This seems like it's compounding the problems with music licensing and copyright law in general. It's better to reform those problems at the bottom rather than trying to nationalize streaming...
This seems like it's compounding the problems with music licensing and copyright law in general. It's better to reform those problems at the bottom rather than trying to nationalize streaming services and convert them into utilities.
If we want to go that way, it'd be better to task an existing institution for this job - libraries. Why don't my libraries contain data centers powering a national cloud computing platform available to each and every citizen? Seems like a good place to store the sum total of all media and human knowledge in distributed fashion, with easy access and great redundancy in case of big disasters.
You're absolutely right, any national streaming service would totally fail without a complete overhaul (or abolishment!) of copyright / IP law. Otherwise, you would just end up with rightsholders...
You're absolutely right, any national streaming service would totally fail without a complete overhaul (or abolishment!) of copyright / IP law. Otherwise, you would just end up with rightsholders extorting the government for ridiculous sums of money (like health insurance or the defense industry).
I am a big fan of a national cloud computing platform. There's no reason our data centers should all be in private hands.
I think a service for artists by artist for artists would be better. I checked on a friend's band and they made $14 a year from spotify. I think a lot of artist have to do live shows and sell CDs...
I think a service for artists by artist for artists would be better. I checked on a friend's band and they made $14 a year from spotify. I think a lot of artist have to do live shows and sell CDs if they can to make any money and covid really killed that for now.
Unfortunately in order for it to actually work for the artists, the streaming service will end up being a lot more expensive than Spotify/Tidal/Apple Music. The problem is consumers have gotten...
Unfortunately in order for it to actually work for the artists, the streaming service will end up being a lot more expensive than Spotify/Tidal/Apple Music.
The problem is consumers have gotten used to the idea that they can have unlimited music for next to no money. And the fact that so many around here and on Reddit say they'll just pirate things if they can't get them for next to free tells me people are unwilling to change.
I have no idea how to solve this. I still buy most of my music, usually digitally from Bandcamp and Qobuz. But it seems like most people just aren't willing to do that anymore.
One issue with this is that there would only be one music streaming service. If you don't like Spotify you can switch to Pandora or Deezer or many more. Perhaps an artist owned label would solve...
a service for artists by artist for artists
One issue with this is that there would only be one music streaming service. If you don't like Spotify you can switch to Pandora or Deezer or many more. Perhaps an artist owned label would solve some of those issues (but ofc that is never going to happen)
I don’t have any kind of philosophical opposition to nationalization of certain industries but I wish people would use these sorts of things more often as an opportunity to talk about cooperative...
I don’t have any kind of philosophical opposition to nationalization of certain industries but I wish people would use these sorts of things more often as an opportunity to talk about cooperative ownership as a possible alternative solution. Personally I don’t even understand how you can justify the possibility of private ownership of a platform when a platform’s value is directly related to how much its users and content producers rely and depend upon it. The platform is literally just a platform without these people, completely worthless, yet it’s the private owner that gets all the benefit. Why not the people who actually make it valuable?
I'm a musician, though no longer a professional one, so I'm all about giving artists their fair share. But they answer at least a part of your question in the article. The costs of running their...
The platform is literally just a platform without these people, completely worthless, yet it’s the private owner that gets all the benefit. Why not the people who actually make it valuable?
I'm a musician, though no longer a professional one, so I'm all about giving artists their fair share. But they answer at least a part of your question in the article. The costs of running their business are quite high. The servers, data centers, web and app developers, licensing rights, etc. cost much more than delivering each song to you. While I'm no fan of Spotify, I think the real problem is the labels and the parasitic way they work to own the rights to other people's work. (And yes, they do also provide value, but they intentionally do it in a way that indentures their artists.)
I think it would be interesting if there were a streaming service that worked directly with the artists to cut out the labels and split the money more evenly. Unfortunately, I also think if something like that came along, it would quickly turn into another label indenturing the artists. So I don't know what the real answer is.
I think it would be interesting if there were a streaming service that worked directly with the artists to cut out the labels and split the money more evenly.
Bandcamp has it's own problems. Many artist pages are actually run by small labels, and it makes search and taxonomy on the site a nightmare. The same artist can have albums with three different...
Bandcamp has it's own problems. Many artist pages are actually run by small labels, and it makes search and taxonomy on the site a nightmare. The same artist can have albums with three different small labels, and it's impossible to find more of their content without looking on a third party site like Discogs.
The counter argument to this is that a user of Spotify gets a lot of benefit from the service it provides. And the content providers get a lot of benefit from earning a living off it (and arguably...
The platform is literally just a platform without these people, completely worthless, yet it’s the private owner that gets all the benefit.
The counter argument to this is that a user of Spotify gets a lot of benefit from the service it provides. And the content providers get a lot of benefit from earning a living off it (and arguably having their industry saved from the brink).
This is one of the coolest realistic new policy ideas I've heard in a long time. It sounds, to me, like an idea to build PBS/NPR for the internet age. Or, alternatively, a digital version of a...
This is one of the coolest realistic new policy ideas I've heard in a long time. It sounds, to me, like an idea to build PBS/NPR for the internet age. Or, alternatively, a digital version of a public library.
