in any setting, and could easily transfer it between devices; They could convert it to any
format, they could add it to a video, they could sample it, they could make it their ring-
tone, they could play it as house music at a theater or club, and they could broadcast it on
their radio show. By listening to Friend in the Head in Spotify instead of pirating it, those
103 people could have shared the tune with other Spotify users and their Facebook
friends, and could have added it to their Spotify playlists, but there’s not much else they
could have done that would help the song reach new people since music on Spotify can’t
leave the Spotify application, and you can’t take the Spotify application with you without
paying $10 a month for it. So as an artist in several independent bands, I don’t see how
Spotify is really better than piracy. Maybe it is for Elton John, but even then, are you re-
ally going to listen to Candle In The Wind one hundred and three times?” Dan noted.
He added, “Don’t think that I’m bitter. I’m not. Spotify represents the future of music
consumption. I am not only happy that Spotify is an option for my own music, but I also
use it several hours a day, both for fun and for work. We are a culture of convenience, and
nothing is more convenient than immediate, cost-free access to every song you’ve ever
wanted to hear. And I’ve always been cool with music piracy, so I’m not too upset that
artists aren’t getting paid much from Spotify. My issue is Spotify’s frequent claim that
you, the music consumer, support artists by using their service. Spotify should not be ad-
vertising that their listeners generate revenue for artists to when it takes nearly 300
streams of a song for one member of a band to be able to buy a cup of coffee at a bodega.
This leads to an environment where a fan might choose to listen to a song through Spotify
instead of purchasing it in a way that generates exponentially greater revenue for the mu-
sicians, like iTunes.