Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#191

Post by pojzon » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 12:04 PM UTC

meowface wrote: post #161

pojzon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Im not mistaken, youtube contentid filtering is not working as good as Google hoped it will. People find more and more backdors or workarounds for it. Google hires like thousends of editors to watch youtube content and filter out stuff. That was one big defeat of Google. The same way they fail to filter kids content. Im yet to see a filtering mechanism for a platform like ytb that works.

It's a very tough problem, with thousands (or more) of smart people constantly trying to circumvent it every day. But I think YouTube has the upper hand at this point. You hear way more about false positives than false negatives, and every single successful circumvention I've found is barely watchable/listenable. >50% cropping, rotation, major pitch shifting, color shifting, speed changes. They're getting by, but rea…

I would call that a lost battle because you need like 1% of all content to break the laws similar to the ones EU recently passed to still heavily fine them.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#192

Post by neka » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #164

neka wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you retain your ISRCs and UPCs when moving from one distributor to another, links and stream counts will remain as is. Surely that's an issue solved by the market, if there is a distributor that is reliable & fairly priced then people will move to use and stay with them. I think the current issue is that a lot of the big name distributors are marketers first, distributors second.

Since when are non-profits not part of the market? No commercial distributor can hold out forever against the temptation expanding into marketing. That's as hopeless as wishing that ISPs would stay as dumb pipes. There should be more competition: a non-profit which offers fewer features but which you aren't constantly wondering when it will flip and screw you over, versus more featureful and slicker commercial compet…

They're not, but I don't see how it being non-profit would make a difference to the problems you're suggesting. You can be for-profit and still have a sustainable, fair and innovative model.

By marketing I mean marketing themselves as a service, not marketing the music they handle.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#193

Post by dmitriid » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

lukeh wrote: post #176

dmitriid wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, herein lies the devil in the details. The contracts may or may not specify worldwide distribution rights, may concern distribution rights in some countries only, may or may not leave leeway for the artist to distribute their own stuff etc. etc. etc. It's a legal minefield, and the big three love it.

The contracts are long but clear (I’m on Universal).

Yet somehow music distribution ends up being controlled by different companies in different countries for quite a lot of music. Especially for older music.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#194

Post by rectang » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

neka wrote: post #192

rectang wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when are non-profits not part of the market? No commercial distributor can hold out forever against the temptation expanding into marketing. That's as hopeless as wishing that ISPs would stay as dumb pipes. There should be more competition: a non-profit which offers fewer features but which you aren't constantly wondering when it will flip and screw you over, versus more featureful and slicker commercial compet…

They're not, but I don't see how it being non-profit would make a difference to the problems you're suggesting. You can be for-profit and still have a sustainable, fair and innovative model. By marketing I mean marketing themselves as a service, not marketing the music they handle.

> a sustainable, fair and innovative model

Until ownership or management changes. Or has a change of heart. Or gets squeezed by an aggressive competitor.

Long term relationships with companies are fraught. Establishing vendor lockin followed by exploitation is a proven-successful business stratagem.

Once it becomes expensive for customers to leave a service, it is perpetually tempting to dial up the cost of the service until just below the point where customers bolt. The more painful you can make it to leave, the more you can wring from them.

Even if the company you're doing business with isn't exploiting you today, you'd be well advised to check back tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that...

Or better, to avoid forming such long term relationships with entities that are perpetually at risk of going bad.

I worked in the music industry for 6 years. There are so many people in that space who want to do the right thing, who attempt to do something "sustainable, fair and innovative" — yet the marketplace sadly and stubbornly resists their efforts, corrupting them or crushing them. Where are all the benevolent record labels that ought to exist, by your logic?

By having this entity be a member-governed cooperative, you take on a different set of problems. (I've served on the board of a large 501(c)(3) so I'm well acquainted with the frustrations.) But at least you avoid the terrible misalignment of incentives that comes from relying on a profit-driven middleman over the long term.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#195

Post by dmitriid » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

sfifs wrote: post #180

dmitriid wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if I open a new small business and want to advertise it on AdWords or elsewhere on the internet I have no recourse Ad tech was extremely profitable before personalisation and wholesale trading of private data.

> Ad tech was extremely profitable That was the era when marketers were dumb, drank the internet look aid and were taken for a ride by the industry. That's not quite true anymore.

They will work just fine today, too

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#196

Post by meowface » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

pojzon wrote: post #191

meowface wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very tough problem, with thousands (or more) of smart people constantly trying to circumvent it every day. But I think YouTube has the upper hand at this point. You hear way more about false positives than false negatives, and every single successful circumvention I've found is barely watchable/listenable. >50% cropping, rotation, major pitch shifting, color shifting, speed changes. They're getting by, but rea…

I would call that a lost battle because you need like 1% of all content to break the laws similar to the ones EU recently passed to still heavily fine them.

