This case reminds me the French Press Association vs. Google News case [1]. The details differ, but the outcome is the same: It's not in your interest as conten

This case reminds me the French Press Association vs. Google News case [1]. The details differ, but the outcome is the same: It's not in your interest as content producer to be excluded. If it wasn't already free for you, you would probably be enticed to pay in order to gain visibility by your customer base. And frankly, I don't know what UMAW expects to get. Can really Spotify support the $0.01/stream without going out of business? Why are they making non-bilateral demands to Spotify (e.g. reveal business contracts)? And who are UMAW anyway? From a quick check of their page, the only names I could find were the steering committee, and it took several tries to find members with >1 albums on Spotify. With that level of opaqueness, it's hard to see them convince the public to throw their support behind them. And what's with the sub-committee mania? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News#EU_copyright_and_database_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News#EU_copyright_and_d...