I don't actually know about the advisability of just buying Spotify outright. I also would not want Federal investment to crowd out private markets in terms of providing some of the services music streaming services do. (This includes stuff like UI/UX, talent scouting, promotion, and music discovery). I think that's all best left out of the hands of a body that is routinely captured by moralizing busybodies. BUT I can imagine major benefits that come from having a sort of universal standard for managing and cataloging music ownership rights the author posits.
I don't think this would need be as big of a lift as running an entire music streaming service. I think this could be accomplished by having the federal government just maintain a single database that 3rd party streaming services could all call on.
And now that I phrase it that way, I can see how one could also involve THE BLOCKCHAIN into this. Which would be great as long as we're willing to build a dyson sphere to capture enough energy.
This seems like it's compounding the problems with music licensing and copyright law in general. It's better to reform those problems at the bottom rather than trying to nationalize streaming services and convert them into utilities.
If we want to go that way, it'd be better to task an existing institution for this job - libraries. Why don't my libraries contain data centers powering a national cloud computing platform available to each and every citizen? Seems like a good place to store the sum total of all media and human knowledge in distributed fashion, with easy access and great redundancy in case of big disasters.
You're absolutely right, any national streaming service would totally fail without a complete overhaul (or abolishment!) of copyright / IP law. Otherwise, you would just end up with rightsholders extorting the government for ridiculous sums of money (like health insurance or the defense industry).
I am a big fan of a national cloud computing platform. There's no reason our data centers should all be in private hands.
because that would entail many tax dollars and little electoral return.
I think a service for artists by artist for artists would be better. I checked on a friend's band and they made $14 a year from spotify. I think a lot of artist have to do live shows and sell CDs if they can to make any money and covid really killed that for now.
You can check out what your favorite bands make here: https://www.royalties-calculator.com
Unfortunately in order for it to actually work for the artists, the streaming service will end up being a lot more expensive than Spotify/Tidal/Apple Music.
The problem is consumers have gotten used to the idea that they can have unlimited music for next to no money. And the fact that so many around here and on Reddit say they'll just pirate things if they can't get them for next to free tells me people are unwilling to change.
I have no idea how to solve this. I still buy most of my music, usually digitally from Bandcamp and Qobuz. But it seems like most people just aren't willing to do that anymore.
One issue with this is that there would only be one music streaming service. If you don't like Spotify you can switch to Pandora or Deezer or many more. Perhaps an artist owned label would solve some of those issues (but ofc that is never going to happen)
The case for nationalizing Spotify. I don't much care for the company or their service, but I'm not sure I how I feel about this idea.
I don’t have any kind of philosophical opposition to nationalization of certain industries but I wish people would use these sorts of things more often as an opportunity to talk about cooperative ownership as a possible alternative solution. Personally I don’t even understand how you can justify the possibility of private ownership of a platform when a platform’s value is directly related to how much its users and content producers rely and depend upon it. The platform is literally just a platform without these people, completely worthless, yet it’s the private owner that gets all the benefit. Why not the people who actually make it valuable?
I'm a musician, though no longer a professional one, so I'm all about giving artists their fair share. But they answer at least a part of your question in the article. The costs of running their business are quite high. The servers, data centers, web and app developers, licensing rights, etc. cost much more than delivering each song to you. While I'm no fan of Spotify, I think the real problem is the labels and the parasitic way they work to own the rights to other people's work. (And yes, they do also provide value, but they intentionally do it in a way that indentures their artists.)
I think it would be interesting if there were a streaming service that worked directly with the artists to cut out the labels and split the money more evenly. Unfortunately, I also think if something like that came along, it would quickly turn into another label indenturing the artists. So I don't know what the real answer is.
Isn't this exactly what Bandcamp does?
Bandcamp has it's own problems. Many artist pages are actually run by small labels, and it makes search and taxonomy on the site a nightmare. The same artist can have albums with three different small labels, and it's impossible to find more of their content without looking on a third party site like Discogs.
Oh, neat! While I had heard of Bandcamp, I've never used it. That sounds pretty cool and I will check it out.
The counter argument to this is that a user of Spotify gets a lot of benefit from the service it provides. And the content providers get a lot of benefit from earning a living off it (and arguably having their industry saved from the brink).
This is one of the coolest realistic new policy ideas I've heard in a long time. It sounds, to me, like an idea to build PBS/NPR for the internet age. Or, alternatively, a digital version of a public library.
I don't actually know about the advisability of just buying Spotify outright. I also would not want Federal investment to crowd out private markets in terms of providing some of the services music streaming services do. (This includes stuff like UI/UX, talent scouting, promotion, and music discovery). I think that's all best left out of the hands of a body that is routinely captured by moralizing busybodies. BUT I can imagine major benefits that come from having a sort of universal standard for managing and cataloging music ownership rights the author posits.
I don't think this would need be as big of a lift as running an entire music streaming service. I think this could be accomplished by having the federal government just maintain a single database that 3rd party streaming services could all call on.
And now that I phrase it that way, I can see how one could also involve THE BLOCKCHAIN into this. Which would be great as long as we're willing to build a dyson sphere to capture enough energy.