We’ve been hinting at this for a while. That essentially the streaming services implicitly use the threat of piracy to negotiate lower rates with artists. We suspect that is why a service like Spotify that claims to be “Pro-Artist” refuses to speak out against Ad Supported Piracy despite our previous request for them to do so and despite the fact the “legal” services and pirate sites compete for exactly the same ad revenue.
We no longer have to hint at this. It appears Spotify has crossed the rubicon. In this corporate “study” they explicitly link non-availability on Spotify to increased piracy. In other words:
“Thats a real nice album you got there. I’d hate to see it torrented”
To me this reads like a admission that the threat of piracy is fundamental to their business model.
(Ed note: Is this legal? A question for National Association of Attorneys General?)
But I could be wrong. Spotify could easily clear this up. We ask once again for Artist-in-Residence at Spotify D.A Wallach to take action against Ad Supported Piracy. Will Spotify join us in the fight against Ad Supported Piracy?
When will the streaming and webcasting services understand that their low payments (to songwriters especially) make them qualitatively no different than a pirate site. In fact I’d rather have an honest conversation with a pirate party advocate than to listen to lies from some Silicon Valley billionaire.
“Oh please! Tell me again how your 5th amendment violating, government mandated and artists subsidized streaming service is gonna be good for me ’when it scales?‘”