• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 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
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day 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
        12
        ·
        1 day 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
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

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