4 ms·

* Tinfoil hat * Large music labels prefer revenue/relationships with Apple and Apple music and will use their monopoly to hurt or ruin competitors like Spotify

* Tinfoil hat * Large music labels prefer revenue/relationships with Apple and Apple music and will use their monopoly to hurt or ruin competitors like Spotify.

favorited 9y ago
I'm sure most artists do. Apple reportedly pays about 40% more in royalties than Spotify does.
thomastjeffery 9y ago
They really don't care who, they only care about squeezing every penny they can out of copyright.
- wang_li 9y ago
  I would think that the authors/rights holders of the music really should get the majority of the revenue. The underlying technology is of little interest to the end user. Who would really install and pay for spotify if the entire library consisted of a two minute track of street sounds from Los Angeles and thirty seconds of doorbells? Basically no one. Nobody really cares about the technology, what they want is the music, without which even the coolest technology is uninteresting.
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    Yes, but without the underlying tech, there is no way for the end user to access that content. So the question is, which is more scarce? The infrastructure, tools, and millions of paying customers using your streaming service, or the music itself? There are a lot of music producers and publishers. There aren't many streaming services that have a large customer base and the tech to service it.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      > many streaming services that have a large customer base And arguably Spotify only has a large customer base because it has the content people want. It's very similar to a chicken and egg problem.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        Copyright holders demand control over distribution, which makes smaller competitors less lucrative to rightsholders, so the rightsholders pick larger incumbents, and force smaller businesses to fail via litigation. The problem is that copyright has an unreasonable amount of authority.
    - wang_li 9y ago
      > Yes, but without the underlying tech, there is no way for the end user to access that content. iTunes Music Store, Amazon MP3 downloads, and actual brick and mortar record stores beg to differ.
      - cortesoft 9y ago
        Brick and Mortar stores don't count, because they aren't streaming services, and are not really competing for the same market. The other two count (although Apple Music and Amazon Music Streaming, not the music store and downloads), but I didn't say there was only ONE distributer, just that there were only a few. A good distributer, with a wide audience, is able to take a big cut and not have producers run away. Apple is able to take 30%, and so is Steam. If it was so easy to make an alternative, people would do it. The network effect is strong.
        wang_li 9y ago
        >Brick and Mortar stores don't count, because they aren't streaming services, and are not really competing for the same market. I guess I misunderstood your point when you said there was no way to access the product. Even if you want to exclude purchasing music there is a mechanism that's been around for decades: radio.
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        Radio is not controlled by the listener, and has a lot of commercials interspersed. It's clearly not the same market either.

* Tinfoil hat * Large music labels prefer revenue/relationships with Apple and Apple music and will use their monopoly to hurt or ruin competitors like Spotify.

favorited 9y ago

I'm sure most artists do. Apple reportedly pays about 40% more in royalties than Spotify does.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

They really don't care who, they only care about squeezing every penny they can out of copyright.

wang_li 9y ago
I would think that the authors/rights holders of the music really should get the majority of the revenue. The underlying technology is of little interest to the end user. Who would really install and pay for spotify if the entire library consisted of a two minute track of street sounds from Los Angeles and thirty seconds of doorbells? Basically no one. Nobody really cares about the technology, what they want is the music, without which even the coolest technology is uninteresting.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  Yes, but without the underlying tech, there is no way for the end user to access that content. So the question is, which is more scarce? The infrastructure, tools, and millions of paying customers using your streaming service, or the music itself? There are a lot of music producers and publishers. There aren't many streaming services that have a large customer base and the tech to service it.
  - stordoff 9y ago
    > many streaming services that have a large customer base And arguably Spotify only has a large customer base because it has the content people want. It's very similar to a chicken and egg problem.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Copyright holders demand control over distribution, which makes smaller competitors less lucrative to rightsholders, so the rightsholders pick larger incumbents, and force smaller businesses to fail via litigation. The problem is that copyright has an unreasonable amount of authority.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    > Yes, but without the underlying tech, there is no way for the end user to access that content. iTunes Music Store, Amazon MP3 downloads, and actual brick and mortar record stores beg to differ.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Brick and Mortar stores don't count, because they aren't streaming services, and are not really competing for the same market. The other two count (although Apple Music and Amazon Music Streaming, not the music store and downloads), but I didn't say there was only ONE distributer, just that there were only a few. A good distributer, with a wide audience, is able to take a big cut and not have producers run away. Apple is able to take 30%, and so is Steam. If it was so easy to make an alternative, people would do it. The network effect is strong.
      - wang_li 9y ago
        >Brick and Mortar stores don't count, because they aren't streaming services, and are not really competing for the same market. I guess I misunderstood your point when you said there was no way to access the product. Even if you want to exclude purchasing music there is a mechanism that's been around for decades: radio.
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        Radio is not controlled by the listener, and has a lot of commercials interspersed. It's clearly not the same market either.