5 ms·

> nobody's going to be putting $20 into a website if there's no music there to listen to, Looks like I wasn't clear. Funkwhale works primarily as a "music lock

> nobody's going to be putting $20 into a website if there's no music there to listen to, Looks like I wasn't clear. Funkwhale works primarily as a "music locker" like the original Google Play Music. It can be described as "Navidrome + social features". Most of the music that will be available to you is the one you bring yourself, from your collection. The secondary use case is that you can share your playlists with your friends, and the tertiary case is that you can create "broadcast channels" for the music that you create and want to make available for other people. With this in mind, the primary service I offer is "music streaming" (like Spotify/Apple Music/Tidal...) but merely "music file hosting". This primary service is available for $29/month (https://communick.com/packages/access https://communick.com/packages/access) The "$10-20" a month that I'm talking about would be an extra feature, for people that want to support musicians directly. They would be deciding how much they want to add, and 100% of that money (minus processing fees) could go to the musicians they want to support. It would be the same idea as Patreon, except it's the backers that decide how much they want to give to each creator. Does this make more sense?

pavel_lishin 3y ago
Right - but you still gotta talk to the musicians if this side feature is going to have any traction. Again, nobody's putting money in (whether as the main draw, or a side thing) if there's nothing to listen to, and there won't be if the musicians you'd like to court don't like the deal being offered.
- rglullis 3y ago
  I still don't agree with the "there's nothing to listen to". Even now with a handful of users, I already uploaded some music to my personal library and shared some playlists with other contacts. In any case, I do agree that talking with musicians is also important. I just think this is a chicken-and-egg problem, so both sides of the market need to show interest in the model.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    > Even now with a handful of users, I already uploaded some music to my personal library and shared some playlists with other contacts. Your own personal music that you've created? Cool, but you're one person who also happens to be running this project. That's not the basis for a business decision. Someone else's music? That's just sharing songs online, and while I'm fine with people sailing the seas, charging for the privilege doesn't seem right to me.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      > Your own personal music that you've created? Noooooooo. I mean music collection. mp3 and flacs that I acquired throughout the years. I can upload it, put it on my online library and share with my friends. They, in turn, can share their collection with me. And no, it is not piracy, because you are not making it publicly available, totally fair use. Can you please take a look at the website to see how it works? Where am I missing you?
      - pavel_lishin 3y ago
        > And no, it is not piracy, because you are not making it publicly available, totally fair use. I don't think that's how that works. If you're sharing a bunch of mp3's of music you've purchased or pirated to people - and especially if you're about to build some way for people to pay you for the privilege - you're going to need legal advice more than you need business advice, i'd wager.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > and especially if you're about to build some way for people to pay you for the privilege Again: it seems you are conflating two separate things. I'm charging for hosting the files that customers already have, not by giving them access to copyrighted content. It's no different than the now-defunct "music locker" services like Google Music Play and Amazon Music Storage. The "playlist sharing" functionality is only meant to be used by people who are directly connected. If someone puts copyrighted content in a public list, anyone can see, report it and Funkwhale already has provisions for admins to moderate/remove the content.

pavel_lishin 3y ago

Right - but you still gotta talk to the musicians if this side feature is going to have any traction. Again, nobody's putting money in (whether as the main draw, or a side thing) if there's nothing to listen to, and there won't be if the musicians you'd like to court don't like the deal being offered.

rglullis 3y ago
I still don't agree with the "there's nothing to listen to". Even now with a handful of users, I already uploaded some music to my personal library and shared some playlists with other contacts. In any case, I do agree that talking with musicians is also important. I just think this is a chicken-and-egg problem, so both sides of the market need to show interest in the model.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  > Even now with a handful of users, I already uploaded some music to my personal library and shared some playlists with other contacts. Your own personal music that you've created? Cool, but you're one person who also happens to be running this project. That's not the basis for a business decision. Someone else's music? That's just sharing songs online, and while I'm fine with people sailing the seas, charging for the privilege doesn't seem right to me.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    > Your own personal music that you've created? Noooooooo. I mean music collection. mp3 and flacs that I acquired throughout the years. I can upload it, put it on my online library and share with my friends. They, in turn, can share their collection with me. And no, it is not piracy, because you are not making it publicly available, totally fair use. Can you please take a look at the website to see how it works? Where am I missing you?
    - pavel_lishin 3y ago
      > And no, it is not piracy, because you are not making it publicly available, totally fair use. I don't think that's how that works. If you're sharing a bunch of mp3's of music you've purchased or pirated to people - and especially if you're about to build some way for people to pay you for the privilege - you're going to need legal advice more than you need business advice, i'd wager.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        > and especially if you're about to build some way for people to pay you for the privilege Again: it seems you are conflating two separate things. I'm charging for hosting the files that customers already have, not by giving them access to copyrighted content. It's no different than the now-defunct "music locker" services like Google Music Play and Amazon Music Storage. The "playlist sharing" functionality is only meant to be used by people who are directly connected. If someone puts copyrighted content in a public list, anyone can see, report it and Funkwhale already has provisions for admins to moderate/remove the content.