https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/05/29/lil-nas-x-sample...
On one end of the spectrum, you create a song using an uncleared sample and it goes nowhere. Nine Inch Nails never hears about your song, and neither does the public.
On the other end of the spectrum, your song goes viral and makes you one of the most popular artists in the country.
Even if Nine Inch Nails claims every cent you make from the song, you have already accomplished your goal. You're a popular artist and now have a platform.You can sell merch, sign sponsorship deals, and get paid to advertise for brands on social media. You can put out new music with all your ducks in a row and go on to have a very successful career.
Why go through the trouble of clearing your sample when the chances of your song becoming popular are very slim, and even if it does become a hit, the reward far outweighs the risk?
Outside of ethics, there is no reason for an unknown artist to clear samples when they are trying to make it in the music industry.
It should also be noted that both the creator of Old Town Road(Lil Nas X) and Nine Inch Nails are currently under Columbia records.
They may share a record label, but do they share the same publisher?
Instead of pirating: support local artists, go to concerts, Bucky their march from the stalls and their self-pressed cds.
[0] The correct term should be "relegated to niche performances". If you love big bands you can indeed listen to them somewhere today, the difference being that mostly for economical reasons they're not anymore the default method used for example to make a film score.
Excellent point.
I'll admit I don't know about Spotify's inner workings but my understanding is that Spotify itself does not have its own fingerprinting algorithm. Instead, they rely on their distribution partners like DistroKid and CD Baby to use fingerprint services and prevent copyright violations. (DistroKid and CD Baby license the fingerprint algorithm from Audible Magic[1]. Google also initially licensed Audible Magic software before they wrote their own version of ContentID.)
I'm also not sure audio fingerprinting technology is enough. Even though Youtube's ContentID is a state-of-the-art algorithm with the largest fingerprint database, Google was still afraid it wouldn't be enough to satisfy the EU which is why they fought the passage of Article 13.
Maybe the EU Article 13 isn't the sole reason but it certainly gives more ammunition to copyright holders to use against Spotify's catalog of potentially unlicensed content and copyright violations.
>The shutdown is entirely due to pressure from the record labels.
Ok, let's say that the primary reason was pressure from the record labels. We need to dissect that "pressure" into smaller concepts.
To add precision to the discussion we can separate 2 different types of entities:
- record labels[2] : Universal, Sony, Warner, and EMI
- distribution partners[3] : DistroKid, CDBaby, EmuBands, etc
Look at the webpage[3] of non-record-labels that are distribution partners and they mention "protecting against infringement" and "infringement" -- 4 times. Also, Spotify's blog post[4] again mentions "protect artists from infringement".
For Spotify to offer direct uploads, they'd have to manage the extra logistical hassles of policing copyright violations that was previously outsourced to DistroKid & CD Baby.
I agree that record labels (Universal/Sony/Warner) can exert pressure... but what exactly is that pressure about? I believe it's preventing copyright infringement from crowdsourced random uploaders. If it's not about "protecting copyrights" but some other reason that's keeping record labels happy, what's that "other reason"?
[1] https://www.audiblemagic.com/
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+record+labels
[3] https://artists.spotify.com/guide/your-music
[4] https://artists.spotify.com/blog/we're-closing-the-upload-be...
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.
Im yet to see a filtering mechanism for a platform like ytb that works.
I believe in well regulated capitalism, but I find that the EU takes things too far and does not worry enough about the unintended consequences of their rules.
They probably don't realise how unreasonable the demands are.
It doesn't really require a monopoly or any advanced technology at all in fact: there's nothing requiring anyone to offer music online in digital download form. They could just go back to only distributing it on CD, or even cassettes or vinyl. The rules are all because some parties really want to distribute music over the internet, and lots of consumers want this too. Remember, as someone else here said, the politicians are mostly dinosaurs, and to them, you don't need to download music when you can just go to a store and buy it.
The EU is pressured (and paid off) by media companies. It's the same root problem. Corporations having too much influence in government.
