@elilla @vantablack Spotify gives musicians 70% of the revune. It's better than nothing that the websites above give them, at least.
@Sibshops @elilla @vantablack Spotify takes 30% of the revenue, they don't "give" people anything
And even the remaining revenue distributed to artists is distributed extremely unfairly, which is a big part of the problem, it absolutely isn't a clear 30%/70% cut
@Sibshops @elilla @vantablack Again, Spotify is not "giving" anything to the artists. That is a misleading frame that ignores the part where the artists are doing nearly all of the work, and yet a middleman (Spotify) is claiming a significant chunk of their income as essentially a gatekeeper.
If you insist on arguing about this, I recommend you actually read up on the issues with Spotify first, and why a significant amount of *artists* are telling you that Spotify is bad for them.
Okay, I'll bite. What artist prefers their music to be pirated for free instead of listened to on Spotify.
Also, I feel like you may have accidentally read the first comment, again, and not second comment before you replied. I changed the wording from "giving" to "cut".
@joepie91 @elilla @vantablack
The percentage doesn't really matter. I just googled and found that number. Even if Spotify is taking a 50% cut instead of a 30% cut, it is still giving more to artists than the apps above.
What is more unfair to artists, giving them nothing or giving them 50%?
This sounds like an excuse to just take from artists by pointing at Spotify and saying, "bad".