• min_fapper@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because they have all the customers.

    If you don’t like the rate the current major platforms give, you could choose to use one of the many alternatives that (presumably) exist.

    And if they really don’t, I could build you one in a couple of weekends with all the open source resources and federation protocols available today.

    But none of that matters because all the paying customers are on those major platforms. And until you convince users to move off those platforms, you’re basically their bitch. They’ll pay you whatever they happen to feel like paying you.

    • min_fapper@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Actually while typing that out I thought more about the technical architecture of such distributed alternative streaming service that pays artists fairly, and it does sound like it could be fun to build.

      But everyone in the fediverse already knows how difficult/impossible it is to get the average person to switch to open source software. It would most likely be a waste of time.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Here’s a person who knows way more about the music industry than all of us in this thread out together. And he’s thought a lot about this, too

        Not so much the fediverse side of it, but the legal, and financial/jobs side of things.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t think you can get people to agree on what’s “fair” but it’s always fun to think about. What would your fair payment scheme look like?