4 ms·
"At the end of the day, whatever "innovation" happens with companies like Youtube or Spotify, they make their money selling someone else's creative works" Not
by gizzlon 13y ago
"At the end of the day, whatever "innovation" happens with companies like Youtube or Spotify, they make their money selling someone else's creative works"
Not that I necessarily disagree, but the exact same thing could be said about the media companies.
"I think new school media technology companies need to accept that their sole revenue source is derived not from their "innovation" but other peoples' hard work"
Again, it's the same with all media companies. Also, even if Spotify would be value-less without music it does not mean that they don't add any value.
- rayiner 13y agoSure, but the media companies don't wax philosophical about how actors and directors are holding back innovation when they insist on getting paid lots of money for their hard work. It's not the basic transaction that's the problem. Aggregating and distributing other peoples' products is a valuable function. But Amazon doesn't go around complaining that its vendors don't give it all their products for free (so they can turn around and make piles of money reselling them).
- gizzlon 13y agoI haven't heard about Spotify doing that, or YouTube for that matter.. What I have seen though are a lot of shade tactics from "old media" companies: suing, lobbying for censorship and generally lying about everything. Where I live they also have a habit of using the "poor artists" as meat-shield in public discussions and advertising. Of course that doesn't stop them from routinely fucking them over when it suits them. Aanyway, it seems like Spotify is at least partly owned by "old media" so it's not so clear cut.