The formation of the statement is the problem. Try:
> everything can be viewed through the lens of politics
You wouldn't say "everything is geographical" because that would be absurd (just as absurd as "everything is political") but you could view most topics through the lens of geography if that was the hammer turning all your concerns into nails.
Interestingly, this belief is never shared by people from Europe who've actually experienced communism.
The issue in many cases is _corruption_ which will exist whatever you do (there's always a snake in the garden) so the trick is to implement the right legislation to control it and ensure freedom...
Completely agree, but they're playing a game with artists which is something like "How little can we pay them and still have enough material for the average consumer to pay $10-15/mo to believe they have all the music in the world?" and they're not going to start paying artists more of their own volition.
> I love that people are looking for alternatives to Spotify and I don’t know how to explain to them that it has never been ethical or sustainable to expect to have unfettered access to the entire history of recorded music for $10/month.
— Ross Grady, missing the point.
This has nothing to do with Spotify and everything to do with the market for streaming services.
It takes an unbelievable amount of money to operate a service like Spotify and consumers have not yet demonstrating a willingness to pay more than $10-15/mo for pretty much any mainstream digital subscription.
That leaves a very small amount for artists. Which is wrong. But what are you going to do?
Either customers pay more, which they won't.
Or artists leave Spotify for platforms that pay them more in hope the increased cut compensates for significantly lower volume, which is unlikely.
Or someone finds a way to run a global streaming service at such a reduced cost that some savings can be passed onto the artists, which would've happened already if possible.