Then you really should avoid crying wolf for what's effectively pure speculation in this case. I also fail to see what "capture" you have here, people are still able to upload their track to Spotify, they'll just have to go through a 3rd party that will have to screen copyright infringement and make sure the metadata is in order. Meanwhile Spotify is free to focus on the big fish which is probably what they really care about. So who is capturing what in this scenario?
Regarding Youtube it's already effectively a quasi-monopoly, not because of regulation but because operating a free video streaming service at this scale requires insanely deep pockets. The only others that manage to stay afloat are mainly those who offer content that can't be hosted on Youtube (dailymotion, liveleaks, porn sites etc...).
One example: https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/image002.p...
Seems more true than ever that big regulations create big business moats that big businesses can easily absorb, but which demolish smaller businesses.
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.
There really is more than just an ocean between America and Europe, the culture is so dramatically different.
How can one honestly believe that a Google data monopoly is better for privacy and innovation? It seems to fly in the face of every lesson learned by every monopoly in history.
Implicit in my post was that I don't want to support healthy competition in adtech, or any competition at all. I want this industry to disappear entirely. I have no tears for the small adtech businesses whose market got scooped up by Google; I only hope that by presenting a bigger target, Google's adtech activities will be easier to regulate.
Ad tech was extremely profitable before personalisation and wholesale trading of private data.
That was the era when marketers were dumb, drank the internet look aid and were taken for a ride by the industry. That's not quite true anymore.
I can understand the emotional intent, but it's important to ensure that routes we take actually get us to the outcomes we want.
I actually think the Google reorganization under Alphabet was done in no small part to prepare for anti-trust activity and the breakup of the Google monster.
Question because I don't know European anti-cartel history, do European regulators have a history of big bust-ups like Ma Bell?
It seems like Europeans just try fining them and letting them be.
2) When your country hasn't done something in over a generation, you need to stop touting it as something your country is good at. Just like we don't continue to criticize Germany for some terrible things they did 75 years ago, we need to stop thinking we're so great because we managed to land some people on the moon 50 years ago.
Source?
Outside of tech there are a lot of anti-competitive practices that have been left to grow while the cops been off the beat - I'd love to see the Pharma industry shaken up especially with PBM & Manufacturer relationships... additionally, Walmart.
Yeah I'm sure not letting companies sell all the data about you to the highest bidder is somehow "draconian". Poor them
You're right about the market capture, though it seems to me the ad market is in a bubble and that massive retargeting and trying to sell people things they already own is going to get old soon.
Good contextualized marketing is less dependant on the profiles and more on what it's being shown right now.
Besides, GDPR is an extension of similar laws that have existed for years.
* I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but I did demonstrate that big regulation chokes out small business and strongly correlates with big business success
But that's the business you chose for your illustration.
> I didn't say that imploding ad business means privacy regulation is bad for small business, but ...
... you specifically talked about ad business alone and drew the conclusion that "big regulations create big business moats ... which demolish smaller businesses."
It's a good thing that GDPR destroyed ad business that existed only by selling user data without consent. And there's nothing big about GDPR. It's very small and easy to comply with.
If your business is built upon selling and profiting from user data without user's consent, good riddance. If not, GDPR doesn't affect you in the slightest.
(With the US government, it isn't just behemoth corporations; there's big incentives for some small firms too, so there's a bunch of tiny companies that are highly specialized in milking that gravy train.)
Working the system yields better profit than doing the actual work.
An additional anecdote: we experimentally tried a smaller German ad exchange (used by quite some big-name sites here). Profits went way up compared to AdSense. What also went way up was the amount of stupid, low effort clickbait-bullshit (which as a non-lawyer I sometimes questioned the legality off considering some told outright lies). We stopped using them shortly afterward.
If stringent government regulation got you here, maybe it will be less of that, not more, that gets you out.
Yeah, we see how fantastically that one worked with the Boeing corporation and their newest flagship plane, The 737MAX.
The only reason this same issue didn't happen to Airbus is because the plane was high enough to give the pilots time to troubleshoot:
> The Alpha Protection activated forcing the aircraft to pitch down, which could not be corrected even by full back stick input. The crew eventually disconnected the related Air Data Units and was able to recover the aircraft.[1]
Specifically it was created to comply with regulations surrounding a flight manoeuvre that would never actually occur on a real flight.
