To everything there is a season – Why we're shutting down • Hacker News Board

Re: To everything there is a season – Why we're shutting down

#41

Post by nugget » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 2:12 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #40

You only need this line: And our growth in listening and revenues during 2013 meant we no longer qualified as a Small Webcaster; instead of paying royalties calculated as a percentage of revenues — such that royalties grow as revenues grow, as one would expect — we now had to pay high per-play rates as a Large Webcaster, taking us out of profitability. The music licensing structure is set up to kill anything above a…

The article references the expiration of the Small Webcaster license and a casual web search seems to confirm this unfortunate news. I think it’s now exclusively a pay per stream model which is definitely a barrier to innovation.

Re: To everything there is a season – Why we're shutting down

#42

Post by anandchowdhary » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 3:47 AM UTC

aphextron wrote: post #18

_rpd wrote: post #3

> for regulatory reasons, credit cards could not be used to invest; and while SeedInvest, the platform we used to execute the round, was able to accept debit cards initially, our debit card processor decided, several weeks in, that it no longer wished to support crowdfunding initiatives. Cautionary tale for equity-based crowdfunding. I'd love to read about some success stories.

> "equity-based crowdfunding" Isn't that called an IPO?

> Isn't that called an IPO?

No, it's like regular crowdfunding (think Kickstarter where you see a pitch and add your credit card) but you get equity in the company instead of a product. It's still not a publicly traded corporation, just another private company but with way more individual investors owning small stakes.

AngelList [1], Fundable [2], and SyndicateRoom [3] are some popular choices for equity crowdfunding.

[1] https://angel.co/invest [2] https://www.fundable.com [3] https://www.syndicateroom.com

Re: To everything there is a season – Why we're shutting down

#43

Post by ImprovedSilence » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 4:47 AM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #20

Bootwizard wrote: post #8

For someone that never used it, what was the appeal of this service? I took a look at the site and didn't really get it. What does this have over Spotify?

The curation (all by humans - mostly ordinary users I believe) was significantly better than any other service I've used.

I agree with what everyone is saying here. My years of using it led to some of my best music discovery, and the ease of finding playlists with which I could just put on and be happy with the music coming out for hours. I rolled off it a bit when they went to the paid subscription model though, as it was never quite the same for me after that. I didn't really realize how great it was, until years later when I still didn't have any replacement I was happy with. (And I got old..)

Re: To everything there is a season – Why we're shutting down

#44

Post by loceng » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #40

You only need this line: And our growth in listening and revenues during 2013 meant we no longer qualified as a Small Webcaster; instead of paying royalties calculated as a percentage of revenues — such that royalties grow as revenues grow, as one would expect — we now had to pay high per-play rates as a Large Webcaster, taking us out of profitability. The music licensing structure is set up to kill anything above a…

I wonder if this is something the big players like or dislike - as it creates a certain economies of scale as a barrier to entry, but yes, as you say, you're still at the mercy of the major labels come license renewals. It's an industry that certainly is calling for regulation - it's killed off a number of promising companies that consumers loved, innovation and creation that should be supported and celebrated.

Re: To everything there is a season – Why we're shutting down

#45

Post by closeparen » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #35

phreack wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tragedy, these laws were created to promote art and nowadays are exclusively used to hide and destroy it.

No, these laws were created to promote art being paid for . This sort of worked! But maximizing the payout ≠ maximizing the breadth of distribution. It often is more lucrative to segment the market, only sell to those who is ready to pay more than a pittance, and never try to sell for cheaper to a wider audience. It's especially true for digital goods that can be perfectly moved around the globe in under half a secon…

They were created "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Allowing creators to monetize their work is a means towards getting more creative work produced, not an end in itself.