Spotify's Sketchy Terms of Service: Musicians Beware

For listeners, Spotify can be a dream. Millions of songs are available instantly however for musicians it's increasingly a nightmare. Between insultingly low payouts and new Terms of Service that look designed to strip artists of control, Spotify is less "music community" and more "corporate machine." While most fans don't read the fine print, every musician should.

And if you think we're overreacting, here's the kicker, buried in Spotify's Terms of Service:

"Accordingly, you hereby grant to Spotify a non-exclusive, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, fully paid, irrevocable, worldwide license to reproduce, make available, perform and display, translate, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, and otherwise use any such User Content…"

Translation: once your music is on Spotify, they can pretty much do what they like with it. Remix it, translate it, sublicense it to someone else, mash it into other content, it's all fair game. You still technically own your track, but Spotify holds a giant "universal remote" over how it can be used.

A Black Mirror Reality

It's not hard to see shades of Black Mirror here. In the episode where creators' content can be repurposed in any way, Spotify's terms feel eerily similar. They could theoretically use your music to promote anything, even ideas or campaigns you'd never endorse. Whether it's political messaging, corporate marketing, or worse, Spotify has the legal green light to twist your art in ways you might find disturbing. That "non-exclusive, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free" license isn't just scary legal jargon, it's a potential tool for misuse that puts your creative control entirely in someone else's hands.

And because it's "royalty-free," you don't get paid when they exercise those rights. That should set off alarm bells for any artist. In an era where AI-generated music is exploding, clauses like this look suspiciously like stockpiling rights so Spotify can train algorithms on your work, essentially creating machine-made songs to replace you, without ever cutting you in.

Military Investments

As if that weren't enough, Spotify has drawn fire for investing in industries far removed from music, including military and defense tech. For artists pouring their souls into tracks about love, loss, and freedom, it's jarring to see royalties funneled into weapon systems. It reveals what Spotify really values. They don't value culture, not creativity, but whatever grows its bottom line.

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek has led a €600 million investment into Helsing, a Munich-based defense technology company specializing in AI-driven military applications, including autonomous drones and fighter aircraft systems. This funding round, announced in June 2025, was facilitated through Ek's investment firm, Prima Materia, which he co-founded. As part of the deal, Ek also assumed the role of chairman at Helsing.

Helsing's technologies have been deployed in various military contexts, notably in Ukraine, where their AI systems have been integrated into Saab Gripen fighter jets and other defense platforms. The company's expansion into autonomous strike drones and surveillance submarines has positioned it as a significant player in Europe's defense sector, with a valuation reaching €12 billion following this latest investment round.

This move has sparked controversy among artists and fans, leading to protests and some musicians removing their music from Spotify in response to Ek's involvement in the military-industrial complex.

The Payout Problem

Let's not forget the payouts. On average, a stream nets you fractions of a cent. You'd need millions of plays just to scrape together rent money. For independent musicians, Spotify isn't a pathway to sustainability, it's a grind designed to benefit the platform more than the creators.

Pair those meager payouts with the sweeping rights you hand over in the ToS, and the conclusion is obvious: Spotify doesn't exist to support artists. It exists to extract value from them.

Better Alternatives Exist

Thankfully, Spotify isn't the only game in town. In fact, better platforms for musicians are already here, offering models that respect ownership, pay fairly, and help build real communities.

Bandcamp: Fair, Transparent, Direct

One of the best examples is Bandcamp. Instead of nickel-and-diming artists with fractions of a cent, Bandcamp works like a digital record shop. Musicians set their own prices, keep a much larger share, and sell directly to fans. It's transparent, fair, and empowering.

The Soniare Collective is already releasing music through Bandcamp, and this is just the beginning. Plans are underway for Soniare Records, which will streamline distribution straight from production tools like Beat DJ to trusted streaming and promotion services. By exploring infrastructure like LabelGrid and Revelator, Soniare hopes to build a backbone that connects musicians to major outlets, without the exploitative terms.

Nina Protocol and Decentralization

Then there's Nina Protocol, a decentralized, blockchain-based platform designed to give musicians more control and more revenue. Instead of locking artists into a corporate system, Nina gives them direct ownership of how their music is shared and monetized. Combine that with genre-focused platforms like Beatport and Juno Download, and you start to see a real alternative ecosystem taking shape, especially strong for electronic musicians.

The Future Doesn't Belong to Spotify

Spotify's latest ToS isn't just sketchy legalese, it's a clear warning sign. The platform is positioning itself to exploit musicians' work in ways that go far beyond streaming. If artists stay dependent on Spotify, they risk becoming unpaid fuel for AI models, military investments, and a corporate machine that sees music as data, not art.

But musicians aren't powerless. Collectives like Soniare are showing a different way forward. One built on transparency, fair pay, and respect for artistic rights. Fans can help too, by supporting artists directly on Bandcamp and exploring platforms that treat music as culture rather than commodity.

Spotify may be the biggest streaming service right now, but if it keeps grinding down the very artists that built it, the exodus is only a matter of time. Musicians deserve better, and thankfully, better is already here.