• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    In effect, yes. Given that ~70% of revenue goes to rights holders, making the amount of revenue bigger by not paying 30% of subscriptions to Google, the savings are passed on to rights holders.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        …I mean, 30% of the savings go to Spotify, so some part of it will indeed go to stock buybacks and executive salaries. Some of it will go to regular employee salaries, and some of it will go to pay for technical infrastructure, and some of it will go to pay for offices. Some of it will be spent on marketing, even.

        70% of it will go to rights holders, though.

          • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, not true - the royalty payments are based on revenue, not profit.

            To understand how absurd the claim that royalty payments are based on profits is, consider that Spotify has had a grand total of two profitable quarters throughout its whole existence - are you seriously claiming that no artist ever got paid outside those two quarters?