Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

subvert.fm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#131

Post by josephg »

Self-Perfection wrote: post #128
theamk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there? 1. You buy a username. Old owner contacts support and claims their computer was hacked and they didn't want to sell. Will you lose your new username? No matter what the answer is, you will have to trust Telegram LLC to honor that. 2. Or that person can get a website and advertise on channel. Or a Twitter/Mastodon/whatever account. Or if you want obscure tech, they can publish a public key (directly, without…

You seem to be arguing that it was possible to implement auctions without blockchain, and that such an implementation would be even better. I provided my example in response to josephg, who did not include "using blockchain is the best way to build such a product" in the list of constraints in his question. Therefore, I have not optimized my example for that. So I'd rather stop argument here.

That’s fair. I see “bidding on a username” as fundamentally the same as using bitcoin to buy a pizza. An auction is a bit more complicated, but it’s still just commerce. Bitcoin as over complicated money.

But I didn’t exclude commerce in my post above. Thanks for replying.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#132

Post by Optimal_Persona »

anticorporate wrote: post #53
mmooss wrote: post #12

It's a great start. Co-ops and non-profits can also be subverted and taken over. I hope you look ahead and plan very carefully. For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for an…

> For example, according to an (unverified) story someone told me, a vendor to US east coast food cooperatives now controls many of them; they get their person in, pass bylaws empowering them and disempowering the board (the board usually lacking sophistication), and have deeper pockets for any legal struggle than any co-op member does. For anyone interested in learning more, this is a reference to the National Coope…

Interesting, I have a history in West Coast food co-ops as a baker, manager, and volunteer board member. In my time of direct involvement (1997-2007) I didn't see any union busting or undue influence from UNFI, CDS or other outside entities. Of course it's been a while since then!

Additionally, I found the Carver Policy Governance model we followed effective and intriguing. FWIW "speak in one voice" on our board was a strength, meaning we worked out our differences of opinion on official matters in the board room, but were always free to voice our independent opinions as member-owners and expected to make it clear which "hat" we wore (board member vs. member-owner) when talking to members.

My quick gloss on Policy Governance - Basically you draft "Ends" that the organization follows (mission & values, etc.) and then prohibit what means the GM can take to enact them. Everything else is up to them, and if you're doing it right as a board you're paying VERY close attention to language and intentions, and chains of cause and effect (always keeping "bad GM" scenarios top of mind). The board is basically the legislature (and judiciary in times of need) to the GM's executive branch.

Maybe it's unique to the co-op I worked in - but a key part of being a board member was "Member Linkage" meaning that while the board couldn't directly enact the changes that members requested, it was 1000% our obligation to listen to them, give them space on agendas, and take these requests seriously. When I was involved, employees were encouraged to run for board seats, and AFAIK there has always been direct staff representation on the board before and after my tenure.

IANAL - But if a board member knowingly lets an outside entity change its bylaws in a way that negatively affects the co-op and its members - that is a breach of a board member's fiduciary duty for which they could be personally liable. Same - if an outside corporate stooge is installed on the board and prioritizes their outside biz' well-being over the co-op's, that would also be a breach of fiduciary duty. Also - if such a stooge ran for a board position and didn't disclose their business connection and intention to prioritize their employer's needs over the co-op's, that would be a blatantly clear conflict of interest that is grounds for immediate removal in any org with decent bylaws.

So - not calling BS on this, but something isn't quite adding up here in the articles linked.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#134

Post by BizarroLand »

4dregress wrote: post #125
FireInsight wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not have the means to self-host it. A platform is just make an account, upload the files and cover, set the title, done. The platform might help with getting an audience as well. To self-host you need to have both the technical ability for it and pre-existing audience to use your self-hosted platform.

Most people should try harder. Whats the point of even making music if you're gonna pay all these platforms for no one to even to listen to your music. And then you have to compete with the major labels who are buying streams to get their artists in the big playlists. Its a really cleaver system, you have all these services that you pay upfront and then if you actually do get any streams you get like 0.0001% of a cen…

This is a pretty high ranking jerkass comment.

Thousands of people you've never heard of have done exactly what you are talking about before returning to their ordinary life with their dreams unfulfilled.

Jerkasses come along and tell other people that they should do the same thing when they have no idea how much passion, time, effort, drive, and focus it takes to do such a thing or how it feels when you realize you've been screaming into the void.

Get a following first and then consider making your own website. It's okay to ladle from the mainstream as long as you don't dive in and never surface.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#135

Post by cloudfudge »

cloudfudge wrote: post #82
geraldmcboing wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Bandcamp is neither hypothetical or weak. The problem is that its been sold twice, and is now owned by a company who attempted to fire anyone who tried to unionise, which is a red flag. Will bandcamp be sold again? Yes, very very likely. So that is exactly the problem.

