Slashdot Mirror


Audius Raises $5.5 Million To Decentralize Music, Help Artists Get Paid Faster (techcrunch.com)

A new company called Audius, lead by entrepreneur and DJ Ranidu Lankage, has raised $5.5 million to build a blockchain-based alternative to Spotify or SoundCloud. "Users will pay for Audius tokens or earn them by listening to ads," reports TechCrunch. "Their wallet will then pay out a fraction of a cent per song to stream from decentralized storage across the network, with artists receiving roughly 85 percent -- compared to roughly 70 percent on the leading streaming apps. The rest goes to compensating whomever is hosting that song, as well as developers of listening software clients, one of which will be built by Audius." From the report: Audius plans to launch its open-sourced product in beta later this year. But it's already found some powerful investors that see SoundCloud as vulnerable to the cryptocurrency revolution. Audius has raised a $5.5 million Series A led by General Catalyst and Lightspeed, with participation from Kleiner Perkins, Pantera Capital, 122West and Ascolta Ventures. They're betting that Audius' token will grow in value, making the stockpile it keeps worth a fortune. It could then sell chunks of its tokens to earn revenue instead of charging artists directly. The big question will be whether Audius can use the token economy to crack the chicken-and-egg problem of getting its first creators and listeners on a platform that might be less functionally robust than its traditional competitors. There are a lot of moving parts to decentralize, but there are also plenty of disgruntled musicians out there waiting for something better.

65 comments

  1. Oh boy more middlemen by xtal · · Score: 1

    Or just use the lightning network and collect Satoshis directly with no fees.

    Seriously, we donâ(TM)t need more rent seeking middlemen.

    LN is the micropayment system weâ(TM)ve been waiting decades for.

    --
    ..don't panic
  2. Yes, I read the article by DogDude · · Score: 1

    No, it doesn't make any sense.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Yes, I read the article by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not supposed to. It's just techno-babble designed to fool investors and giving them money

    2. Re:Yes, I read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's this techno-babble of which you speak? I need another technology investment, and techno-babble might be it. It's another language learning app, right?

    3. Re:Yes, I read the article by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Its "Napster" but with Blockchain. I think.

      But then again, I'm old and remember when Napster was a thing.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Yes, I read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again, I'm old and remember when Napster was a thing.

      Remember when they were ordered to exclude songs and artists by reference to a list? In order to get around the restriction, everyone simply started misspelling everything, with an extra or missing consonant or vowel or whatever. It was hilarious!

    5. Re:Yes, I read the article by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Its "Napster" but with Blockchain. I think.

      If it ever gains any traction the 'establishment' music undustry will make certain it shares the same fate as Napster did.

      The music industry has deep pockets and can easily afford to just keep filing lawsuit after lawsuit until they drain every last cent Audius has and force them into bankruptcy. Controlling the channels of distribution and functioning as gatekeepers between artists and their audiences is the music industry's bread & butter. They will go nuclear on anything and anyone who threatens their monopolistic control.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Yes, I read the article by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Since you used the word "literally", which has a very specific meaning in the English language, can we assume you have actually viewed it?

      Or are you using "Millennial English"?

    7. Re:Yes, I read the article by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Was Napster decentralised? I was thinking more like BitTorrent but with blockchain.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Yes, I read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blockchain allows for unstoppable decentralized organizations. Go ahead and sue Bitcoin.

    9. Re:Yes, I read the article by tepples · · Score: 1

      To attack the cryptocurrency on which a decentralized organization relies:
      Attack the miners through electric power use regulation and accusations of income tax evasion.
      Attack the exchanges through money transfer regulation.

  3. sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you can't mine the coins/tokens, you pay cash or listen to ads to fill your wallet, and listening to a song automatically withdraws some money to send it to the song artist's wallet. Unless they give some specifics for how many songs a single token provides, how many tokens are earned from watching a single advertisement, and how much a token costs if you pay directly, I can't quite see the difference to how it's being done right now from the listener perspective, aside from maybe a serious lack of content in the beginning.

    1. Re:sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't quite see the difference to how it's being done right now

      That's because magic pixie dust is invisible, duh!

  4. Great idea, almost by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This would work perfectly and be awesome since microtransactions and 10 minute or less clearing of payments with zero fraud is what crypto does BUT people investing in these coins and an upward trend and miners of it wanting to make money will screw with it far too hard. They'd have to standardize the price. For example, there is a coin where 1 unit of it = $1 USD and always will. But they can implement that. The code exists. If they do, it'd be perfect. Otherwise your music would cost $1 one day and $5 the next because of an investor pump and dump scheme.

