> Okay, but why does the artists have to make Spotify multibillionaires with their art?
ghaff already covered why: because Spotify is the distribution channel.
40 years ago, they would've put their music on the radio. Today, they put it on Spotify. Why? Because if they don't, very few people are ever going to even know they exist.
And if you think the fact that Spotify is giving them a terrible deal means they shouldn't engage with them, then I'll point to any of a dozen other examples today of massive corporations profiting excessively off of people who have very little choice but to engage with them. Being able to choose to do otherwise, and remain in the music business, is a very privileged position to be in.
I'd say streaming is the distribution channel. Apple (especially because their bundles) and maybe Amazon probably have opinions about Spotify specifically being the distribution channel. But that's probably being pedantic because the deals are almost certainly similar.
If you're not getting paid, you're not doing "business".
Yes, there are many other examples of companies having exploratory practices the same way as Spotify. That still does not explain very well why people put up with it.
If a farmer exploits a migrant worker, the migrant worker gets paid enough for shelter and food. He is depending on that job for surviving. When artists are exploited by Spotify, the money they usually receive is nowhere close to paying for shelter or food, so they have to survive by other means anyway. Keeping their music on Spotify or removing it from Spotify doesn't make any difference for their livelihood.
Because the other thing Spotify gets them is exposure. Whether or not it's worth what they have to deal with from Spotify, I have no idea—but I can absolutely see many artists putting up with it in hopes that being heard on Spotify will get people to buy their merch, come to their concerts, etc.
Musicians/DJs/etc. also often do corporate gigs to eat. I'm sure they'd often much rather be playing for passionate fans in a bar than playing at some event where half the time the attendees are largely ignoring them except to wish they would turn down the volume so they could have a conversation.
Somewhat different situation than the Spotify case which is arguably mostly an advertising channel while corporate gigs actually pay directly. But creatives of all stripes doing things they'd rather not do so they can live, do what they want to do, and have a sliver of a sliver of a chance to breakout is extremely common.
ghaff already covered why: because Spotify is the distribution channel.
40 years ago, they would've put their music on the radio. Today, they put it on Spotify. Why? Because if they don't, very few people are ever going to even know they exist.
And if you think the fact that Spotify is giving them a terrible deal means they shouldn't engage with them, then I'll point to any of a dozen other examples today of massive corporations profiting excessively off of people who have very little choice but to engage with them. Being able to choose to do otherwise, and remain in the music business, is a very privileged position to be in.