owns most of the rights, and why do they lose money because they spend to much on mismanagement,cocaine and honing trends instead of just selling stuff. No one not even the creators are losing out on any "real* money here as the process burns tons of it to keep functioning. [ + quote]
dpilarz (Newbie) 27 November 2009 15:18
Music is a performance art. It's at it's best when performed live in front of an audience. Recordings are second-hand music: sometimes reaching heights of excellence but really missing the point of how music works. Music is greatest when fresh and responsive to the moment. Listening to a carbon copy of an interpretation is a bit artificial because it avoids one of the finest things about music its communicative, immediate effect: live performer and audience are in syntony and together create the music. So the whole concept of selling recorded music is only a whiff of what music is really about. Therefore recordings shouldn't cost or be worth much. Musicians should make their living performing in front of an audience and constantly reinventing their music. Recordings can, at best, serve the same end as radio did in the '50s & 60's: to attract people to the concerts. And file sharing should serve that same purpose. Why make such a fuss about something of such little value. As the so-called music industry winds down in profitability and usefulness I hope it will be replaced by a renewed enthusiasm for real music MAKING. [ + quote]
Chroma45 (Member) 27 November 2009 18:15
*Quote:* Music....film.. media in general is stuck in the mud..... Always have been and always will be. These are same companies that fought VHS/Beta and Audio Cassettes. [ + quote]
six60six (Newbie) 28 November 2009 23:50
*Originally posted by mikecUSA:* The arrival of the next star or the next hit performer with "critical mass" popularity will not happen without record company backing and promotion. The problem is instead of having a Rolling Stones and Beatle occur along with, say a Motown Sound phenomenon all happening at the same time, true megastars will become fewer and farther between, and the number of isolated stars popping up will be reduced,as record companies will not take as many chances. We'll all be less better off as a result. top 40 pop music has caused way more harm than good. it has drowned out many, many musicians that will never be heard because they weren't profitable or didn't fit the mold. we don't need hit performers with 'critical mass'. we need less marketing and less a&r jokers and less target market research. we need less charts. we need people to find out what they like by offering them everything not just the next fad. [ + quote]