5 ms·

If I am understanding this correctly, they are basically using what is hosted on Youtube for free (or are they paying Google somehow?), not showing youtube ads

If I am understanding this correctly, they are basically using what is hosted on Youtube for free (or are they paying Google somehow?), not showing youtube ads and then presenting their ads just when the app launched? How exactly did they think that was going to be able to continue to run and not expect any pushback? If the ads were not there then you could argue it was just a free app, but they seem to be trying to make money off of other people's services. While I am not crying for the money lost to google or the record labels. I still question how Musi thought this would work. Is there some big part of this that I am missing?

ferbivore 2y ago
It did work, for years. Made them $10m per employee apparently.
pentamassiv 2y ago
Isn't that exactly what Spotify does with podcasts? They also take podcasts that are hosted for free and then put ads in them
- nerdjon 2y ago
  Does Spotify automatically pull in podcasts wether or not the people that made it want to be on the platform or not? However I think the part missing (which again I am trying to fully understand what is happening here, their website really glosses over what is happening) is if Spotify was pulling podcasts from a place that served their own ads to instead serve Spotify ads without compensating where they got it from. Which my understanding here, is what Musi is doing.
  - pentamassiv 2y ago
    Yes, as far as I know they have their own podcast index and list "all" podcasts. There are some Spotify exclusive "podcasts" that are only available to Spotify users. Sure, as far as I know Spotify doesn't block the authors ads but they add ads to podcasts where there are none. The average user doesn't know that Spotify is responsible for that and might stop listening. Some podcasters intentionally publish the first episodes ad free to grow their listener base
- xethos 2y ago
  Spotify even fucks over podcasters a little differently. There is no tracking, no cookies, no Facebook tracking pixels, in the RSS feeds that is podcasting. So how does one know "How big is my audience, how many people hear my ads, how can I argue that the ad agency should give me more money?" Well, the simplest way was to count downloads. Which, while slightly inflated, is a reasonable approximation for "One download, one likely listen". Because we all know it's inflated, it's easy for you and the ad agency to add a fudge-factor of "...minus the ten percent or so that have stopped listening but haven't stopped the auto-download" But only Spotify knows how many people listened to the episode that Spotify grabbed, then served to their subscribers. Spotify is artificially shrinking the audience podcasters can say they're advertising to, especially smaller podcasters - because with less than a thousand streams or so, no fucking chance Spotify will tell you [in a timely fashion] how many people listened to you
oefrha 2y ago
The crazy part of the story is they’re actually suing to get their app reinstated. You’d expect a legally questionable (at best) business to steer clear of the legal system. It’s like they’re completely oblivious of the fact that RIAA and co. can and probably will sue them for major damages.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  I was wondering about that as well, what lawyer looked at this and thought "yeah I am going to defend this". That seems... wild.

ferbivore 2y ago

It did work, for years. Made them $10m per employee apparently.

pentamassiv 2y ago

Isn't that exactly what Spotify does with podcasts? They also take podcasts that are hosted for free and then put ads in them

nerdjon 2y ago
Does Spotify automatically pull in podcasts wether or not the people that made it want to be on the platform or not? However I think the part missing (which again I am trying to fully understand what is happening here, their website really glosses over what is happening) is if Spotify was pulling podcasts from a place that served their own ads to instead serve Spotify ads without compensating where they got it from. Which my understanding here, is what Musi is doing.
- pentamassiv 2y ago
  Yes, as far as I know they have their own podcast index and list "all" podcasts. There are some Spotify exclusive "podcasts" that are only available to Spotify users. Sure, as far as I know Spotify doesn't block the authors ads but they add ads to podcasts where there are none. The average user doesn't know that Spotify is responsible for that and might stop listening. Some podcasters intentionally publish the first episodes ad free to grow their listener base
xethos 2y ago
Spotify even fucks over podcasters a little differently. There is no tracking, no cookies, no Facebook tracking pixels, in the RSS feeds that is podcasting. So how does one know "How big is my audience, how many people hear my ads, how can I argue that the ad agency should give me more money?" Well, the simplest way was to count downloads. Which, while slightly inflated, is a reasonable approximation for "One download, one likely listen". Because we all know it's inflated, it's easy for you and the ad agency to add a fudge-factor of "...minus the ten percent or so that have stopped listening but haven't stopped the auto-download" But only Spotify knows how many people listened to the episode that Spotify grabbed, then served to their subscribers. Spotify is artificially shrinking the audience podcasters can say they're advertising to, especially smaller podcasters - because with less than a thousand streams or so, no fucking chance Spotify will tell you [in a timely fashion] how many people listened to you

oefrha 2y ago

The crazy part of the story is they’re actually suing to get their app reinstated. You’d expect a legally questionable (at best) business to steer clear of the legal system. It’s like they’re completely oblivious of the fact that RIAA and co. can and probably will sue them for major damages.

nerdjon 2y ago
I was wondering about that as well, what lawyer looked at this and thought "yeah I am going to defend this". That seems... wild.