16 December 2024

Spotify Has REMOVED Two of my FULL Albums!

I did not add myself to this many playlists but my fans did… then something strange happened

I was informed without any attempt to help or clarify the problem that two of my albums would be removed from Spotify. I don’t really monitor my spins or monthly plays very often and know it fluctuates because I am on Satellite Radio on SiriusXM. I see my Shazam numbers each month and they correspond with my Apple music and thusly I see the spill over in Spotify.

Here is a screenshot of a month 08-29-2022 from SiriusXM 33 spins (for a 30 day period) with the song “Queen Of the Nile” on XMPlaylist. Here you can see it was played to 35million subscribers and it results in jumps in my music rotation.

Here is a screenshot of a month 08-29-2022 from SiriusXM 83 spins (for a 60 day period) with the song “Queen Of the Nile” on XMPlaylist.

ANYWAY so SPOTIFY abruptly removed two records “BADDER TO THE BONE” and “BLACK CROW MOAN” both great albums that have a bunch of stellar songs on them. CDBABY my distributor said they were removing “COLORCRIMES” and “BADDER TO THE BONE” but that is not what happened. I have barely broken ground on Spotify number wise and have paid them in the past for Advertising. I found out the advertising is considered unfair spins after I paid over 250.00 twice yet they remove the albums.

I found this article today and I believe Spotify and CDBaby did not permit me any due recourse and violated my contractual rights. https://medium.com/@jacobmarketing/spotify-removes-songs-streams-listeners-over-artificial-streaming-but-it-is-all-lies-and-i-d02eaf699e8c

“You see… major labels have a stake in Spotify and vice versa, and thus ultimately control certain aspects of the business. If major label artists earn more royalties, then Spotify Earns more money.

By removing tracks or streams that are not of major label artists or artists controlled by Spotify (which Spotify allegedly has), more money is distributed to “their artists”, effectively making them more money.”

So as an Independent artist with songs like these two:

You see why they want these two songs removed from modern blues rotation. I know my rights have been violated by removing my music just from spotify’s service. Note it is only INDEPENDENT ARTISTS this is happening to here’s a quote from the article:

“One thing I noticed is that all of these issues are only being brought upon independent artists, or artists without “connections” to Spotify, major labels, or entities that have a stake in Spotify (or vice versa).”

If you look at my schedule I’m a touring artist, constantly large music festivals and big rooms around the country. I’m not just a at home musician who is not fully engaged as an entertainer. I have paid Spotify directly in their advertising division to have my music appear in various places the choose. I never got anything back from running advertisements, doing so as it was fruitless.

If you care please read this article: https://medium.com/@jacobmarketing/spotify-removes-songs-streams-listeners-over-artificial-streaming-but-it-is-all-lies-and-i-d02eaf699e8c

Write and email to cdbaby@cdbaby.com and go to spotify https://support.spotify.com/us/contact-spotify-support/ and tell them to restore ELIZA NEALS two albums.

LASTLY here is what is believed to be breached by not honoring an independent artist and label.

Below are some potential angles from a legal perspective and if you have a legal team that would like to class-action or follow traditional routes please contact me info(at)e-hrecords.com :

“1. Breach of Contract

When you distribute music on Spotify, you agree to Spotify’s terms and conditions, which form a contract between you and Spotify. If Spotify wrongfully removes your track, you could potentially claim a breach of contract if their actions violate the terms of that agreement. For example, if Spotify’s policies require a specific process before taking action and they fail to follow it, that could serve as grounds for a breach of contract lawsuit.

2. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

In some jurisdictions, you could argue that Spotify wrongfully interfered with your ability to earn revenue or grow your audience by unjustly removing your track. This could form the basis for a claim of interference with prospective economic advantage, which requires showing that Spotify’s actions harmed your business relationships or potential earnings.

Key factors: Proof of how the wrongful removal of your track affected your ability to earn money, secure future streams, or gain followers.

3. Unfair Business Practices

In certain jurisdictions, you might be able to sue under consumer protection or unfair business practices laws if Spotify’s actions can be considered deceptive, unfair, or unreasonable. In the United States, for example, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) or similar state statutes might be applicable if you can argue that Spotify’s actions were unfair or unlawful.

Key factors: Whether Spotify’s actions constitute “unfair” practices in the way they treat musicians and handle stream removal disputes.

4. Violation of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which requires both parties to act in a way that does not destroy the other party’s right to receive the benefits of the contract. If Spotify acted in bad faith or unfairly, you could pursue a claim under this legal doctrine.

Key factors: Whether Spotify acted unreasonably or maliciously in making the decision to remove your track without proper investigation or recourse.

5. Promissory Estoppel

If you relied on Spotify’s platform or certain representations made by them (explicitly or implicitly) about your ability to distribute and promote your music, and they removed your track unjustly, you might have a claim under promissory estoppel. This legal doctrine can allow you to recover damages when you have reasonably relied on a promise or expectation, and you suffered losses (including marketing costs) as a result.

Key factors: Demonstrating that your marketing spend was based on a reasonable expectation that your track would remain available on Spotify for a certain period of time, and Spotify’s removal of the track breached that expectation.

6. Restitution

In some cases, you could seek restitution, which is a remedy aimed at preventing one party (Spotify) from being unjustly enriched at your expense. If you can show that Spotify benefited from your marketing efforts (e.g., your campaign brought new users or streams to the platform) and then removed your track wrongfully, you might be able to recover some of those marketing costs.

Key factors: Proving that Spotify gained value from your marketing efforts before they removed your track and that removing the track without cause enriched them at your expense.” by Alfie Cattell