    1. Re:Great idea, almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>zero fraud
      >>crypto

      Can't tell if serious...

    2. Re: Great idea, almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pump and dump also means sex

      Something akin to a blumpkin, I imagine.

    3. Re: Great idea, almost by xtal · · Score: 1

      I'm sure many crypto investors feel thoroughly fucked today.

      --
      ..don't panic
    4. Re: Great idea, almost by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Uh.. No.. Pump and dump would basically be fucking the girl and then immediately getting up and leaving...Perhaps never seeing her again. Hence the Pump and Dump.

      What's your fascination with Blumpkins?

    5. Re:Great idea, almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although 10 minute clearing time is quite slow in crypto for the first confirmation these days, it is probably faster than any other payment method.

      Regarding the value compared to national currency, this is the current marketplace because the volume and regulation is non-existent compared to established markets.

      Similar -ve sentiment could be said about the internet in 1995 compared to 2005 compared to 2015. This is a developing technology with provable stats and an opportunity for people who do not have revenue streams to develop them. There will be speed bumps and charlatans on the way, but the technology is a paradigm shift.

    6. Re:Great idea, almost by pots · · Score: 1

      I might have missed something here, but this does not seem to be what they're discussing. They're not talking about making a new crypto currency, they're talking about selling people tokens that those people can trade for music, and using a blockchain system to manage those transactions. Since people are buying the tokens, not mining them, of course the price is standardized.

    7. Re:Great idea, almost by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Is that the case? FTS: "They're betting that Audius' token will grow in value, making the stockpile it keeps worth a fortune." Either they misunderstand the concept (which I would not put past them), or the token will indeed have a variable value.

      That's the issue I have with a lot of these schemes: they use blockchain for decentralized settlement (and it's a fine technology for that) but instead of simply recording dollar amounts on the blockchain, they use a coin... and of course the founders themselves are sitting on a nice fat pile of premined coins. So it's also a get-rich-quick scheme. Same with Ripple and many other blockchain based services.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Great idea, almost by Desler · · Score: 1

      Although 10 minute clearing time is quite slow in crypto for the first confirmation these days, it is probably faster than any other payment method.

      Funny. When I pay at a store with a debit card, it takes seconds for the payment to process and the money to withdraw from my account. I've never once sat 10 minutes at a payment terminal.

    9. Re:Great idea, almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you're probably not using the wonderful bitcoin but instead the "evil" government "fiat currency"

    10. Re:Great idea, almost by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

      For example, there is a coin where 1 unit of it = $1 USD and always will.

      And that coin is a scam. You cannot have a stable peg like that, but even if you could it's a dumb idea. The US dollar is not a stable, global unit of value, unlike, say, bitcoin.

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  5. So what is the blockchain solving? by feedayeen · · Score: 2

    Spotify knows how many ads I've ever seen, Spotify know what ads I've seen and what their payment rates are per view. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to sell ads at all. Spotify also knows how much money I've ever given them in subscription payments, if they didn't, they couldn't track who was subscribed. This means that Spotify knows how much money I brought in every month to their company.

    Spotify knows what songs I've listened to, they keep track of how many people listen to each song. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do analytics given me recommended songs, they wouldn't have top 100 lists, or be able to report how many monthly listeners an artist has and how much they will pay those artists per listen. What is the problem that the blockchain is solving which wasn't solved with database queries?

    1. Re:So what is the blockchain solving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I gather, the pitch is that it reduces overhead because you cut out the payment processor cartel. But that just hand-waves away the conversion from fiat->blockchain. Oh yeah, "earning" from ads. That'll solve everything. Can we not infect everything with ads anymore?

    2. Re:So what is the blockchain solving? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      We sure can. Just pay $9.99 a month (or, in this case, buy $9.99 worth of tokens).

      Oh, wait, did you mean, "isn't there a way I can listen to all the music I want and pay absolutely nothing and not have to watch ads or worry about my information being harvested?"

    3. Re:So what is the blockchain solving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, "earning" from ads. That'll solve everything.

      I would have to remember to report that as taxable income. Value generation in the Internet is a risky business to be a part of as long as taxmen are involved.

    4. Re:So what is the blockchain solving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wait, did you mean

      Whenever you find yourself saying this, please realize that it is short for "I'm too stupid to make an actual point, yet I'm compelled to blither away regardless."

      Now that you've been enlightened, can you please shut the fuck up and let those who are capable of actual thought converse unmolested by your dreck?

