Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spotify Retreats To Invite-Only In UK

Posted by timothy on from the spot-of-trouble dept.

Barence writes "Music streaming service Spotify has been forced to enact tight restrictions on new members in the UK, and revert back to an invite-only system. The company has decided to take drastic action following the release of its iPhone and Android apps earlier this week, which have created 'huge demand in the UK,' according to Spotify. People who don't want to put their hand in their pocket and don't have any friends can sign up to a waiting list instead."

3 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This is a good thing... by sopssa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the big labels are shareholders on Spotify so they do have seen the opportunity.

    Shareholders in Spotify on 10/7 2009
    Bolag Andel Rosello (Lorentzon) 28,6%
    Instructus (Ek) 23,3%
    Northzone Ventures 11,9%
    Enzymix Systems (F. HagnÃ) 5,8%
    Sony BMG 5,8%
    Universal Music 4,8%
    Warner Music 3,8%
    Wellington IV Tech 3,8%
    Creandum II LP 3,5%
    Swiftic (Strigéus) 2,6%
    Creandum II KB 2,4%
    EMI 1,9%
    Merlin 1,0%
    SBH Capital (B. HagnÃ) 0,8%

    Also: "The service is not currently available in the United States or Canada. Spotify Founder, Daniel Ek, has expressed a desire to change this. It is expected that Spotify will be available in the United States before the end of 2009.[20]"

  2. Re:Spotify by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it's the media reproduction and artist extortion industry's wet dream: You never actually own anything, and really pay every time you listen to the track.

    It's not a this or that situation. Just like cable channels that you pay monthly payment to show movies, you can still buy them too to actually own them. There's good sides on both; when you buy them, you get the products as your own. When you rent/stream/watch from tv, you dont get to own the products but you can enjoy them then for a lot lower price (or like tv and spotify, for free with ads)

  3. Re:Spotify by beowulfcluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And I still wonder if any of that money is actually going to the artists. Because I think they don't see a cent and that that is the main point over actually selling stuff.

    There was an article a few weeks ago about swedish artist Magnus Uggla, who apparently is mad as hell about Spotify and isn't going to take it any longer. The article is here (in Swedish). A summary in english is here.

    Some basics things: Uggla, who's a reasonably big artist in Sweden, made as much from Spotify as he claims an average busker in the street makes in a day. Sony has bought 6% of Spotify, valued at 2 billion SEK for 30,000 SEK. His conclusion for why Spotify would agree to that deal is that Sony in return lets Spotify get their artists on the cheap. In other words, Sony makes money, the artists do not.

    In the swedish article Hasse Breiholtz of Sony Sweden defends the arrangement by saying that Spotify wouldn't exist if the artists would get paid better for now. He says you have to give the legal services a chance to establish themselves first, and later raise the fees to a level where the artists get fairly compensated.