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

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#71

Post by cma » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:19 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…

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.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#72

Post by whenchamenia » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

efdee wrote: post #46

nerdponx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's OK, they don't pay the small artists more than a pittance anyway. I canceled my subscription a while ago and started pirating music again. When I want to support a small artist, I buy their music on Bandcamp.

Why did you go back to pirating, instead of paying for albums? Could it be that you were only willing to give a pittance to begin with?

Spotify and the like generate pennies for artists because the record compnies part own it and have price fixed it to hell and back. The only significant profit comes from touring and merch sales. As a starving artist, pirate my shit, see my show. Nobody cares about plays except for getting distribution deals.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#73

Post by ukoki » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #57

criley2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded trying to meet regulations and Google Ads gobbled up some 30-40% more market share in Europe. It came down to the fact that Google was able to meet the regulations fastest, and achieve informed user consent across a wide userbase dramatically faster than small lo…

It might actually turn out for the better. Google is a big target; they can't fly under the radar. As for demolishing small businesses, small businesses aren't an universal, unquestionable good. In this particular case, we need less adtech business in general. It's like dumping toxic waste into rivers - not only lots of small polluters aren't better than few big ones, the desirable thing is just having less polluters…

Totally agree with you. I think also that it's very possible that delivering-adverts-with-minimal-privacy-infringement is a different class of problem to just "delivering-adverts". Maybe it's a type of problem where profit can only be extracted by means of huge economies of scale and well-staffed teams of ML experts? Like deep-sea oil drilling versus drilling in the desert?

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#74

Post by sb636 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:26 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…

If this is the case, why would spotify not just outright say that? It seems it would calm a lot of the backlash, and artists would be more understanding.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#75

Post by oldgregg » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:28 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #71

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…

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.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#76

Post by blfr » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #57

criley2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It keeps happening with their draconian regulations. After the privacy/data protection bill, I hear that the european market for online advertising imploded trying to meet regulations and Google Ads gobbled up some 30-40% more market share in Europe. It came down to the fact that Google was able to meet the regulations fastest, and achieve informed user consent across a wide userbase dramatically faster than small lo…

It might actually turn out for the better. Google is a big target; they can't fly under the radar. As for demolishing small businesses, small businesses aren't an universal, unquestionable good. In this particular case, we need less adtech business in general. It's like dumping toxic waste into rivers - not only lots of small polluters aren't better than few big ones, the desirable thing is just having less polluters…

Yes, monopolies might actually turn out for the better. I can't really think of an example but in principle why not, maybe this time it will be an enlightened monopoly.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#77

Post by dalbasal » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:32 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…

>>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.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#78

Post by sk0g » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #36

sk0g wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they could build an in house alternative to the YouTube algorithm to detect dupes/ infringing material. Spotify please hire me so I can work on this, tack.

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.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#79

Post by nske » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:33 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #52

jasode wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a service very few people use that costs them money to maintain and support. I'm not a Spotify expert so I'm not understanding why independents artist without labels "costs money to maintain support" that isn't already spent to enable the labels to upload their artists' songs. Let's say a Universal Music Group[1] representative logs into Spotify's system to upload Justin Bieber's latest 4-minute song. (Spotify…

> Why does it cost more to Spotify to let the unknown-Joe-Blow-not-signed-to-a-label upload his 4-minute song? Unless I'm mistaken, Spotify would get the new Bieber automagically via an ERN (Electronic Release Notification) delivery which contains asset links, artist, meta, rights information etc. Since that's from a trusted* source, it can be ingested as-is and everyone is happy. For independent uploads, there's alm…

If that was the case they could have just passed some handling fees to the indie artists -that would still be much more reasonable than the fees that the artists would have to pay to a publisher. I think the record companies -still in the process of understanding and adjusting to the new business model that Spotify established- pushed for this, one way or the other, to ensure that Spotify doesn't become a competitor like Amazon became to book publishers.

Re: Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists

#80

Post by sk0g » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #48

sk0g wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they could build an in house alternative to the YouTube algorithm to detect dupes/ infringing material. Spotify please hire me so I can work on this, tack.

How can they possibly know whether the artist licensed their samples? Or whether the artist is paying the original artist royalties for the use of their music?

I was more thinking a sort of hash value for the song, to prevent reuploads. Sample detection would be hard, considering sample pack reuse would have to be dealt with!