5 ms·

Heh. I have some story around it. +20 years ago I had a pop-star manager as my client. Super successful, resourceful with a business card holder filled to the

by xlii 2y ago

Heh. I have some story around it. +20 years ago I had a pop-star manager as my client. Super successful, resourceful with a business card holder filled to the brim; yet always on the lookout for opportunities. One day we were chilling and I drawn a concept of a novel music platform. It wouldn’t distribute music (people could download it whatever) but instead granted unlimited license for a fee, and then based on telemetry tracking divide fee between artists and take some percentage as a profit. We discussed it in detail and shrugged off as impossible to execute. Few years later Spotify came out and yet it took it 5 years to enter national market (due to licensing issues that came up during conversation). I often looked at that conversation and brought up two lessons I learned. First: anyone can come up with a magnificent idea, but it’s about execution and not daydreaming. Second: even if you have everything you needed (there we had skills and resources) success is heavily context based. Spotify could launch because they had friendly environment. My was hostile to license innovation, so we could do jack-

pastage 2y ago
Spotify did not have a friendly environment, it was more passion that made it possible. I hope they can stand up against the giants like youtube, apple etc. I have no love for Spotify but they were pretty revolutionary when they released mainly because they managed to go legit so early.
- xlii 2y ago
  I'm not saying they had it butter smooth (great projects rarely start in completely free-for-all environments). Main stopper was distribution of licenses. There were 100s of LLCs splitted into multi-level trees by ~30 big music groups keeping all the licenses and supervised by artists association. Every LLC kept 2-5 music distribution licenses without any discrimination, local musicians, foreign musicians. Licenses were in constant flux (it wasn't uncommon to 2 companies exchange licenses on weekly basis). A simple reason was income distribution for tax reasons and law sanctioned such procedures. Changes came no earlier than in 2012 when many digital services were already available. And I know that simple answer would be "just ignore the law", but that was also a time when BSA with Microsoft were doing raids with hardware seizure (many of which overturned in courts years after initial seizure). There's no equality of opportunities. That's it and nothing more.
  - pastage 2y ago
    I think we agree on the broader picture, what you describe is just the easy bit. Getting licenses for anything copyrighted is hell at a large scale. I interpret your comment like it has gotten better in the music industry but I do not think Spotify (or the others) want that because that is a big moat they have crossed.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Spotify launched in Sweden, initially, which is one of the most piracy-friendly business climates in the world, and also a very low-red-tape place to do business. American competitors existed and were ground into dust before getting off the ground due to all of the people with their hands out. Between ASCAP/BMI, the agents, the artists, and the record labels, the music business in the US has so many middlemen for the fact that it is such a small industry.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
yobbo 2y ago
In your example, you gave up before even trying? Be sure that almost everyone was hostile to Spotify very early on.
Salgat 2y ago
Shoot back in 2001 Rhapsody was already doing this, I used to use it to stream music all the time for a monthly fee. Ironically in 2016 they rebranded as Napster. Spotify ended up winning in the end because they used a freemium approach instead, also Rhapsody was a bit too ahead of its time.

by xlii 2y ago

pastage 2y ago

Spotify did not have a friendly environment, it was more passion that made it possible. I hope they can stand up against the giants like youtube, apple etc. I have no love for Spotify but they were pretty revolutionary when they released mainly because they managed to go legit so early.

xlii 2y ago
I'm not saying they had it butter smooth (great projects rarely start in completely free-for-all environments). Main stopper was distribution of licenses. There were 100s of LLCs splitted into multi-level trees by ~30 big music groups keeping all the licenses and supervised by artists association. Every LLC kept 2-5 music distribution licenses without any discrimination, local musicians, foreign musicians. Licenses were in constant flux (it wasn't uncommon to 2 companies exchange licenses on weekly basis). A simple reason was income distribution for tax reasons and law sanctioned such procedures. Changes came no earlier than in 2012 when many digital services were already available. And I know that simple answer would be "just ignore the law", but that was also a time when BSA with Microsoft were doing raids with hardware seizure (many of which overturned in courts years after initial seizure). There's no equality of opportunities. That's it and nothing more.
- pastage 2y ago
  I think we agree on the broader picture, what you describe is just the easy bit. Getting licenses for anything copyrighted is hell at a large scale. I interpret your comment like it has gotten better in the music industry but I do not think Spotify (or the others) want that because that is a big moat they have crossed.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
Spotify launched in Sweden, initially, which is one of the most piracy-friendly business climates in the world, and also a very low-red-tape place to do business. American competitors existed and were ground into dust before getting off the ground due to all of the people with their hands out. Between ASCAP/BMI, the agents, the artists, and the record labels, the music business in the US has so many middlemen for the fact that it is such a small industry.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

yobbo 2y ago

In your example, you gave up before even trying? Be sure that almost everyone was hostile to Spotify very early on.

Salgat 2y ago

Shoot back in 2001 Rhapsody was already doing this, I used to use it to stream music all the time for a monthly fee. Ironically in 2016 they rebranded as Napster. Spotify ended up winning in the end because they used a freemium approach instead, also Rhapsody was a bit too ahead of its time.