Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make it okay to flaunt the law, Travis.
So we should obey the law because it is the law?
No, you should change the law if you truly think it's wrong.
Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
291–300 of 347 posts
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Functionally, for the consumer, streaming is mostly identical to a recording. Want to listen to a song? Press play. The storage just happens to be on some server somewhere.
It's just a really accommodating radio station that always plays your requests, no?
Well, now we're getting into the question of what the intent is behind having different pricing and licensing for broadcast and distribution of recordings.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Functionally, for the consumer, streaming is mostly identical to a recording. Want to listen to a song? Press play. The storage just happens to be on some server somewhere.
Except a recording is mine permanently and physically
True, but most users don't seem to mind. Arguably, streaming is just a better storage medium for most users. Until the company providing the service screws its customers over, if course. I doubt that possibility weighs very heavily into many consumers' buying choices.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think only music owners are allowed to post to YT, so they don't need a license like Spotify would.
But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity. There is a composer, if there are lyrics there is a lyricist, if it was translated then there is a translator, if it’s a cover or remix there is an arranger, there is a publisher that published the music, there might be a sub-publisher, then there is a record label… One of the main reasons behind the existence of this comp…
> But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not a single entity.
Great example, but you don't always have to split everything up 100 different ways, either.
There is commercial music in almost every genre owned entirely by the songwriter/composer/artist.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#295I hope there's a way to export Spotify playlists.
Not as far as I can tell. My backout plan is to manually copy over all the artists I'm following. It'll take an hour or two, and I'd have to remember which of their albums I liked the most. For custom playlists? Currently you're shit out of luck, you'll have to do it manually.
They have a nice API for working with playlists. Dozens of services would pop up for ripping them if spotify goes EOL.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a logical level it should be treated the same as broadcast radio, however it gets hazy because you can store playlists and play tracks on demand so its really not clear cut. With radio you can hear the song if it happens to be playing but there is no on demand, no playlists.
You can record the radio.
Yeah, but that was before they thought that was a problem.
"This mixtape thing will never take off"
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's simply nonsense to claim that sampling and mashups have been stifled by copyright law. Ignoring a few ancient parody/satire acts like Negativland, samples are made, used, cleared, and paid for with no serious negative consequences. Likewise remixes. There's some extra paperwork, money changes hands, and on the whole everyone is happy. What's been far more damaging is Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which…
Spotify would gladly pay the artists all the money and it could. And it can’t . Precisely because of copyright laws: you end up paying the labels, not the artists.
Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify.
For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FWIW, they would have had to sell ~100 (~450 for signed artists) albums in a month to make this same money vs. streaming.
At this point, affiliating with a label is only worth it when you know you're going to break out.
Most musicians, even niche ones, have learned how to use the system their confined in, and do well off of a royalty-based model vs the traditional selling-CDs-at-a-show [2].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-...
[2] http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-pa...
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Blockchains are not the next big thing in databases Blockchains are the next big thing in nothing. They are not here to revolutionise anything [1] > hey are here to revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts with each other etc. Nope. There are about zero things in blockchain that help with that. Because at the end of the day someone has to do all the job of, you know, adding all the…
> Blockchains are the next big thing in nothing. They are not here to revolutionise anything [1] I beg to differ [1] > So how in the seven hells is blockchain going to help? It's not a silver bullet, and most things are not ones that were not possible before. But it facilitates some combinations, makes some things a lot more practical, and opens space for innovation. In this case, in particular, what comes to mind is…
> there's a replicated consensus of all this attributions. Every single company agrees and has a shared database of the rights and the licensing.
Riiight. They can't agree on a standard describing their music and licensing now. But blockchain will magically create that shared database out of thin air.
BTW. Again. That same word, database. Nothing a relational database couldn't handle with much more ease and efficiency.
> there's not necessarily a need to have a middle man managing this informations and agreements
Riiight. Because every single company will provide an up-to-date complete information with no omission and mistakes. Magic of blockchain!
> you have this immutable record of when songs were released, who held their records, who and when licensed them, etc.
Riiight. Because there's not even a consensus on what to define as a song, it will somehow magically be solved by blockchain which will automagically identify and attribute eve ry song/track/music correctly, completely, and without omission.
Just some brain teasers for you:
- is a single in Europe the same song as the same single released in Japan?
- the single in Japan is 12 seconds longer, though.
- The authors and the singer are the same. The publishers are different.
- There's the same song, with the same people + a different drummer released two years later. Is it the same song?
- All three variations appear on fifteen different albums in 7 different countries, spanning 4 major and 5 regional publishers.
- Oh. I forgot to say, it's the same classical Tchaikovsky music which is in the public domain. Yet surprise! You still have to pay money (you may research why as a part of your answers to the brain teaser).
- Also, the global and regional distribution, performance, streaming, and radio rights may or may not be be different for each of those.
> ny interested party can join and get the information it wants without needing APIs
Because blockchain is a magical technology that transmits all this information directly into your brain without the need of APIs.
Also, the article you linked is a bunch of demagoguery with zero practical applications that for some reason equates blockchain with TCP/IP and not, let's say, Tamagotchi.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#299So the music "industry" waits for the cow to get big and then starts milking it. A sudden and unexpected turn of events.
It's more of the people making the milk realizing they're making pennies on the dollar compared to those machines that distribute the milk.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not as far as I can tell. My backout plan is to manually copy over all the artists I'm following. It'll take an hour or two, and I'd have to remember which of their albums I liked the most. For custom playlists? Currently you're shit out of luck, you'll have to do it manually.
They have a nice API for working with playlists. Dozens of services would pop up for ripping them if spotify goes EOL.
It's definitely an API. I'm not sure I'd say it was -nice- going off my experiences with it (caveat: they might have changed it since 2013 when it was the bane of my life.)
(Horrifyingly crufty playlist backup: https://github.com/rjp/spotify-playlists )