this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
272 points (99.3% liked)

Music

10492 readers
84 users here now

↳ Our family Communities:

➰#Music

Music.world - !music@lemmy.world

Jazz -!jazz@lemmy.world

Album Art Porn - !albumartporn@lemmy.world

Fake Album Covers - !fakealbumcovers@lemm.ee

Obscure Music - !ObscureMusic@lemm.ee

Vinyl and LP's - !vinyl@lemmy.world

Electronic Dance Music - !edm@reddthat.com

60's Music - !60smusic@lemmy.world

70's Music - !70smusic@lemmy.world

80's Music - !80smusic@lemmy.world

90's Music - !90smusic@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Musicians have long criticized the streaming service’s paltry payouts, but a new wave of boycotts is emerging

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, it's an artist co-op. Artists own part of the platform, so they can control how it works and what decisions are made.

Instead of being at the whims of some profit-brained tech CEO, the artists vote on what the platform does -- it's a democratic way to control the future of the internet, or, in this particular case, of music streaming, sales, and merch for artists on the internet.

I think it's pretty cool, but it's not a thing quite yet. They're aiming to open this year, though. We'll see.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago

The nice thing about this model (band camp, subvert etc) is that they don't have network effects:
Just because artists I like are on bandcamp there is no extra 'cost' for me to get that one artist from subvert. That means that artists are not locked into the biggest platform.