> Engineers determined that on the MAX, the force the pilots feel in the control column as they execute this maneuver would not smoothly and continuously increase. Pilots who pull back forcefully on the column — sometimes called the stick — might suddenly feel a slackening of resistance. An FAA rule requires that the plane handle with smoothly changing stick forces.
So, if those regulations had not existed then MCAS would not have been needed and the planes may not have crashed.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the...
But here's something else to chew on:
European regulations often benefit me, the individual, instead of corporations.
It guarantees that I don't pay 6$ a minute for a phone call from Tallinn to Tulouse. It ensures that I'm not ripped off 30 Euros for making an intereuropean money transfer, it provides my airline with a pretty good motivation not to bump me for fun and profit and it seems to work a lot better in the food safety department.
Granted, not all regulation is good regulation, but overall it seems more beneficial to society at large than to some scummy ad-tech business specifically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism#Criticism
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. For instance, in international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.
Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.
Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies. They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.
The scholars Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon posit that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as 'whataboutism', which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of 'whataboutism' are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism.
Good.
Now, I'm not a supporter of current copyright laws as I think they are absolutely ridiculous as is, however, I disagree with your statement. It all depends on who is doing the filtering. Done correctly, content screening is a part of a free and open society. And with some care, sometimes it is required.
I am also going to assume that you are more referring to the entertainment industry than the "copyright industry" since the topic is content instead of, say, logos or toaster design.
If I had children, I'd really want age-appropriate filtering to be available and I understand someone wanting "wholesome" content for themselves. I simply don't want them choosing for me and I am not the one to choose for my spouse. In most cases, as long as I have control over what sorts of content filtering I'm good. I do think society should be free from rhetoric that puts others in danger (anti-vaxx) or that calls for dehumanizing or wiping out others or their religion in most cases (white supremacy, for example). I don't think we should be so open that our brains fall out, in other words.
But more to the point: All of that entertainment that was listed was made by someone. Likely many someones. So was the music people listen to in a store. And the art people look at in restaurants and people's homes.I completely understand people wanting to make money from their own work. When there is absolutely no screening, you get places that steal others work - music, art, entertainment, and so on - and make money from it. This might come in the form of making purses and coffee cups with art or someone getting taking your music and performing it for money. It is a real issue - and the "big industries" are not innocent of this. So yeah, if it is technologically possible for an entity to filter content based on these things, I can understand requiring it. Beethoven might not have been able to stop folks from memorising his music and playing it in a foreign land, but he would have had a chance with today's tech.
Content filtering itself isn't bad - and I post this on a site that filters content to a point - and it doesn't make the "copyright industry" bad. The copyright laws make the copyright stuff bad.
For that is the first point to counter your argument: the copyright industry is not mainly looking out for artists, it is looking out for itself and its benefactors. Ask any musician what percentages of royalties they get from their song, it's a joke at this point. Live performances are the sustenance of musical artists today.
That is not to say that I don't defend the rights of artists to their work; I do. But that isn't what this battle is about, this is a battle against the same industry that finds it pertinent to send out mass blackmail letters to families, to single mothers, to depressed people. It is surely going to be one of those things that we look back on in decades to come and go "what the f--- were we thinking?"
Finally, you have to take a wider view in these matters than saying "there is some configuration of content filtering that I find acceptable," because once you have content filtering laws in place, people who you disagree with can co-opt this into a totalitarian state. You do not know who will have the keys to the kingdom come tomorrow.
A lot of independent artists supported art 13 though, let's see how they like this change
Is there another plausible reason for Spotify shutting down direct uploads that's unrelated to copyrights?
There was also a two year period to adapt. Everyone scrambled to do it in last week, or last few days.
there could be plenty of reasons: it didn't bring them expected revenue, that team was allocated something with higher business priority while the feature itself required updates etc.
It's a service very few people use that costs them money to maintain and support. You already need to go through cdbaby and similar services for all other distributions and being just on spotify instead of all of them is not very appealing.
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 has spent money on their backend system to enable this upload workflow.)
