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

The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 158 posts

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#61

Post by siong1987 »

pstinnett wrote: post #48
pg wrote: post #11

I came to this conclusion myself about 6 months ago, after Dalton Caldwell spoke at a YC dinner. I realized it was basically hopeless to start startups that touch label music, because even the ones that seem to be succeeding (in the sense of not being sued out of existence) are only allowed to live so the labels can suck investors' money through them. But by creating a startup-free zone around themselves, all the lab…

Just curious: Do you think popular music as a whole is a hopeless area or specifically companies that are looking to stream music? I agree in regards toward streaming music services, but there are a lot of startups focusing on other areas of music that seem to be successful: - http://bandcamp.com/ - http://limitedpressing.com - http://songkick.com/

btw, songkick is funded by Y Combinator.

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#62

Post by taylorlb »

emehrkay wrote: post #52
Disparity wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What PG says is 100% true. I say this having done a startup in the space. In a nut shell, you need roughly $1M upfront for legal fees to negotiate with the big four record labels (for an interactive service, not a non-interactive service like Pandora).

Can you define interactive and non-interactive for me?

Perhaps passive radio style listening vs random access is a better way of explaining it. I think.

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#63

Post by pstinnett »

siong1987 wrote: post #61
pstinnett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious: Do you think popular music as a whole is a hopeless area or specifically companies that are looking to stream music? I agree in regards toward streaming music services, but there are a lot of startups focusing on other areas of music that seem to be successful: - http://bandcamp.com/ - http://limitedpressing.com - http://songkick.com/

btw, songkick is funded by Y Combinator.

Didn't realize that!

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#64

Post by pstinnett »

pg wrote: post #60
pstinnett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious: Do you think popular music as a whole is a hopeless area or specifically companies that are looking to stream music? I agree in regards toward streaming music services, but there are a lot of startups focusing on other areas of music that seem to be successful: - http://bandcamp.com/ - http://limitedpressing.com - http://songkick.com/

As of this writing it seems to be ok so long as you don't touch the music files or the lyrics.

Understood. After reading more of the comments in this thread my original question was answered. Thanks!

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#65

Post by CoryMathews »

lukev wrote: post #37
il wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "Write a music player client that can stuff your music into an encrypted blob" is a bigger hurdle for most people than paying $25/month. Besides, doesn't Grooveshark already do this for free?

Well, as a startup, I mean. There shouldn't be any legal hurdles, anyway - it's really just a backup system specialized for music. And I'll be honest, I have no clue what Grooveshark's business model is. I like it, but I don't see how the RIAA doesn't come down on them like a ton of bricks, and I really doubt the ads they show can cover what they ought to be paying in royalties.

Grooveshark has deals with a few of the major record labels. They get paid everytime grooveshark plays a song. They have been sued a couple times in the past and now have deals with most of these labels.

Grooveshark makes money through their VIP, advertising, and promotions put on by the artists themselves.

Technically they are not sharing music since you cannot download it, which is why I would guess they get around a lot of things that way.

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#67

Post by rospaya »

wccrawford wrote: post #5
jbarham wrote: post #2

> Nobody’s going to pay Google $25 a year to store their music in a cloud. I'd pay that to be rid of iTunes.

I think the question is: "What else do I get for that $25?" I hate dealing with my library of songs. If I could stream it to any device, any time, as well as have -any- other value-added service attached, I'd pay the $25 per year. By 'any device' I mean TV, PC, Android Phone, PS3 and more. Basically, any device that I can hook to the internet.

As much as I hate dealing with a lot of files and ID3 tags, streaming music sucks for mobile devices for a couple of reasons:

- 3G quality and speeds are guarranteed everywhere and every time. I was left with nothing but the songs I had on my SD card when I was on vacation on an island.

- Constant streaming kills battery life, killing your phone and music player in one kick.

- Because of massive roaming charges, you can forget using it outside of the country.

If you don't travel much, have a good plan and don't mind the battery issue, it could be useful.

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#68

Post by catch23 »

lukev wrote: post #33
endlessvoid94 wrote: post #30

I would absolutely pay google $25 to store my music in the cloud. I have 150GB of the stuff and keeping it on my laptop has become impossible.

You can do this already. Write a music player client that can stuff your music into an encrypted blob and push it out on Amazon S3 or something. $22.50/month for storage. The problem is that that monthly price is a bit high for most people.

It would probably make sense to do this as a service though. I'm guessing people probably listen to similar tunes, so it would be significantly cheaper if you could pool 10 people's music and only store 1 copy of every song.

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#69

Post by whopa »

taylorlb wrote: post #62
emehrkay wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define interactive and non-interactive for me?

Perhaps passive radio style listening vs random access is a better way of explaining it. I think.

Yeah, non-interactive is radio style listening whereas interactive the user gets to pick and choose what they want to hear on demand.

Interactive/non-interactive in this context are actually widely used terms in the digital music space.

Re: The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future

#70

Post by barrym »

thehodge wrote: post #12
henrikschroder wrote: post #8

Google music. Who cares? Oh right, you guys don't have Spotify. I don't know anyone that has it that bothers with iTunes or actually buying music anymore. Get the free version, and get any music anytime and the occasional ad. Pay a few bucks a month, and you get any music anytime with no ads.

Spotify is excellent, I love it but more and more I get tracks in playlists that are 'not playable in your country' or 'the record label has chosen to make this track unavailable'

Or even/sometimes worse - tracks which you were able to play previously, which this week are now not available.
Post reply on HN