1% of all content on YouTube? I imagine a far lower percentage than that is copyright-infringing.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#197

Post by neka » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #194

neka wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not, but I don't see how it being non-profit would make a difference to the problems you're suggesting. You can be for-profit and still have a sustainable, fair and innovative model. By marketing I mean marketing themselves as a service, not marketing the music they handle.

> a sustainable, fair and innovative model Until ownership or management changes. Or has a change of heart. Or gets squeezed by an aggressive competitor. Long term relationships with companies are fraught. Establishing vendor lockin followed by exploitation is a proven-successful business stratagem. Once it becomes expensive for customers to leave a service, it is perpetually tempting to dial up the cost of the servi…

A lot of the new players (~past decade) are VC funded and/or starting off in a highly saturated market, needing to landgrab as many artists & labels as possible to establish themselves. So they end up prioritising marketing their service via slick onboarding, PR campaigns, unsustainable offers (see Stem) and cash advances. A couple years down the line they usually fall short of their core model or pivot, as you say, dialling up the cost of the service.

Always enjoy seeing services tout the 'keep 100% of your royalties' when they pipe everything through a third party like CI who take a percentage upfront.

Yes I've seen a handful of services across the years with the "sustainable, fair and innovative" USP, often run by volunteers and withering out after a short time. I'm not too sure on the potential of these as they end up being top heavy, with more artists and labels onboard than paying customers / fans. The only people that seem to have got this balance right is Bandcamp, at the cost of 15% of your revenue.

I've dealt with a distributor who have been around for decades (physical & digital) and sit under the radar, not focussed on growth, soley relying on word of mouth referrals with high profile, revenue generating clients for years. They're not the cheapest on %age, but are reliable, transparent and are well respected for the curation of clients (no open door policy) so as with everything - you get what you pay for. So they do exist, but you won't hear them shouting their own name.

As for labels, I know of plenty who offer a fair deal for artists who end up staying with them in the long term. It's just the bad apples, usually the majors, who have the leverage to offer unscrupulous deals which all comes out in the press when the artists realise how bad the deal was years down the line and they're contracted in for another 10 years.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#198

Post by neka » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #158

jasode wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Spotify has internal fingerprinting stuff that can handle this easily enough. I'll admit I don't know about Spotify's inner workings but my understanding is that Spotify itself does not have its own fingerprinting algorithm. Instead, they rely on their distribution partners like DistroKid and CD Baby to use fingerprint services and prevent copyright violations. (DistroKid and CD Baby license the fingerprint algorith…

Record labels are gatekeeping and defending their moat. The existence of their industry relies on friction in the music distribution system - the easier it is to release music own your own, the less money they will make.

You're not obliged to sign to a record label.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#199

Post by kelnos » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

neka wrote: post #198

cwkoss wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Record labels are gatekeeping and defending their moat. The existence of their industry relies on friction in the music distribution system - the easier it is to release music own your own, the less money they will make.

You're not obliged to sign to a record label.

Correct, which is why the labels try to do things like this. If the labels pressure Spotify to kill the ability for independent artists to upload their own music, then they only way you get on Spotify is to sign with a record label. And if being on Spotify is important to you as an artist, then yes, you are indeed obliged to sign with a label.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#200

Post by toxik » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 12:40 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #139

toxik wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good job, EU! Squelch your citizenry in the interest of the copyright industry. Content filtering is draconian and fundamentally opposed to a free and open society.

Content filtering is draconian and fundamentally opposed to a free and open society. Now, I'm not a supporter of current copyright laws as I think they are absolutely ridiculous as is, however, I disagree with your statement. It all depends on who is doing the filtering. Done correctly, content screening is a part of a free and open society. And with some care, sometimes it is required. I am also going to assume that…

I would be cautious about defending those that have, from those that do not. The general public does not have the kinds of money and resources that the copyright lobby does.

For that is the first point to counter your argument: the copyright industry is not mainly looking out for artists, it is looking out for itself and its benefactors. Ask any musician what percentages of royalties they get from their song, it's a joke at this point. Live performances are the sustenance of musical artists today.

That is not to say that I don't defend the rights of artists to their work; I do. But that isn't what this battle is about, this is a battle against the same industry that finds it pertinent to send out mass blackmail letters to families, to single mothers, to depressed people. It is surely going to be one of those things that we look back on in decades to come and go "what the f--- were we thinking?"

Finally, you have to take a wider view in these matters than saying "there is some configuration of content filtering that I find acceptable," because once you have content filtering laws in place, people who you disagree with can co-opt this into a totalitarian state. You do not know who will have the keys to the kingdom come tomorrow.