    5. Re:So what is the blockchain solving? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymity for one. Centralization another.

    6. Re:So what is the blockchain solving? by pots · · Score: 1

      Peer-to-peer purchases. The idea here is that there will be multiple hosts and multiple software vendors, and you might buy a song from a random host using software which is unaffiliated with Audius. The idea seems to be to use blockchain to insure that the right parties receive the money.

      Of course, it also insures that everyone, not just Audius, can see what music you're listening to.

  6. blockchain short? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a way to bet against what these venture companies are betting for? I'd like to try to make a fortune doing that, and I think it's a better bet.

  7. The new bubble by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    Instead of " . . . but on a computer" or " . . . but over the internet", we now have " . . . but with a blockchain"

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:The new bubble by LtUoNXizqxawTj4ofx7t · · Score: 1

      so you are saying that computer and internet are in bubbles? maybe you should stop drinking that everything is a bubble mentality cool aid.

  8. What unit is fraction of a cent per song? by rminsk · · Score: 2

    ... pay out a fraction of a cent per song... with artists receiving roughly 85 percent - compared to roughly 70 percent on the leading streaming apps.

    What is 85% of fraction of a cent? Is it larger than 70%? Without any actual numbers the artist cut means absolutely nothing.

    1. Re:What unit is fraction of a cent per song? by youngone · · Score: 1

      It's all no cents per play.
      The most important part of the music business is the rightsholders, and they are more or less a cartel.
      The "artists" are in reality interchangable cyphers the record companies create and market to the public. Simon Cowell showed them how to do it nearly 20 years ago, and they have the process down pretty well now.
      Unless the record companies are taking pretty much all the money, they're never going to agree to any of this, and the "artists" have no say.
      Unless Audius is going to pitch to unsigned actual musicians, in which case this is pretty much the last we will hear of them.

    2. Re:What unit is fraction of a cent per song? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Unless Audius is going to pitch to unsigned actual musicians

      That appears to be the case. Audius is starting with recording artists who are "unsigned" (in the sense that they own their own recordings) and are frustrated with SoundCloud's lack of revenue tools.

    3. Re:What unit is fraction of a cent per song? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's misleading - it's still the labels getting the money, not the artists. Show me a platform that starts to provide a good way to get rid of labels and I'll happily start using that.

  9. competitors to Soundex is more like it by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    ...less middlemen...continuing disintermediation of the music industry...

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  10. Microsoft Points by Luthair · · Score: 1

    but with blockchain! Consumers loooove needing to buy chunks of some fake currency and doing arithmetic to figure out just how much that thing they want to buy actually costs.

    1. Re:Microsoft Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I still have 5 million Pepsi points you insensitive clod! They'll be worth something someday again!

    2. Re:Microsoft Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, buying fake currencies and number-crunching is the whole stick of the MMORPG bussiness and many of them seem to be doing fine ;-)

  11. It is all in a name by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

    I bet Audius.com and Audius.de the security company are really happy they picked THEIR name. I am sure it will drive a lot of web traffic to them. Guess they didn't do a search on their name before they picked it.

  12. Judging by the comments here... by LtUoNXizqxawTj4ofx7t · · Score: 1

    it's the new bubble that blockchain is a bubble!

  13. B..b..but Blockchain makes it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We absolutely do not need this. But some investor somewhere will say, "Ooh.. Blockchain!"

    It's the Brawndo of the tech world.

    1. Re:B..b..but Blockchain makes it better by LtUoNXizqxawTj4ofx7t · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? It's a startup that got successfully funded. Maybe 9 out of 10 fail but this is how we make progress - by trying.

    2. Re:B..b..but Blockchain makes it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does blockchain have electrolytes? after all, it's what plants crave.

  14. How is it different from Musicoin? by Lorens · · Score: 1

    Except that Musicoin doesn't seem to to take on, and that Audius will profit to other people, of course.

  15. On what grounds would Audius be liable? by tepples · · Score: 1

    When major record labels sued Napster ( A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001)), they had clear grounds to do so: Napster was infringing the copyright in the plaintiffs' recordings. Assuming Audius is obtaining permission from the owner of copyright in each recording and underlying musical work performed through its service, what grounds would the incumbent labels have to sue Audius and not have the suit discharged with prejudice as frivolous in summary judgment?

    1. Re:On what grounds would Audius be liable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Assuming Audius is obtaining permission from the owner of copyright in each recording and underlying musical work performed through its service, what grounds would the incumbent labels have to sue Audius and not have the suit discharged with prejudice as frivolous in summary judgment?

