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

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#111

Post by simias » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:21 PM UTC

sorenn111 wrote: post #83

dalbasal wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

It is very worrying. It is like regulatory capture, but not implemented at the request of the company. It was done purely by the EU. By requiring cutting edge and practically non existent technology, it somewhat requires a monopoly by the one company that can do it (YouTube, or do it the best because there is no perfect filter). And the EU will then turn around and fine them for being too big. I believe in well regul…

>I believe in well regulated capitalism

Then you really should avoid crying wolf for what's effectively pure speculation in this case. I also fail to see what "capture" you have here, people are still able to upload their track to Spotify, they'll just have to go through a 3rd party that will have to screen copyright infringement and make sure the metadata is in order. Meanwhile Spotify is free to focus on the big fish which is probably what they really care about. So who is capturing what in this scenario?

Regarding Youtube it's already effectively a quasi-monopoly, not because of regulation but because operating a free video streaming service at this scale requires insanely deep pockets. The only others that manage to stay afloat are mainly those who offer content that can't be hosted on Youtube (dailymotion, liveleaks, porn sites etc...).

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#112

Post by wolco » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

sk0g wrote: post #82

zimpenfish wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify please hire me so I can work on this, tack. I know some people who are working on something like that with the added benefit* of being on Ethereum if that interests you... :)

I'd definitely be keen to hear more about this at least! I've been thinking about hash values for song sections, and then proving ownership by claiming a sequence of hashes. Could help ensure you aren't subconsciously ripping other music off, and make finding 'related' songs easy (covers, remixes, etc).

But changing some aspect would change the hash value

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#113

Post by njl » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

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…

Spotify has internal fingerprinting stuff that can handle this easily enough. The shutdown is entirely due to pressure from the record labels. It's a shame; this was a surprisingly difficult product to get off the ground, and a lot of folks put in heroic efforts to make it work.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#114

Post by neka » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

oldgregg wrote: post #75

cma wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU thing doesn't apply yet. More likely it goes against labels at a much deeper level: letting people succeed without labels. I wouldn't be surprised if the labels didn't want to renew deals unless that avenue was cut off. That is much more concerning to them than a copyrighted upload avenue that they could DMCA away pretty easily.

This. All the major labels did not support spotify out of good will-- Spotify uses hollywood accounting to give the labels the spoils. Same exploitation of artists thats been going on for 100 years.

No it doesn't, Spotify provides line-level accounting for every stream to the rightsholders. What they then do to account to artists could be anything.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#115

Post by neka » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #55

There are always the distribution broker services (DistroKid, CDBaby, TuneCore...) but they can go bad. I've contemplated 1) writing some open source quality control software for scanning music distribution uploads, and 2) forming a collective (probably 501(c)(3) charity non-profit) which would serve in the distribution broker role and redistribute income. I wonder if such things could ever come to pass. Any thoughts…

What problem are you trying to solve?

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#116

Post by SkyBelow » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:31 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.

Welcome to government regulation 101. Regulatory capture is a term that should be in everyone's vocabulary.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#117

Post by _khau » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #90

CaptainZapp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If stringent government regulation got you here, maybe it will be less of that, not more, that gets you out. Yeah, we see how fantastically that one worked with the Boeing corporation and their newest flagship plane, The 737MAX.

Gotta love the uber-intellectual reply that any valid criticism of European regulation brings: "but WHATABOUT " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Accusations of whataboutism are invalid when you are calling out related points or highlighting hypocrisy and double standards:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism

Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. For instance, in international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.

Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.

Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies. They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.

The scholars Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon posit that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as 'whataboutism', which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of 'whataboutism' are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#118

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

sk0g wrote: post #78

scarface74 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this benefit Spotify? The few people it would attract wouldn’t be worth the cost. According to other posters, it’s barely used.

Maybe it doesn't, but I was planning to use it soon! I'll have to pay a small sum to do the same now, but that's not a big deal.

Unrelated question. As an indy artist, why use Spotify? More than likely people wouldn’t discover your music and you lose the direct relationship with your listeners. Isn’t it better for small artists to get “1000 True Fans” who would be willing to pay $x than to get a few more fans that would pay you indirectly $x/10000?

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#119

Post by osd » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #108

criley2 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally cannot imagine supporting monopolies/oligopolies over healthy competition. There really is more than just an ocean between America and Europe, the culture is so dramatically different. How can one honestly believe that a Google data monopoly is better for privacy and innovation? It seems to fly in the face of every lesson learned by every monopoly in history.

> I literally cannot imagine supporting monopolies/oligopolies over healthy competition. Implicit in my post was that I don't want to support healthy competition in adtech, or any competition at all. I want this industry to disappear entirely. I have no tears for the small adtech businesses whose market got scooped up by Google; I only hope that by presenting a bigger target, Google's adtech activities will be easier…

The implication wasn't clear because, frankly, it's a silly thought. This post is ripe for that "that's not how any of this works" meme.

I can understand the emotional intent, but it's important to ensure that routes we take actually get us to the outcomes we want.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#120

Post by magicalhippo » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:39 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?

> Is there another plausible reason for Spotify shutting down direct uploads that's unrelated to copyrights?

My immediate thought on reading the headline was that they didn't want to deal with a ton of individuals w.r.t. payouts and etc. Company to company transactions are always easier, so restrict it to labels.