4 ms·

I think Apple was/is scared of "unprofessional" music. Apple doesn't want to be the YouTube of music. Not allowing shitty (or pirated!) music is a hard problem

by jonknee 13y ago

I think Apple was/is scared of "unprofessional" music. Apple doesn't want to be the YouTube of music. Not allowing shitty (or pirated!) music is a hard problem to solve. A bunch of suits and contracts does a decent job because not many people are going to take the time if they just want to troll.

hayksaakian 13y ago
They literally do the same thing with apps. Pay a yearly fee and you're good.
- guynamedloren 13y ago
  A yearly fee AND every single app has to go through an approval process.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    Which just weed out competition with what they have/will have. Fart apps pass just fine.
guynamedloren 13y ago
So, how does Distrokid factor in to this? After reading, I had the impression that anybody with $20 could upload their music via Distrokid... is the idea that the annual fee is supposed to be a filter to prevent shitty music? Pirated music is one thing, but 'shitty music' seems a bit tougher to police.
- pionar 13y ago
  pud said in an earlier post that there's a propietary spam filtering system in there that he's understandably reluctant to share details on.
  - Kronopath 13y ago
    A spam filter is different than an "amateur" or "unprofessional" filter though. I don't see how it could protect against that.
vargalas 13y ago
Who decides what shitty is? Well, just listen to Gagnam style and compare it with others. Everybody is different. And the tastes are different, too.
- GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
  Agreed. Good music is 100% subjective, good apps are at least partially objective.
Amadou 13y ago
Not allowing shitty (or pirated!) music is a hard problem to solve. As others have said, shitty is entirely subjective. But pirated is a really easy problem to solve. Just run it through an identifier like Echoprint. http://echoprint.me/ http://echoprint.me/
- gabemart 13y ago
  > As others have said, shitty is entirely subjective. I strongly disagree that shitty is entirely subjective. Contextually, "shitty" could mean music recorded on a cell phone, or tracks that were 2 seconds long, or tracks that have been transcoded 7 times and sound like they're being played from a walkie-talkie at the bottom of a well. I can understand why a music platform might want to enforce some standards of professionalism or technical competency, even if they didn't want to do so for matters of taste.
  - crucialfelix 13y ago
    or tracks that are actually completely stolen. this is a HUGE problem on BeatPort. DJs take 90s house records and just change the speed do a small edit and then release it as their own production. and BeatPort releases it. I have many friends who are furious because their music has been blatantly stolen.

by jonknee 13y ago

hayksaakian 13y ago

They literally do the same thing with apps. Pay a yearly fee and you're good.

guynamedloren 13y ago
A yearly fee AND every single app has to go through an approval process.
- gcb0 13y ago
  Which just weed out competition with what they have/will have. Fart apps pass just fine.

guynamedloren 13y ago

So, how does Distrokid factor in to this? After reading, I had the impression that anybody with $20 could upload their music via Distrokid... is the idea that the annual fee is supposed to be a filter to prevent shitty music? Pirated music is one thing, but 'shitty music' seems a bit tougher to police.

pionar 13y ago
pud said in an earlier post that there's a propietary spam filtering system in there that he's understandably reluctant to share details on.
- Kronopath 13y ago
  A spam filter is different than an "amateur" or "unprofessional" filter though. I don't see how it could protect against that.

vargalas 13y ago

Who decides what shitty is? Well, just listen to Gagnam style and compare it with others. Everybody is different. And the tastes are different, too.

GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
Agreed. Good music is 100% subjective, good apps are at least partially objective.

Amadou 13y ago

Not allowing shitty (or pirated!) music is a hard problem to solve. As others have said, shitty is entirely subjective. But pirated is a really easy problem to solve. Just run it through an identifier like Echoprint. http://echoprint.me/ http://echoprint.me/

gabemart 13y ago
> As others have said, shitty is entirely subjective. I strongly disagree that shitty is entirely subjective. Contextually, "shitty" could mean music recorded on a cell phone, or tracks that were 2 seconds long, or tracks that have been transcoded 7 times and sound like they're being played from a walkie-talkie at the bottom of a well. I can understand why a music platform might want to enforce some standards of professionalism or technical competency, even if they didn't want to do so for matters of taste.
- crucialfelix 13y ago
  or tracks that are actually completely stolen. this is a HUGE problem on BeatPort. DJs take 90s house records and just change the speed do a small edit and then release it as their own production. and BeatPort releases it. I have many friends who are furious because their music has been blatantly stolen.