More Than Money: The Philosophical Fight for the Value of Art

While the debate over Spotify is often framed in economic terms—cents per stream, royalty splits, living wages—at its deepest level, it is a profound philosophical fight over the very value of art in a digital society. The “Death to Spotify” movement is arguing that by treating music as a disposable commodity, we are losing something essential about what it means to be human.
The streaming model, critics contend, implicitly teaches us that music is not something to be treasured, but something to be consumed in vast, undifferentiated quantities. The “all-you-can-eat” buffet approach encourages a kind of cultural gluttony that devalues each individual dish. When everything is available instantly, nothing feels special.
This is what Caroline Rose meant when she described the frustration of pouring her “heart and soul” into something only to put it online “for free.” The issue is not just the lack of monetary compensation, but the lack of a corresponding sense of worth in the exchange. The platform’s structure seems to strip the art of its inherent dignity.
The movement’s proposed solutions are all designed to re-inject this sense of value. The act of buying a vinyl record or a Bandcamp download is a tangible expression of worth. It is a conscious choice to say, “This art matters to me, and I will pay for it.” This transaction restores a sense of reciprocity and respect to the relationship between artist and listener.
This philosophical battle is the true heart of the conflict. The activists are fighting against a world where art is reduced to content, and culture is flattened into data. They are fighting for a future where our society recognizes that the value of a song cannot be measured in fractions of a penny, because its true worth is, and always has been, immeasurable.