Criticism of Spotify CEO: Why musicians and fans are threatening a boycott

The US indie band Deerhoof has been making music for 30 years – and at least half of that in the digital age. The band achieved their final breakthrough in 2002 with their fourth album, "Reveille," and music streaming services began to boom in the early 2010s. Deerhoof also uses this distribution channel to bring their music to audiences. Their songs have been streamed hundreds of thousands of times on platforms like Apple Music, Amazon Music, and Deezer.

However, anyone hoping to listen to the band's music on the Swedish service Spotify may soon be disappointed: The US musicians have announced that they will boycott the platform and withdraw their songs from the service. An Instagram post by the band with this announcement has now garnered more than 45,000 likes, with thousands of fans supporting the decision.

This isn't the only such statement: Dozens of short videos from musicians and fans protesting against the streaming service can be found on the TikTok platform these days. "We need a global boycott," says one user – her video was viewed nearly 300,000 times within three days. Another says: Anyone who "truly loves" music should leave the platform now.

There are essentially two reasons for the calls for a boycott of the Swedish service: One argument, primarily cited by artists, is the platform's handling of AI music. German indie artist Paula Paula, for example, complains in a TikTok video that Spotify's payments to artists are already "catastrophic." Now, however, they have to share the money with fake artists who generate music effortlessly with a single prompt.

AI music "is being pushed on you in various playlists and suggestions," she complains. And the synthetic music isn't even labeled as such. In recent weeks, for example, the fake band The Velvet Sundown released three albums in a row within a few days, generating millions of streams. "As real musicians, we can never compete with that." Other platforms, such as the French service Deezer, are much more transparent in this regard – they not only label AI music but also remove it from automatic suggestions.

In response to a request from the RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND), Spotify absolved itself of responsibility: "For every track submitted, streaming services like Spotify rely on the rights holders to obtain the necessary information to identify the composition and contributors," a spokesperson said. Currently, "there is no industry-wide metadata standard for disclosing AI use, but the entire music industry is working together within the framework of DDEX to develop such a standard." As soon as a uniform approach is available, Spotify will "carefully examine how we can implement it."

The more serious reason for the protest, however, is different: Spotify founder and CEO Daniel Ek has long been investing in Helsing, the Munich-based defense company specializing in AI technology. In mid-June, it was announced that Ek had doubled his stake. The company had raised around 600 million euros in a new financing round – the round was led by Ek's investment company Prima Materia, alongside investors Lightspeed Ventures, Accel, Plural, General Catalyst, Saab, and BDT & MSD Partners.

Helsing itself states on its website that it is developing AI-supported technologies "to protect our democracy." In this context, it offers democratic states "precise measurements and autonomous capabilities so they can protect and defend themselves." The company repeatedly emphasizes its special "responsibility," as well as its adherence to the "highest ethical standards."

The company's equipment is still deadly, however. Specifically, Helsing has developed the HX-2 kamikaze drone, which is being used by Ukraine and is to be tested by the German Armed Forces. The company has also presented an AI system designed to help pilot a fighter aircraft in complex aerial combat scenarios. The defense startup's technology also includes an underwater system.

Some musicians and their fans are critical of the Spotify CEO's investments. "Anyone who uses Spotify supports war," a young man on TikTok says pointedly into the camera. A British TikToker is annoyed that the very money that the already poorly paid artists earned for Spotify is now being invested in armaments. Musician Paula Paula says: "All our idealism that we display (...) to save the world, (...) to promote peace (...) leads to even more weapons being built."

For the indie band Deerhoof, Ek's military investments were also the trigger for their Spotify boycott. They had been toying with the idea for years, but the news was the final straw. "We don't want our music to be responsible for people's deaths," the band wrote on Instagram. And: "We don't want our success to be linked to AI warfare technology." The band also points to Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, which also relies on modern warfare technology.

Then the band launches into a sweeping attack: "Spotify is flushing itself down the toilet. Sooner or later, artists will want to leave this already hated, data-stealing scam masquerading as a 'music company.' It's scary for users and shitty for artists." Spotify itself declined to comment on the allegations to RND.

Whether the protest against the streaming service will be successful is another matter. So far, no other well-known artists have responded to the band Deerhoof's call. And there's probably good reason for that: The platform plays such a major role in the careers of many musicians that it's almost impossible to escape it.

In many countries, Spotify is by far the most used music streaming service – and for many people, it's a kind of synonym for listening to music. In Germany, according to a media usage study by Nielsen, Spotify is the market leader with 41 percent, followed by YouTube Music (31 percent) and Amazon Music (29 percent). Apple Music accounts for 14 percent of users.

In other words, if you don't exist on Spotify, you might not exist at all. And even if many artists complain about Spotify's meager pay, they are still dependent on its algorithms and playlists.

A study shows once again: Music creators are unhappy with their income from music streaming – and only a few can live off it. But have Spotify and other companies really changed the music industry for the worse? The overall picture is more complex.

Consumers have far greater power here – switching to another service is significantly easier for them. The music catalog is largely the same across all major providers, and prices vary only slightly. And even your own songs and playlists can be transferred to another provider. Apps like SongShift, FreeYourMusic, or Soundiiz are helpful here, as they recognize stored music and add it to the service.

From the perspective of many music creators, a switch would certainly make sense: According to various media reports, Spotify pays its artists approximately $0.003 per stream – putting it far behind many competitors. Amazon is said to pay as much as $0.004, and Apple Music even $0.008 – similar figures are known for YouTube Music. These figures are estimates from the music industry – the services do not officially disclose figures.

However, anyone looking to switch for moral reasons will likely quickly encounter questionable business practices even with the aforementioned services. YouTube's parent company, Google, for example, is courting the Trump administration in the US and, according to media reports, is supplying AI technology for monitoring the border with Mexico. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is also part of the much-criticized "tech broligarchy" in the US – while his company is repeatedly criticized for its working conditions . The same applies to Apple, which has its devices manufactured in China at ridiculously low prices .

Those who want to listen to music ethically should therefore look for smaller services that aren't part of a large corporation. The French service Qobuz, for example, has positioned itself as an artist-friendly alternative in recent years and is aggressively courting artists and their fans with this strategy. At €12.49, the monthly subscription is somewhat more expensive than some competing services, but the streaming service offers significantly higher sound quality.

And it's the only service that publicly discloses its payout figures. According to Qobuz, it pays out $0.01873 per stream to music creators. This means that if a track reaches 1,000 streams, $18 goes to the rights holders. Spotify pays just three euros.

Also from France is the service Deezer, which, according to unofficial estimates, pays $0.006 per stream and also offers podcasts and audiobooks. The US service Tidal, founded by rapper Jay-Z and whose shareholders include pop stars such as Beyoncé, Madonna, and Alicia Keys, also enjoys a good reputation in the industry. The payout per stream is also said to be higher here, estimated at a generous $0.01284.