Spotify Needs Big Funding To Pay Big Content’s Tax On Success(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Spotify Needs Big Funding To Pay Big Content’s Tax On Success
http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/23/spotify-funding/
8 comments
I think "tax" is being used just for the negative connotation. The studios and labels are jerking their customers around by proxy. "Sure, you can stream this movie from Netflix for $9/mo... unless it gets popular, then we're going to pull it." and "Sure, you can listen to this for free-ish on Spotify, unless that gets popular, in which case we'll drive them out of business and leave your personal library and social network unusable."
I think their attitude is, "Now that you're making money, we want more of it, and if you say no then we ruin your business completely."
I think thats what we define as a monopoly. Time to redefine what can be targeted by anti-trust lawsuits.
You could look at it another way: the content owners gave a distributor a break in fees until they found a profitable business model. Then the price break was removed, because most of the value is in the content, not the distribution.
More and more of the music I care about is now on bandcamp or soundcloud already. It may take a generation but the middlemen are on the way out.
Not even close. Most people like mass marketed music (basically whatever they hear on the radio).
I feel that people like to share in the experience of listening to music. Often this happens at live venues, but radio also works well because it still feels like you are listening with others. Playing a CD of some obscure band nobody has ever heard of, not so much.
If those music services can crack the social experience of music, they stand a pretty good chance.
If those music services can crack the social experience of music, they stand a pretty good chance.
I'm familiar with a lot of popular music (especially early 90's music, when radio, mtv and friend's mixtapes were mostly how I heard new music), but I would not mind a place I could hear new music. I will be checking out these services.
Record labels are determined to teach us piracy is the way to acquire music. Fools...
I think spotify needs to develop their own artists somehow, that is the only way I can see this working in the long term.
Having said that , I don't really like the idea of having "spotify exclusive" music especially since that would essentially force people into using facebook just to hear a track.
Another option would be for artists to sell content directly to services such as spotify on a per play or per month basis.
Having said that , I don't really like the idea of having "spotify exclusive" music especially since that would essentially force people into using facebook just to hear a track.
Another option would be for artists to sell content directly to services such as spotify on a per play or per month basis.
This is what Netflix has started to do with some movies/series (e.g. Arrested Development). The problem with this model is that it doesn't scale, even if you could make a deal with a handful of the top grossing artists you'd still need to talk with WMG to license the rest of the artists.
More and more I think we need to reinvent the way that big music companies work. Some independent labels are doing just fine without treating their users like crap so at we know it's a viable business decision.
More and more I think we need to reinvent the way that big music companies work. Some independent labels are doing just fine without treating their users like crap so at we know it's a viable business decision.
Meanwhile grooveshark pays nothing, has a wider selection and charges less.
Are the labels trying to get others to kick the legit companies out of business?
Are the labels trying to get others to kick the legit companies out of business?
[deleted]
Why wouldn't they sign a long-term agreement with the content providers?
Look at it from the other angle: why would the content providers sign a long-term agreement with Spotify?
But here the fee is only being imposed in cases where you actually want to license someone's product! Could I really complain about the "publishers' tax" on my audiobook business, because I can't produce audiobooks of Stephen King without paying him (or his publisher) a fee? And of course they vary the fee based on what they think they can get out of each client; that's standard business practice, which is why many enterprise SaaS providers have a "call for prices" sort of thing if they think you're rich enough.