5 ms·

The guy wants her to buy or found a music company. That's the point, I'd you were wondering.

itsmartapuntocm 3y ago
Had to scroll 3/4 of the way through the letter to figure out what he was asking for.
prepend 3y ago
I don’t think I’d want Taylor swift owning the record company. That’s not really a solution. And the last thing I want is the netflixification of music with every artist having their own app so you pay Taylor Swift $5/month for her label’s music. $5 to The Rolling Stones. Etc etc.
- toast0 3y ago
  If you can live with radio-style streaming, music has mechanical licensing, so any streaming service in the US can pay the statuatory royalties to get access to everything. If you want to play specific songs on demand, or pay less than the statuatory rates, then the label has to be ok with it.
  - prepend 3y ago
    I understand that. What’s the proposed change? The labels and artists are ok with current Spotify/Apple/etc streaming rates. I actually kind of like just buying albums at $10 a pop and storing them on my own cloud and streaming them around to wherever I want. That’s 12 albums a year so not terrible. And I own them forever. and when I buy from an indie artist they get like $5-10 per album instead of $1.
    - toast0 3y ago
      I'm saying the everything+ model of music streaming can't really happen, because your chosen market participant can just pay blanket license rates to stream you everything; or worst case, a new player can emerge to do that. That won't happen in movies and tv, because there's no blanket license available, and rightsholders sometimes refuse to license their content.
- hedora 3y ago
  Tidal worked out reasonably well. It’s still well-run post-exit. I’m a happy subscriber (and a Spotify/Apple Music refugee), but I can name zero Jay Z songs. I hope they continue chugging along (and continue to pay artists more the Spotify), but if Taylor Swift can out-music-industry Square (now, Block), then I probably won’t complain!

Had to scroll 3/4 of the way through the letter to figure out what he was asking for.

I don’t think I’d want Taylor swift owning the record company. That’s not really a solution. And the last thing I want is the netflixification of music with every artist having their own app so you pay Taylor Swift $5/month for her label’s music. $5 to The Rolling Stones. Etc etc.

toast0 3y ago
If you can live with radio-style streaming, music has mechanical licensing, so any streaming service in the US can pay the statuatory royalties to get access to everything. If you want to play specific songs on demand, or pay less than the statuatory rates, then the label has to be ok with it.
- prepend 3y ago
  I understand that. What’s the proposed change? The labels and artists are ok with current Spotify/Apple/etc streaming rates. I actually kind of like just buying albums at $10 a pop and storing them on my own cloud and streaming them around to wherever I want. That’s 12 albums a year so not terrible. And I own them forever. and when I buy from an indie artist they get like $5-10 per album instead of $1.
  - toast0 3y ago
    I'm saying the everything+ model of music streaming can't really happen, because your chosen market participant can just pay blanket license rates to stream you everything; or worst case, a new player can emerge to do that. That won't happen in movies and tv, because there's no blanket license available, and rightsholders sometimes refuse to license their content.
hedora 3y ago
Tidal worked out reasonably well. It’s still well-run post-exit. I’m a happy subscriber (and a Spotify/Apple Music refugee), but I can name zero Jay Z songs. I hope they continue chugging along (and continue to pay artists more the Spotify), but if Taylor Swift can out-music-industry Square (now, Block), then I probably won’t complain!