First of all, "attempted to fire anyone who tried to unionise" is entirely made up. They laid off fully half the company; it wasn't targeted at all. Second, the "very likely" part about it being sold is hypothetical, and the follow-on effect of that being bad for artists is doubly hypothetical. As of right now, the service is exactly as it was back when it was "the anti-spotify" that everyone was in love with. It was…

To add to this: one of the basic arguments about enshittification is that it happens as a result of services starting out by operating at a loss, which leads them to eventually need to shift the value proposition towards actually making the platform sustainable. Bandcamp built their service sustainably, achieving profitability back in 2012, so there is a lot less incentive to enshittify, which is borne out by the fact that the overall value prop hasn't changed in all that time.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#136

Post by FireInsight »

4dregress wrote: post #125
FireInsight wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not have the means to self-host it. A platform is just make an account, upload the files and cover, set the title, done. The platform might help with getting an audience as well. To self-host you need to have both the technical ability for it and pre-existing audience to use your self-hosted platform.

Most people should try harder. Whats the point of even making music if you're gonna pay all these platforms for no one to even to listen to your music. And then you have to compete with the major labels who are buying streams to get their artists in the big playlists. Its a really cleaver system, you have all these services that you pay upfront and then if you actually do get any streams you get like 0.0001% of a cen…

Whats the point of even making music if you're gonna pay for hosting of music no one to even listens to? Bandcamp, Soundcloud, etc. are free for artists, and the barrier to entry is so low a nine year old can get started by themselves (I've seen it).

No need to gatekeep. There's both a use and a market for platforms. This does not invalidate the benefits of self-hosting, which many artists wouldn't even see.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#137

Post by freedomben »

mg wrote: post #26
freedomben wrote: post #20

I think this is great, but I do hope thought is being put into solving the hardest problem of all IMHO: Music Discovery I have bought a lot on Bandcamp, but would have bought 10x more if I could just find stuff I liked. The existing system makes discovery nearly impossible unless you happen to like the stuff being mainly bought and curated or are in a lucky genre. Discoverability is especially hard because 99% of the…

I run a self-learning music discovery engine called Gnoosic: https://www.gnoosic.com I can confirm that when you suggest a random band to a random user, they will dislike it with over 90% probability. I'd be interested to hear how well Gnoosic works for your musical taste.

Quick update: Gnoosic has helped me find a bunch of great bands. Thank you! Definitely a great tool :-)

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#138

Post by 4dregress »

BizarroLand wrote: post #134
4dregress wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people should try harder. Whats the point of even making music if you're gonna pay all these platforms for no one to even to listen to your music. And then you have to compete with the major labels who are buying streams to get their artists in the big playlists. Its a really cleaver system, you have all these services that you pay upfront and then if you actually do get any streams you get like 0.0001% of a cen…

This is a pretty high ranking jerkass comment. Thousands of people you've never heard of have done exactly what you are talking about before returning to their ordinary life with their dreams unfulfilled. Jerkasses come along and tell other people that they should do the same thing when they have no idea how much passion, time, effort, drive, and focus it takes to do such a thing or how it feels when you realize you'…

I think there might be a misunderstanding here.

The point I’m making is this, these platforms aren’t made with the artist best interests in mind, they are created in order to create profit for the business.

It’s the same principle as being signed to a label. The artist is an employee who brings in revenue for the record label.

Read up about Steve Vai’s approach to the music industry.

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#139

Post by factormeta »

n-exploit wrote: post #9
factormeta wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would this be like open-collective for musicians?

I could see the economics working similar to OpenCollective, but different governance. I know OC announced a restructuring recently, but I don't think it's a co-op model.

Ah never mind, read through the site a bit more. They are aiming to be the Mondragon [1] of music. The co-op modal seems interesting, so is socially beneficial corp. In the end of day it is all about implementation. It is nice that there are lawyers and economists involved, but are the founders sound artists? have they toured? run a music venue? Asking for the founding fee of $100 seems quite a bit much, but then again does seems a bit like the vibe coming from LA area who is out of touch with the rest of the world.

[1]https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/

Re: Subvert – Collectively owned music marketplace

#140

Post by BizarroLand »

4dregress wrote: post #138
BizarroLand wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty high ranking jerkass comment. Thousands of people you've never heard of have done exactly what you are talking about before returning to their ordinary life with their dreams unfulfilled. Jerkasses come along and tell other people that they should do the same thing when they have no idea how much passion, time, effort, drive, and focus it takes to do such a thing or how it feels when you realize you'…

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. The point I’m making is this, these platforms aren’t made with the artist best interests in mind, they are created in order to create profit for the business. It’s the same principle as being signed to a label. The artist is an employee who brings in revenue for the record label. Read up about Steve Vai’s approach to the music industry.

Steve Vai was an 80's fad.

You would never have listened to what he said had he not first signed with a record label and then released a best selling album that millions of people listened to.

Even if Vai was 1 in a million guitarist, that means there's about 8,000 Steve Vais on the planet right now and you would probably have a hard time identifying a single one of them that doesn't currently have a record deal and has their media on streaming sites.

I'm sorry that I'm sounding rude or dismissive, I'm just making the point that "going it alone" is not an option for anyone who wants to be successful in popular music.

Doing what you're doing is the equivalent of writing a novel and then photocopying and hand binding every copy for sale.

Post reply on HN