'Death to Spotify': the DIY movement to get artists and fans to quit the app

Streaming economics and payout fairness

• Several comments highlight the “power law” of streaming: a tiny group of megastars captures a large share of revenue, even from users who rarely or never listen to them.
• Disagreement over blame: some say this is mainly labels and rightsholders; others argue superstar-negotiated, above-proportional rates directly suppress payouts for smaller artists.
• One side claims Spotify already sends ~70% of revenue to rights holders and isn’t the core villain; others counter that this is irrelevant if the split inside that 70% is skewed and opaque.

Labels, contracts, and artist leverage

• “Just don’t be on Spotify” is called naive: most artists sign away rights to labels and distributors that mandate platform presence. Pulling out means losing the main discovery pipeline for tours and merch.
• Counterpoint: in some genres (e.g., EDM) many bigger acts now run their own labels using cheap distribution services—but others respond that you usually need a label to get big in the first place.

Alternative payout models and platforms

• Big debate over “market-centric” (one global pool by plays) vs “user-centric” (each user’s fee divided only among what they play).
• Linked study suggests user-centric would slightly cut top-artist income and modestly help mid-tier; true “obscure” artists see small absolute gains.
• Some argue the math would average out; others show simple examples where it clearly doesn’t.
• Bandcamp, Tidal, Qobuz, DIY stores, and co-op projects (like jam.coop) are cited as more artist-friendly; live shows, merch, Patreon, and TikTok are framed as the real income sources for indies.

Listener behavior, discovery, and ownership

• Many users defend Spotify’s convenience, catalog size, and recommendation engine; several say they spend more on music now than pre-streaming and won’t switch or juggle multiple $10 services.
• Others criticize algorithmic, passive listening and AI-generated “slop,” as well as poor album-centric UX and bloated apps.
• Some have moved to Tidal, Apple Music, or self-hosted collections (e.g., Navidrome + Bandcamp + ripped CDs), valuing ownership and sound quality.
• A recurring theme: most people are casual listeners who want cheap, frictionless access, not active curation or à la carte purchases.

Morality, politics, and the boycott

• Several comments say the current flare-up is driven less by payouts and more by Spotify’s founder investing in an AI defense company; for some, that makes continued support morally untenable.
• Others dismiss this as misplaced outrage or argue AI defense systems can be ethically justified (e.g., in Ukraine), flipping the moral narrative.

Prospects for “Death to Spotify”

• Skeptics think a mass exit is unlikely given user habits and network effects; streaming is seen as the de facto replacement for piracy and CDs.
• Supporters frame the boycott as a collective labor action: artists alone can’t move the needle without listeners changing platforms and expectations.