←back to thread

393 points pyman | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.195s | source | bottom
Show context
marapuru ◴[] No.44489031[source]
Apparently it's a common business practice. Spotify (even though I can't find any proof) seems to have build their software and business on pirated music. There is some more in this Article [0].

https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...

Funky quote:

> Rumors that early versions of Spotify used ‘pirate’ MP3s have been floating around the Internet for years. People who had access to the service in the beginning later reported downloading tracks that contained ‘Scene’ labeling, tags, and formats, which are the tell-tale signs that content hadn’t been obtained officially.

replies(12): >>44489057 #>>44489086 #>>44489089 #>>44489130 #>>44490004 #>>44490949 #>>44490996 #>>44491664 #>>44491845 #>>44491897 #>>44491910 #>>44494071 #
dathinab ◴[] No.44490949[source]
not just Spotify pretty much any (most?) current tech giant was build by

- riding a wave of change

- not caring too much about legal constraints (or like they would say now "distrupting" the market, which very very often means doing illigal shit which beings them far more money then any penalties they will ever face from it)

- or caring about ethics too much

- and for recent years (starting with Amazone) a lot of technically illegal financing (technically undercutting competitors prices long term based on money from else where (e.g. investors) is unfair competitive advantage (theoretically) clearly not allowed by anti monopoly laws. And before you often still had other monopoly issues (e.g. see wintel)

So yes not systematic not complying with law to get unfair competitive advantage knowing that many of the laws are on the larger picture toothless when applied to huge companies is bread and butter work of US tech giants

replies(1): >>44491900 #
1. benced ◴[] No.44491900[source]
As you point out, they mostly did this before they were large companies (where the public choice questions are less problematic). Seems like the breaking of these laws was good for everybody.
replies(2): >>44493240 #>>44495266 #
2. FirmwareBurner ◴[] No.44493240[source]
>Seems like the breaking of these laws was good for everybody.

Are all music creators better off now than before Spotify?

replies(1): >>44493772 #
3. megaman821 ◴[] No.44493772[source]
The music pie is bigger now but it is split between more people. Spotify brings in the most revenue for musicians as a whole.
replies(2): >>44494854 #>>44495307 #
4. oblio ◴[] No.44494854{3}[source]
Is that why the biggest source of income for musicians these days are live shows? Streaming basically killed recording income for 99.9999% of musicians.
5. dathinab ◴[] No.44495266[source]
they where already big when they systematically broke this laws

breaking this laws is what lifted them from big, to supper marked dominant to a point where they have monopoly like power

that is _never_ good for everyone, or even good for the majority long term

what is good for everyone (but a few rich people and sometimes the US government) is proper fair competition. It drives down prices and allows people to vote with their money, a it is a corner stone of the American dream it pushes innovation and makes sure a country isn't left behind. Monopoly like companies on the other hand tend to have exactly the other effect, higher prices (long term), corruption, stagnating innovation, and a completely shattered American sound pretty bad for the majority of Americans.

6. dathinab ◴[] No.44495307{3}[source]
Yeah, but like another post said it killed a lot of other income streams.

And Spotify is a bad example as it ran into another psudo monopoly with very unreasonable/unhealthy power (the few large music labels holding rights to the majority of main stream music).

They pretty much forced very bad terms onto Spotify which is to some degree why Spotify is pushing podcasts, as they can't be long term profitable with Music (raising prices doesn't help if the issue is a percent cut which rises too :/ )