Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

Post by Anarch157a » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #21

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's unlikely. If I am not mistaken, the EU directive will not be implemented for another two years.

Is there an advantage for Spotify to allow 2 more years of copyright-infringing uploads that they have to clean up later? Is there another plausible reason for Spotify shutting down direct uploads that's unrelated to copyrights?

Post by sorenn111 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #77

jasode wrote: post #14

The submitted article doesn't mention it but my guess at connecting the dots is that it's related to EU Article 13's stringent requirement of "upload filters"[0]. Yes, Spotify's direct uploading "gave opportunity for small artists to share their talent" -- but that same mechanism also made it too easy to upload copyright infringing content. Since Spotify does not have a machine learning AI copyright filter like Youtu…

>>Since Spotify does not have a machine learning AI copyright filter like Youtube's ContentID If true, this is worrying. It basically gives a handful of companies a monopoly over a potentially wide range of things. It is unreasonable to require everyone to meet a standard that relies on cutting edge technology.

Post by neetodavid » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:44 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #45

This sort of addresses a number of disparate issues related to quality control. I don't know how I feel about it, but they probably had to do it to prevent becoming the next YouTube. As long as they don't allow user ratings or user comments they should be fine. https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes-si... https://qz.com/1212330/a-bulgarian-scheme-scammed-spotify-fo... https://www.vulture.com/2017/0…

Post by criley2 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #57

criley2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded trying to meet regulations and Google Ads gobbled up some 30-40% more market share in Europe. It came down to the fact that Google was able to meet the regulations fastest, and achieve informed user consent across a wide userbase dramatically faster than small lo…

It might actually turn out for the better. Google is a big target; they can't fly under the radar. As for demolishing small businesses, small businesses aren't an universal, unquestionable good. In this particular case, we need less adtech business in general. It's like dumping toxic waste into rivers - not only lots of small polluters aren't better than few big ones, the desirable thing is just having less polluters…

Post by criley2 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

dmitriid wrote: post #38

criley2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded trying to meet regulations and Google Ads gobbled up some 30-40% more market share in Europe. It came down to the fact that Google was able to meet the regulations fastest, and achieve informed user consent across a wide userbase dramatically faster than small lo…

Why do you think that advertising business is good and imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small businesses in general? Besides, GDPR is an extension of similar laws that have existed for years .