• bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Thats not their model, and that model also sucks ass for supporting other humans.

    I am one of those weirdos who likes to own my media. There are few of us geezers left, but luckily enough that bandcamp exists.

    • blitzen@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      Just because the Spotify model sucks doesn’t mean it has to.

      I don’t see a reason why 85% of a monthly subscription couldn’t given directly to the artists you actually listen to, and any albums your purchase is on the platform (and you get to keep the drm-free files).

      Honestly it kinda sounds like an awesome service.

      Edit: I’m one of those geezers too, who prefers to own my music. I just think there’s room for both.

      • bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 days ago

        I agree. Probably not profitable to the company though. Gotta keep those server costs covered…

        It’d be nice if people could make a living off art but capitalism is against that at every turn especially now. Art shouldn’t even be related to money in some people’s opinions .

      • huppakee@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        The Spotify model sucks despite throwing money at it for years, so my guess is they surely can give you some reasons why 85% of your monthly subscription can’t be given to the artists you listen to.

        • Soggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          12 days ago

          Publicly traded companies are always going to turn to shit, the “Spotify model” is just appeasing shareholders with infinite growth.