The entire point of the post is that _Spotify_, rather than piracy, is the option that lets users "feel good about themselves". With piracy, at least the user _knows_ they're not compensating the artist.
I think you can take both interpretations. Someone might think "if Spotify is paying artists virtually nothing, I might as well cut out the middle man and just pirate music".
Spotify is worse than that; even the labels are getting virtually nothing. But you have a good point; when you buy something at Wal-Mart, the company that makes the product doesn't make any profit either.
Comments
Hooray, now all the people stealing music can feel good about themselves because one particular artist agrees with them. Ergo, it is ethically ok.
I take it you didn't read the article?
The entire point of the post is that _Spotify_, rather than piracy, is the option that lets users "feel good about themselves". With piracy, at least the user _knows_ they're not compensating the artist.
I think you can take both interpretations. Someone might think "if Spotify is paying artists virtually nothing, I might as well cut out the middle man and just pirate music".
Is this particularly different from other industries?
When I buy clothes, how much of it goes to actual factory worker / designer?
Spotify is worse than that; even the labels are getting virtually nothing. But you have a good point; when you buy something at Wal-Mart, the company that makes the product doesn't make any profit either.