4 ms·

I don't understand how employees contributing their personal collections is somehow worse than company agents trolling torrent sites specifically to stream. Li

I don't understand how employees contributing their personal collections is somehow worse than company agents trolling torrent sites specifically to stream. Like, every nerd from the era has an mp3 collection. Mine is literally the only data that I have that's been around since I was 15 and survived multiple HD crashes. How are you going to get the streaming business up and running without some seed data? Are you also mad at Uber and Lyft?

digging 3y ago
> Like, every nerd from the era has an mp3 collection. Yes, and much of it is pirated. We all know that. > How are you going to get the streaming business up and running without some seed data? Pay money for streaming rights, probably. You're suggesting the only way to start a streaming service is to do so illegally? > Are you also mad at Uber and Lyft? Yes
- pdntspa 3y ago
  The music industry wasn't just handing out blanket streaming rights until Spotify showed up. All the other services of the era sucked -- their libraries were patchy and music streaming looked very much like TV streaming is today where every show lives under a different provider. It took freaking Apple to convince the music industry to allow single track sales and thats why we were in that state until the mid 2010's when Spotify came in and started to clean house. The music industry was not looking to break the stranglehold they had on CD sales. Someone had to come in with a 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude to get to where we are today. Uber and Lyft did what they did for the same reason -- the (oftentimes mafia-backed) taxi cartels had a monopoly on pricing and taxi medallions and the only realistic way to break that was to operate illegally. I think you will find that the law (and copyright) to be extremely overrated. Copyright, in particular, should not exist in its current form, especially with digital data that is not bound by the laws of physics or physicality, to say nothing of the various entities which have carved out most of the royalties that an artist can make for themselves.
  - digging 3y ago
    I'm probably more on your side that you think WRT the law and copyright law but let's not pretend Spotify, Uber, and Lyft are doing some social good. They're greed-driven corporations (a bit redundant, but it's especially true for them). They may have partially broken up the walls around their particular industries, but not to democratize them, just to take ownership of whatever they can grab. And in doing so, each has failed to realize better solutions for people. Uber & Lyft have increased our dependence on wasteful, dangerous, expensive personal vehicles. Spotify is a worse model than Bandcamp for indie artists. It's also a worse model than pretty much every other streaming service in that it pays so little to artists. So, yeah I don't like it when rich people break the law to get more rich at society's expense. We should be breaking the law to make society better.
    - pdntspa 3y ago
      Ergo, piracy and buying music on bandcamp. Still very viable options. I am close to publishing an EP on bandcamp myself. But I cannot deny how handy Spotify has been with musical pursuits. Spotify may rule the roost but we still have Bandcamp, Beatport, JunoDownload, Amazon Music, iTunes, Discogs marketplace, and others. And I would say Spotify is doing a social good. As a nobody artist, being able to point people to stuff on Spotify is really compelling. Any other way I'd have to force people into either buying or using an app they are unfamiliar with just to listen to it. That said I am not trying to make money from music, that is just foolish.
      - digging 3y ago
        > And I would say Spotify is doing a social good. As a nobody artist, being able to point people to stuff on Spotify is really compelling. Any other way I'd have to force people into either buying or using an app they are unfamiliar with just to listen to it. Well, I understand where you're coming from here, but that's not really Spotify doing a social good, it's just the inevitable effect of their cultural dominance. Everybody[1] has Spotify. But they've taken that position due to their unethical growth plan. Anyway, I've realized that we're discussing multiple things, not one thing. Spotify can be bad for artists who want to make money off their art, while being good for those who don't want/need to make money from music. [1] I don't have Spotify.

digging 3y ago

> Like, every nerd from the era has an mp3 collection. Yes, and much of it is pirated. We all know that. > How are you going to get the streaming business up and running without some seed data? Pay money for streaming rights, probably. You're suggesting the only way to start a streaming service is to do so illegally? > Are you also mad at Uber and Lyft? Yes

pdntspa 3y ago
The music industry wasn't just handing out blanket streaming rights until Spotify showed up. All the other services of the era sucked -- their libraries were patchy and music streaming looked very much like TV streaming is today where every show lives under a different provider. It took freaking Apple to convince the music industry to allow single track sales and thats why we were in that state until the mid 2010's when Spotify came in and started to clean house. The music industry was not looking to break the stranglehold they had on CD sales. Someone had to come in with a 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude to get to where we are today. Uber and Lyft did what they did for the same reason -- the (oftentimes mafia-backed) taxi cartels had a monopoly on pricing and taxi medallions and the only realistic way to break that was to operate illegally. I think you will find that the law (and copyright) to be extremely overrated. Copyright, in particular, should not exist in its current form, especially with digital data that is not bound by the laws of physics or physicality, to say nothing of the various entities which have carved out most of the royalties that an artist can make for themselves.
- digging 3y ago
  I'm probably more on your side that you think WRT the law and copyright law but let's not pretend Spotify, Uber, and Lyft are doing some social good. They're greed-driven corporations (a bit redundant, but it's especially true for them). They may have partially broken up the walls around their particular industries, but not to democratize them, just to take ownership of whatever they can grab. And in doing so, each has failed to realize better solutions for people. Uber & Lyft have increased our dependence on wasteful, dangerous, expensive personal vehicles. Spotify is a worse model than Bandcamp for indie artists. It's also a worse model than pretty much every other streaming service in that it pays so little to artists. So, yeah I don't like it when rich people break the law to get more rich at society's expense. We should be breaking the law to make society better.
  - pdntspa 3y ago
    Ergo, piracy and buying music on bandcamp. Still very viable options. I am close to publishing an EP on bandcamp myself. But I cannot deny how handy Spotify has been with musical pursuits. Spotify may rule the roost but we still have Bandcamp, Beatport, JunoDownload, Amazon Music, iTunes, Discogs marketplace, and others. And I would say Spotify is doing a social good. As a nobody artist, being able to point people to stuff on Spotify is really compelling. Any other way I'd have to force people into either buying or using an app they are unfamiliar with just to listen to it. That said I am not trying to make money from music, that is just foolish.
    - digging 3y ago
      > And I would say Spotify is doing a social good. As a nobody artist, being able to point people to stuff on Spotify is really compelling. Any other way I'd have to force people into either buying or using an app they are unfamiliar with just to listen to it. Well, I understand where you're coming from here, but that's not really Spotify doing a social good, it's just the inevitable effect of their cultural dominance. Everybody[1] has Spotify. But they've taken that position due to their unethical growth plan. Anyway, I've realized that we're discussing multiple things, not one thing. Spotify can be bad for artists who want to make money off their art, while being good for those who don't want/need to make money from music. [1] I don't have Spotify.