Redirected by Spotify

When streams don’t support artists anymore, the real issue isn’t numbers. It’s where the value quietly ends up.

I already pulled all my music out of Spotify. So technically, I should not care anymore. I am no longer chasing streams, playlists, or numbers. I am out—free from the hustle and hassle.

But seeing how the system actually works—the unfairness, the strange logic, the quiet monkey business—I cannot stay silent. Being out does not mean being blind. This is why I still choose to speak, and why I believe Spotify deserves to be boycotted.

I did not leave Spotify with drama. No announcement. No rant. I just stopped.

Back then, I honestly thought the rule was harsher than it really was. I believed you had to hit 1,000 streams every single month. That would have been brutal. Anyone would call that unfair.

Later, I understood it better. It is not monthly. It is cumulative. A rolling twelve-month window. Hit 1,000 total streams anytime within a year, and the track becomes eligible.

Once that is clear, the rule feels manageable. One thousand streams is not a mountain. It is a few listens a day. If the music has direction and the artist actually moves—shares it, talks about it, shows up—it is doable.

So no, the rule is not unfair to artists who try.

What bothered me came after that.

If a track stays below 1,000 streams, the money from those listens does not wait. It does not pile up. It does not respect intent. It gets redirected. People listened to your music. The value was real. But the payout went somewhere else, to artists who were already above the line.

I agreed to that. Every artist did. We clicked yes because there was no other door. That makes it legal. It does not make it clean.

I come from a time when one album sold meant one artist supported. Even one buyer mattered. The exchange was simple and honest. Streaming changed that.

Now attention itself is currency. Even unpaid attention. Even tracks that earn nothing still feed the system—data, growth, market value. Your music may not pay you, but it still works for the platform. And the platform does not share your values. It shares its investors’ values.

That is where it started to feel wrong.

What pushed me to speak is deeper than streams or payouts. Spotify, directly or indirectly, helps fund Helsing (a European defense tech company developing AI systems for modern warfare). Once I saw that, the 1K debate stopped mattering.

Music is personal. Releasing it is a choice. I do not want my work contributing to something I fundamentally disagree with.

So this is not about numbers or payout formulas. It is about where the value generated by music ends up.

Boycotting Spotify, for me, is simply a line I chose to draw.

I would rather have fewer listeners and clean hands than wider reach.

That choice is not for everyone.

But it is mine.

🔲 UNINSTALL SPOTIFY.
🔲 BOYCOTT SPOTIFY.
🔲 CHOOSE PEACE.

Spotify artist profile page showing Darem Placer with zero monthly listeners and a profile photo of a person wearing a jersey labeled THEREM number 10
No music. No listener. No war.

⌨ ᴛʸᵖⁱⁿᵍ ᴏᵘᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ʙˡᵘᵉ ᵈᵃʳᵉᵐ ᵐᵘˢⁱᶜ ᵇˡᵒᵍ

Digital Albums by Darem Placer on Bandcamp
daremplacer.bandcamp.com

Helsing, Daniel Ek, and the Spotify Issue—A Simple Explanation

Helsing’s global ties, Ek’s investment role, and the Spotify connection raise questions that go deeper than most people realize.

Helsing is a defense-technology company in Europe. They develop AI systems, including modern drones used in active conflict areas.

Many people think Helsing works only with Ukraine, but that is not correct. Germany also works with Helsing and has funded large batches of AI-powered drones. Estonia is another government partner. Ukraine receives equipment, but it is not Helsing’s only client.

Daniel Ek, the CEO of Spotify, is connected to Helsing as an investor and chairman. His role is financial, not military. He does not build drones, donate drones, or send hardware to any battlefield. The company designs the technology, governments pay for it, and Ukraine uses it. Ek’s involvement is through funding and leadership, not operations.

Helsing has also faced questions about its technology—reports mention software issues, pricing concerns, and reliability problems. Because of this, it is not accurate to say that Ukraine’s survival depends on Helsing alone. Ukraine’s defense comes from a wide network of international support, not a single company.

Spotify enters the discussion because Ek leads both a global music platform and a company involved in AI-driven defense systems. Many listeners and artists feel uneasy about that connection. Some artists removed their music. Some users switched to other platforms. The boycott is driven by ethics and transparency, not by politics alone.

The facts are simple: Helsing works with several countries. Ek is an investor, not a drone provider. Ukraine’s defense involves many nations and systems. And Spotify faces questions because music and military AI under the same leadership create concerns people cannot ignore—a quiet reminder of how technology moves around us even when we’re not looking, the way you only notice it when you glance up and realize A Plane Just Passed By.

UNINSTALL SPOTIFY. BOYCOTT SPOTIFY.

A Plane Just Passed By • Darem Placer

Listen to Look Up in the Sky on Apple Music , Apple Music Classical , and YouTube Music

Look Up in the Sky includes A Plane Just Passed By

ᴛʸᵖⁱⁿᵍ ᴏᵘᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ʙˡᵘᵉ ᵈᵃʳᵉᵐ ᵐᵘˢⁱᶜ ᵇˡᵒᵍ