Audiobooks are expensive to produce and have extra licensing associated with them. Even Amazon can only give out 1 credit for $15 a month. A single books costs anywhere between $10-$60 bucks. Its just unreasonable to expect spotify to be able to afford that when they already barely pay musicians.
With the introduction of the stand-alone audiobooks offering, Spotify is now able to pay lower music-licensing rates for the music-and-audiobook bundle, introduced in the U.S. in November 2023. The 2022 settlement agreement between the National Music Publishers Assn. and streaming services includes a carveout for bundles (such as Amazon Prime and Apple Music + Apple News), which the new audiobook offering falls under. Such plans lower the mechanical licensing rates the company pays in the U.S. Spotify’s lower royalty rates are retroactive to March 1, 2024.
However, NMPA president-CEO David Israelite had strong words for the move when contacted for comment by Variety. “It appears Spotify has returned to attacking the very songwriters who make its business possible,” he wrote. “Spotify’s attempt to radically reduce songwriter payments by reclassifying their music service as an audiobook bundle is a cynical, and potentially unlawful, move that ends our period of relative peace. We will not stand for their perversion of the settlement we agreed upon in 2022 and are looking at all options.” The NMPA and streaming services resolved a years-long standoff over royalty rates with a Copyright Royalty Board ruling in 2022, and agreed upon a new rate of 15.35% for the 2023-2027 period.
I’m not defending them, just saying that it’s foolish for an enduser to expect anything different when they already don’t pay musicians and that is the primary content on their platform.
I can pretty much guarantee the average user would complain way more about the quality of simple TTS than they would the time limit. It would likely be a much bigger PR issue for them. AI generated TTS would probably be good enough for most but that is just another cost.
Regardless, the licensing involved with book publishers wouldn’t allow them to just produce their own audiobooks like that. So it is not really as simple as “just a choice”.
They could certainly “clearly pass the cost” of this on to the user by not offering Audiobooks to users who didn’t pay for the “+ # of Audiobooks” tier of Spotify Premium; instead of this horrible enshittified crap where it cuts you off midsentence like a greedy telecomm provider would. Or perhaps their limitation should be on how many titles you can listen to concurrently in a certain time period. (So if you open X books; that’s it; you have to shelve one or wait it out)
It certainly means that Spotify did a bad job at negotiating their rights to these audiobooks as well. That matters too; because that makes the product worse; and that should never have been allowed to happen. If they couldn’t have offered it nicely, they could’ve just not offered it at all or added it to a higher service tier so that the cost is diverted better.
For sure. Ive got 100s titles in my Audible catalog and most of them are over that threshold. It is s stupid system. I don’t use podcasts or audiobooks on spotify, I think they should stick to music lol
Regardless, 15 hours audio is low AF
Audiobooks are expensive to produce and have extra licensing associated with them. Even Amazon can only give out 1 credit for $15 a month. A single books costs anywhere between $10-$60 bucks. Its just unreasonable to expect spotify to be able to afford that when they already barely pay musicians.
The audiobooks help them pay even less for music:
I should have used the words “want to” instead of “be able to”. It is a garbage company I am definitely not defending their business practices.
Barely paying musicians is a choice. In fact even the whole audiobook setup is a choice. Give me the epub and TTS and I’d be happy as Larry.
I’m not defending them, just saying that it’s foolish for an enduser to expect anything different when they already don’t pay musicians and that is the primary content on their platform.
I can pretty much guarantee the average user would complain way more about the quality of simple TTS than they would the time limit. It would likely be a much bigger PR issue for them. AI generated TTS would probably be good enough for most but that is just another cost.
Regardless, the licensing involved with book publishers wouldn’t allow them to just produce their own audiobooks like that. So it is not really as simple as “just a choice”.
They could certainly “clearly pass the cost” of this on to the user by not offering Audiobooks to users who didn’t pay for the “+ # of Audiobooks” tier of Spotify Premium; instead of this horrible enshittified crap where it cuts you off midsentence like a greedy telecomm provider would. Or perhaps their limitation should be on how many titles you can listen to concurrently in a certain time period. (So if you open X books; that’s it; you have to shelve one or wait it out)
It certainly means that Spotify did a bad job at negotiating their rights to these audiobooks as well. That matters too; because that makes the product worse; and that should never have been allowed to happen. If they couldn’t have offered it nicely, they could’ve just not offered it at all or added it to a higher service tier so that the cost is diverted better.
For sure. Ive got 100s titles in my Audible catalog and most of them are over that threshold. It is s stupid system. I don’t use podcasts or audiobooks on spotify, I think they should stick to music lol
15 hours for what period of time? The article mentions they’d refill in two days…