It's not "blogspam" - it gave a nod to the place I saw it originally, while providing a unique perspective on the subject because of my experience.

1 - The Pitchfork article didn't mention any numbers relating to what the license cost. 2 - I gave context into who David Lowery is 3 - The headline included RapGenius, which most people find news on interesting

That information was provided by me, after discussions with song publishers & research. Changing the title & URL is extremely disrespectful.

I was excited to read your article because based on this comment I thought it would have in-depth analysis of the issue, but I found it to be a very shallow in terms of additional content. It has one paragraph with the licensing costs, which is useful information, and then the two sentence blurb on David Lowery, which didn't seem to be meaningfully connected to the issue at all (it actually is somewhat negative in my view, because it seems to imply a slight hint of perhaps ad hominem, but that was just my initial impression, and doesn't seem totally justified upon rereading). If you had multiple discussions with song publishers and research on this topic, it would definitely be valuable to share them.

With respect to disrespect, Hacker News exists for the benefit of its readers, and not necessarily for the benefit of the Internet's citizen-journalist army. Hacker News admins prefer "canonical" sources in most situations. That said, I wouldn't consider your post "blogspam."

All of that is fine and probably true but doesn't respond to the rule from the FAQ:

Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter.

I'd suggest posting your additions to the comments here to stir the discussion.

I did appreciate finding out who David Lowery is in the context of research.