      They could find a "friendly" jurisdiction with a sympathetic judge just as patent trolls do. There are also numerous other ways to harass them using the legal system other than copyright law. That's not even touching on using "their" politicians and government bureaucrats to endlessly investigate, raid, seize property, and audit them.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:On what grounds would Audius be liable? by tepples · · Score: 1

      They could find a "friendly" jurisdiction with a sympathetic judge just as patent trolls do.

      NPEs filing suit in NPE-friendly judicial districts state a cause of action, namely patent infringement. What cause of action under copyright or any other law would a label have against an entity performing a sound recording or musical work whose copyright does not belong to that label?

      There are also numerous other ways to harass them using the legal system other than copyright law.

      What might these "numerous" causes of action be?

    3. Re:On what grounds would Audius be liable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      What cause of action under copyright or any other law would a label have against an entity performing a sound recording or musical work whose copyright does not belong to that label?

      What might these "numerous" causes of action be?

      Filing (or having someone file) false DMCA take-down requests as we've seen occur far too often with little or no real consequences imposed for doing so. Claims against independent works on the platform for plagiarism/copying, which the courts have ruled can be only three notes in one famous case. The music industry has a lot of money, & power, not to mention politicians, bureaucrats, and judges in their pockets. They buy sleazeball lawyers by the trainload. They are capable of playing really dirty and with the leg-up of a government that all too often turns a blind eye or even helps.

      After all the dirty tricks, sleazy lawyering, and outright corruption & crime that's already been exposed concerning the music industry's behaviors and actions undertaken to protect their monopoly on distribution and role as gatekeepers, expecting them to play the game by Marquess of Queensberry Rules is a fool's dream. They are amoral corporate cut-throats to the extreme. I know, being a pro musician myself.

      For a good read on how the music industry deals with musicians, Google "Steve Albini: The Problem With Music". Although the piece is dated, not much has changed except for the technology as far as them screwing the bands & musicians over, and determination to maintain their distribution monopoly and gatekeeper position for as long as they possibly can.

      Audius might succeed, but it won't be without a metric shit-ton of money, lawyers, and legal cases as the music industry fights to retain their wealth and power.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:On what grounds would Audius be liable? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Filing (or having someone file) false DMCA take-down requests as we've seen occur far too often with little or no real consequences imposed for doing so.

      Once one victim of a false copyright claim lawyers up and prevails in court, it sets a template for other defendants in a similar fact situation to prevail. A victim of a false DMCA claim filed suit ( Smith v. Summit Entertainment ) and prevailed on several counts in 2011: wrongful assertion of copyright infringement, intentional interference in contractual and business relationships between the musician and the platform, and defamation of title.

      Claims against independent works on the platform for plagiarism/copying, which the courts have ruled can be only three notes in one famous case.

      I agree with you that claims of accidental infringement could pose a problem for musicians or platforms. But over the past several years, other Slashdot users have disagreed with me that this problem is substantial. So they (and I) would appreciate harder evidence of the scale of this problem.

      One example I've trotted out myself several times on Slashdot is Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music over "My Sweet Lord". That case was over at least eight notes: one three-and-a-half-note motif repeated several times followed by one five-note motif repeated several times.

      Which case was over only three notes?

    5. Re:On what grounds would Audius be liable? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      One example I've trotted out myself several times on Slashdot is Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music over "My Sweet Lord". That case was over at least eight notes: one three-and-a-half-note motif repeated several times followed by one five-note motif repeated several times.

      Which case was over only three notes?

      I took liberties in my post for brevity and impact by only mentioning part of the particulars, I admit, but that is the case I was thinking of and mentioned off the op of my head without referencing.

      I, too, would like better reliable data but it's not easily available in my experience (possibly not even tracked as recorded data points intentionally) and probably by design.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:On what grounds would Audius be liable? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I, too, would like better reliable data

      A list of music copyright infringement cases may help.

  16. One Web bubble burst in 2001. Remember Pets.com? by tepples · · Score: 1

    When the World Wide Web was released to the public, it caused a bubble that burst in 2001. "Pets.com: Because pets can't drive."

  17. Re:One Web bubble burst in 2001. Remember Pets.com by LtUoNXizqxawTj4ofx7t · · Score: 1

    That was ages ago and the tech stock market has already greatly surpassed that all time high. It was a bubble but the idea that tech and Internet is so valuable was correct. Now look at crypto's bubble that has already burst. It seems like the history will repeat itself. This is the third Bitcoin bubble that has burst. Bubbles come and go repeatedly. It's just price speculation - the underlying tech is unaffected.