This file photo taken on December 11, 2013 shows a Spotify logo during a press conference in New York. / AFP / EMMANUEL DUNAND
Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
Spotify may incontestably be the king of music streaming, but as the Swedish firm prepares for a stock listing, there is still a divide whether its reign is benign or not for artists and the music industry.In October 2008 Spotify was finally ready to go live after Ek pleaded with music labels to open their catalogues.The original software was written for PCs and Spotify was slow to release an app, which Ek has acknowledged could have killed the company.Ek said at the time that Spotify has paid more than $2 billion dollars to music rights holders since 2008 and argues that streaming is better than the alternative for artists.According to the website The Trichordist, Spotify paid an average of 0.03 euros ($0.037) for each song listened to by a user on the platform.For comparison, Ek's stake in Spotify is worth 160 million euros and Lorentzon's 200 million, according to the Swedish business daily Dagens Industri.
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE