Fairplay: Would A FAIR Model for Music Streaming Work?
If you think Spotify and Apple are run by greedy corporations that underpay musicians, you’re not wrong. And if you believe artists deserve their fair share, then it’s time to rethink how streaming should work.
For the sake of this discussion, let’s call it Fairplay. Fairplay is a streaming platform where musicians, podcasters, and creators are paid based on the actual time their work is listened to.
The Core Idea: Value Per Second
Instead of the current model where a track must play for 30 seconds to count as a “listen,” and a 30 second jingle earns the same as a 10 minute epic, Fairplay would calculate payouts by the second. Every second of content, whether a song, podcast, audiobook, or story, would have a set value.
This model would:
- Allow musicians to make songs of any length without losing revenue
- Let podcasters publish without stuffing in ads
- Enable authors to release audio stories without paywall fragmentation
What Would It Cost?
Let’s break it down:
- Average song length = 3 minutes
- Current payout per stream ≈ $0.004 (Spotify or Apple)
- Therefore, each second ≈ $0.000022 (or 0.00222 cents)
- One hour of listening = ~$0.08 paid to artists
If Fairplay wanted to fully support artists and cover its own costs, it would need to charge around $0.09/hour. Over a year (assuming 24/7 listening), that’s: 0.09×24×365=$788.40/year.
Most people don’t listen 24/7. The average North American Spotify user listens 140 minutes a day, or 2.33 hours/day, which totals about 850 hours/year (https://prioridata.com/data/spotify-stats/). That brings the cost of Fairplay down to roughly $76.50/year, or $6.38/month—cheaper than Spotify, while still paying artists equitably.
Why This Could Works
Fairplay would:
- Provide transparent compensation
- Prevent manipulation (e.g., making 30 second songs, a zillion ads in podcasts, manipulating stream counts)
- Eliminate the one-size-fits-all “play” definition
It also opens the door for a more equitable model. Personally, I’d propose giving more weight to underrepresented artists—those with fewer streams—so we help lift smaller creators instead of just feeding the top 1%. That’s a structural tweak to think about, but the core is simple: pay for what’s actually listened to, second by second.
Could Fairplay Survive?
Let’s say Fairplay charges $7.50/month (about $90/year). If you added just 1¢ per hour for platform costs, that’s a 12.5% margin. To make $100,000/year, you’d need 10 million hours of listening, or around 5 million listeners. That’s feasible with a modest user base.
To compete, Fairplay would need scale. Spotify has 675 million users. Even small platforms like Deezer and Tidal have 18 million and 3 million respectively. So it’s not unthinkable that a fairer, artist-first platform could build a solid following—especially as more consumers get tired of platforms that exploit creators.
Music is valuable. Stories are valuable. People are valuable. If we treat each second of creative work with the respect it deserves, everyone wins, especially the artists who bring it to life.
This would also be a great way for YouTube to work as well.
Would you try another music distributor if you knew your money would actually supports the creators you love?
