Top Spotify Lawyer: Attracting Pirates is in Our DNA (torrentfreak.com)

Spotify is not only one of the world's most popular music services, it's also one that's proven particularly popular with both current and former pirates. From a report on TorrentFreak: Today Spotify is indeed huge. The service has an estimated 100 million users, many of them taking advantage of its ad-supported free tier. This is the gateway for many subscribers, including millions of former and even current pirates who augment their sharing with the desirable service. Now, in a new interview with The Journal on Sports and Entertainment Law, General Counsel of Spotify Horacio Gutierrez reveals just how deeply this philosophy runs in the company. It's absolutely fundamental to its being, he explains. "One of the things that inspired the creation of Spotify and is part of the DNA of the company from the day it launched (and remember the service was launched for the first time around 8 years ago) was addressing one of the biggest questions that everyone in the music industry had at the time -- how would one tackle and combat online piracy in music?" Gutierrez says. "Spotify was determined from the very beginning to provide a fully licensed, legal alternative for online music consumption that people would prefer over piracy." [...] Of course, hardcore pirates aren't always easily encouraged to part with their cash, so Spotify needed an equivalent to the no-cost approach of many torrent sites. That is still being achieved today via its ad-supported entry level, Gutierrez says.

Comments

The way they talk about pirates

[future assassin]

you'd think the pirates would have killed the music labels and music artists back in the tape days, yet here we are 2017 and music is going strong...

Re:The way they talk about pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd think the pirates would have killed the music labels and music artists back in the tape days, yet here we are 2017 and music is going strong...

So they survived despite the piracy? Let's ramp up the Piracy!

Re:The way they talk about pirates

[mwvdlee]

The cycle is simple.

1. Labels start gouging customers.
2. Customers turn pirates.
3. Third party offers a service that doesn't gouge customers (the stage where Spotify currently is).
4. Pirates turn customers.
5. Labels notice that most people are paying for music.
6. Rince and repeat.

Re:The way they talk about pirates

[Kjella]

1. Labels start gouging customers.
2. Customers turn pirates.
3. Third party offers a service that doesn't gouge customers (the stage where Spotify currently is).
4. Pirates turn customers.
5. Labels notice that most people are paying for music.
6. Rince and repeat.

Pretty much. Those taking the worst beating on Spotify though are the fringe artists, because they offer one price per stream even though the niche might be willing to pay more and if you're not on Spotify you'll miss most the market so it's meet the new boss, same as the old boss. For the life of me I can't understand why artists didn't organize some form of non-profit client where you could plug in subscriptions like repositories on Linux. Some could be free. Some could be paid. You could co-operate on hosting or roll your own. You could cooperate on billing or roll your own. Artists would be free to organize how they want and offer any music package they like. Now it's the Spotify deal, take it or leave it.

Re:The way they talk about pirates

[mwvdlee]

If they get paid per stream, then those fringe indies are making a lot more money off me than they used to.
I tend to go out exploring similar artists or searching for new music using Spotify and often end up at brilliant artists with just a few dozen followers.
A flat rate makes it so the artists can compete on the product, not the marketing.

Re:The way they talk about pirates

[geekmux]

The cycle is simple.

1. Labels start gouging customers...

OK, let me just stop you right there. For years now, my preferred method to listen to music and perhaps in some small way support the artist was to buy their music CD. 30 years ago I was paying anywhere from $10 - 15 to obtain the music I wanted. And today, decades later they still charge anywhere from $10 - 15 to obtain the same damn thing, in both physical and electronic (iTunes, et al) format, with the only exception being hipsters who don't even know what a fucking record player is paying 3x for vinyl. Hell, the fact that CD prices have not even increased in 30+ years equates to the cost actually dropping, which is hardly defined as "gouging".

Care to tell me how you validate this cycle even starting? Yes, I admit that we're paying rather obscene prices these days to attend a concert to see our favorite artist perform live (shit, I practically miss the days when we thought Ticketmaster fees were the "rip off"), but that has little to do with the theft of the music.

On top of all this, I tend to laugh at the concept of music piracy these days when artists pretty much put their entire works up on YouTube, which you can "rip" the audio streams using dozens of legal plug-ins today. Not to mention other ad-riddled avenues that are free. Why again is music piracy even a valid legal concern?

All of this bullshit is why I will always favor and respect the artists who give away their music and look for nothing more than a donation, which I will gladly provide. (You can usually find this on Bandcamp.)

TL; DR - Explain how labels are gouging customers when media prices have remained the same for decades, and YouTube exists.

Re:A small number of tone combinations are pleasan

[Kiuas]

There is a finite number of tone combinations that our ears consider pleasant.

'There's only a finite number of letter combinations that our eyes find pleasant'

The tone combinations are already there, there is no creation of it, therefore there is no piracy.. only the liberation of whats naturally human

'All the words have been written already at least once so there's no original works of literature anymore'

I may not have explained my point as best as it could be

Your point is not valid because it's not true.

2017?

[antdude]

We're still in 2016! Wait, are you from the future? If so, then what is 2017 like? :P

Re: 2017?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like 2016 was, just with far most celebrity deaths, more lawsuits, even more people moving to streaming to get away from buying content in physical form with even more laws put in place to alienate consumers. Just like 2016 was, really.
Thanks for asking. 2018 wasn't much better.

Linux

[Skapare]

Well, they do have a download for Linux. But it is unsupported. It needs to either be supported or open source so we can self-support (like we do for so much other stuff). So, clearly, I am not in their intended market. So, clearly, they don't expect money from me. So, how can they make a valid legal case that me not paying them means they are losing any money (that I have deprived them of anything). FYI, I do pay for my music that has a cost attached, like at Magnatune.

Whipping the Llama's Ass

[0100010001010011]

Not quite sure why streaming now a fancy a 'new' technology. Shoutcast is still going strong with 67,814 stations (as of right now). Created in 1998. It has almost every type of station you could want to listen to. Works on any device that can play a stream and you can even rip it to disk if you want.

How to stop being taken seriously: a simple guide

[rebelwarlock]

Just say "DNA" when referring to your company, as though it was a living thing. People will see that, assume you're being a pretentious, ignorant twat, and immediately disregard everything else you have to say.