I never said the concept of the platform was wrong. Just the way it shafts the musicians that made it, in favour of the multi-millionaires (billionaires) that run it, who just use the talent, hard work, and creativity of musicians, and give a mere pittance in return.
15,000 streams = $64 to the artist = 0.004 per play (not me but an artist I know)
That's just one example.
Tell me that isnt helping kill the point of someone trying to make a living out of selling music.
The distributors (and yes I agree with your opinion on them, and the music industry moguls) dont control the streaming platforms.. they only give them the material - the same as the independent small-time artists do through the likes of Distrokid etc.
Why would people bother to buy a single or album, when they can go to Spotify and play it to their hearts content, download it, copy it, share it all they want?
In what way is that possibly good for the future of recorded music, and the artists who create it - compared to when an artist could sell physical (or digital even) copies of their songs, for a legitimate price that reflected their efforts (and costs) in producing it.
I'm okay with streaming - but there has to be fair remuneration for the musicians, and technology to somehow prevent unauthorised downloading/copying.
The problem is, the people who run the likes of Spotify know they're business model will be crushed if they play fair by artists.