Spotify CEO Daniel Ek sparked an online backlash after a social media post in which he said the cost of creating “content” is “close to zero”.

The boss of the streaming giant said in a post on X: "Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero, people can share an incredible amount of content. This has sparked my curiosity about the concept of long shelf life versus short shelf life.

"While much of what we see and hear quickly becomes obsolete, there are timeless ideas or even pieces of music that can remain relevant for decades or even centuries.

“Also, what are we creating now that will still be valued and discussed hundreds or thousands of years from today?”

Music fans and musicians were quick to call Ek out, with one user, composer Tim Prebble, saying: “Music will still be valued in a hundred years. Spotify won’t. It will only be remembered as a bad example of a parasitic tool for extracting value from other peoples music. (or “content” as some grifters like to call it).”

Musicians weighed in too, with Primal Scream bassist Simone Marie Butler saying: “Fuck off you out of touch billionaire.”

  • nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    “… what are we creating now that will still be valued and discussed hundreds or thousands of years from today?”

    Well, there’s very little chance of memorable art to come into existence if artists are not paid fairly. Art takes time and effort, even for geniuses. If someone’s worried about becoming homeless or whatever, they’re not going to focus on their craft at the expense of health and safety, and even if they do what they produce will be suboptimal or unfocused.

    So what’s the fair value of such things? I suppose there’s a number of ways to determine that, but it doesn’t matter if the platform that’s hosting an artist is not acting in good faith nor practicing fairness. Really, there should be an open source version of Spotify.