• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Likely antitrust.

      That said if you’ve gone down the path of reasoning that says things that aren’t illegal are okay, then I don’t know what to tell you.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I suppose you could argue that Spotify can abuse its position in the same way that Walmart bullies its suppliers and Microsoft freezes out competition, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening here. Like I said, it sounds like they’re just preferring cheaper sources.

        • Thassodar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          But they aren’t just preferring cheaper sources, they’re funding production houses that crank out music cheaper than it would cost to pay a single artist, and then putting that “mass” produced music on playlists that they themselves promote, allll to avoid promoting actual artists and paying them potentially more than they’re paying the production house.

          It’s in terribly bad faith because I myself am an artist that distributes through Spotify, not only because I can reach the widest audience, but I’m hoping on some level Spotify is promoting my new music to people outside of my own purview. But they aren’t. They’re flooding the market with cheap music and only promoting it.

          • catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Okay, that’s shitty for sure, but I’m not sure that it amounts to illegality, at least under US law.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is behavior is anti competitive under both US and EU and member states’ law.

      Issue is the regulatory capture along with strong corporate lobbying on these issues.

      If you are with it, that’s cool. But behavior has historical precedent and it requires the state to set boundaries on the extraction practices