Hacker News

points by AnotherGoodName 2 days ago | 0 comments

In fact simply no royalty at all.

The music industry associations around the world generally can’t force you to use their royalty system for your own music. So if you make an ai generated track they’re out of the loop completely. As much as people hate ai music it’s a nice upside.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

It's important that they pay the royalty to themselves because the royalty is a fraction of your subscription fee divided by the number of royalties paid. Paying one to themselves dilutes the others.

[–] vintermann 2 days ago

It's amazing how many people commenting on streaming royalties don't understand this fact, claiming for instance that s music treaming service X plays more per stream.

It may well do, but if so, that's because they have more passive subscribers, or more generally that their users listen to less music. Possibly because their recommendation services are worse (most were much worse than Spotify's last time I checked), or possibly just because they have less users streaming all day in their hair salon etc.

(This payment scheme also why Jay Z's Tidal, when it inflated the listens of Beyonce's "Lemonade" and Kanye's "Life of Pablo", stole from every other artist on that platform. I'm still amazed they got away with that, but I guess Norwegian courts weren't prepared for the "shit-flinging monkey" legal strategy.)

[–] lelandfe 2 days ago

I also perform my own covers of songs in my bedroom for free, thereby saving hundreds of dollars on concert fees.

[–] scottyah 2 days ago

I typically book my shower as the venue, purely for the superior acoustics.

[–] jurgenburgen 2 days ago

> As much as people hate ai music it’s a nice upside.

I’m so happy that massive corporations can save on royalties by pushing AI slop in my playlist.