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 almost certainly several steps of human review and possibly interaction - which costs money and time.
It all boils down to that Joe Blow is an unstrusted actor and big label is not. They needs to check that Joe Blow is not uploading Bieber's latest song as his own and that all the metadata is correct while they not need do that for most labels.
The same type of questioning applied to banks and transferring money:
Why would it cost a bank more money to print and mail checks to individual people when they already do balance transfer payments every night to other banks and branches?
Opening it up to everyone would have transformed the industry. Spotify could absolutely own the small artist space in the same way that Amazon owns the self-publishing space for unsigned authors, but it chooses not to for political reasons.
This has nothing to do with copyright issues. Spotify already has a copyright claim process and the major labels have their own copyright monitoring systems.
I make music as a hobby, and I only really use soundcloud as a result, since the barrier to entry to posting on spotify is annoying, and resultingly a pretty decent chunk of the pretty obscure stuff I like isn't on spotify, only soundcloud.
When I go to spotify right now it feels like this weird corporate arm of the archaic record industry that I view as more or less a parasite on musicians in this day and age. It lacks all of the weird community character and fluidity that I want out of a music platform, and I resist it for that reason.
Opening the gates would change the game and let it exist as a real creative community rather than just a soleless distribution platform for corporate artists and their masters.
[0] https://qz.com/1212330/a-bulgarian-scheme-scammed-spotify-fo...
Spotify please hire me so I can work on this, tack.
I'll have to pay a small sum to do the same now, but that's not a big deal.
Spotify is the biggest music streaming platform, and having something I created, or played a part in creating, be on the platform, would be a personal accomplishment. It's just an item on my bucketlist, really. In a similar vein, I want to see somoene sing along to a song I write at a gig :)
Eventually the algorithm might even drop the songs in people's discovery queues, etc. But for fanbase interactions, I think local gigs + a Facebook page is the most important, to be honest. Then you tour and people should be able to discover you on their streaming platform of choice.
I haven't heard of 1000 True Fans, will look into what that is actually.
On the other hand I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of the music streamed by Spotify comes from "the industry" instead of artists uploading their own songs themselves. Implementing complicated filters (and playing the arms race game against people trying to work around them) is probably not worth it for them.
I know some people who are working on something like that with the added benefit* of being on Ethereum if that interests you... :)
I've been thinking about hash values for song sections, and then proving ownership by claiming a sequence of hashes. Could help ensure you aren't subconsciously ripping other music off, and make finding 'related' songs easy (covers, remixes, etc).
My immediate thought on reading the headline was that they didn't want to deal with a ton of individuals w.r.t. payouts and etc. Company to company transactions are always easier, so restrict it to labels.
Why would Spotify wait until they are sued to do something about it?
The optics definitely are lousy.
The directive [0] says:
"The services covered by this Directive are services, the main or one of the main purposes of which is to store and enable users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit therefrom, either directly or indirectly, by organising it and promoting it in order to attract a larger audience, including by categorising it and using targeted promotion within it."
Considering that Spotify, Apple, Tidal, Pandora, ... get their catalogues from services like CD Baby or Tunecore, they are very likely to meet the condition above.
So my guess the shutdown will be related to some external pressure, from the major labels and/or the partners mentioned above.
[0] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0245-A...
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.
The record label arrangement makes the record labels the only valid source of original music.
The government issues copyrights. Looks like "human" governance needs to catch up, and issuing agencies need to provide "algorithmic" means to verify the copyright status of any content.
[without wasting too much energy ..]
The dynamics of this would be interesting, when uploading you will be told that your track is infringing, it is too similar to the following tracks by x, y and z :)
While I think the GDPR plays into it, its really two birds with one stone in my mind.
Yes it's possible that Spotifys decision was influenced by GDPR, it's also possible that the decision was only done because of it.
But since Spotify hasn't said so, blindly assuming that GDPR is at fault is incredible dishonest.
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 Youtube's ContentID[1], shutting down the direct upload was their best course of action. Restricting uploads to their distribution partners (record labels) is the human version of the "contentid" algorithm.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=eu+"article+13"
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+"contentid"