Mixcrate shuts down
mixcrate.com
mixcrate.com
No one is going to hear a track in a DJ mix, then NOT buy it because they heard it in a mix. It's just not a substitute for anything that labels are selling. In fact, the opposite is true, that people are much more likely to go and buy a track because the mix helped them discover it.
A large number of folks uploading mixes to Mixcrate would be amateur, making no money from whatever promotional value using a track may give them. They do it for the love of it. Some would have been DJs who do mix for profit. I'd suggest some low-cost licensing system, paying a few dollars a month to use licensed tracks would be a decent solution for both.
Sites like Mixcrate closing down kills two revenue streams for labels, 1) referral/discovery purchases and 2) a direct licensing model.
When it comes to music streaming, with few exceptions record labels do not "partner," they dictate terms. The mere implication that Mixcloud should have any leverage in a negotiation of this type is anathema to the industry.
A large number of folks uploading mixes to Mixcrate would be amateur, making no money from whatever promotional value using a track may give them
The industry doesn't care about the failures of the bedroom DJ.
It's just not a substitute for anything that labels are selling. In fact, the opposite is true, that people are much more likely to go and buy a track because the mix helped them discover it.
Eliminating the thin edge of the wedge of ceding any copyright control is more important. The first rule about the music industry is that being a landowner in copyright country takes precedence over the desires of music fans. There is much lip service designed to counteract this perception, but if you look at the history and actions of the industry its priorities come clear.
Sites like Mixcrate closing down kills two revenue streams for labels
What revenue? People don't spend money on this stuff for a few reasons, one of which is because DJ mixes are so numerous, and another is "because they can't." The tracklists that would provide the names of songs for a listener to purchase currently have extremely low coverage, partially due to the litigiousness of the industry. The industry also resists the idea of having universal identification codes (cf. ISRC) that would make any of this more practical.
2) a direct licensing model.
These are rare, and you have to be Pandora-sized to get them from the BigN cartel.
It wasn't even a real threat of a lawsuit. It was an email from someone high up in the music industry. That's all it takes.
I love the United States, but fuck, it really disappoints me sometimes.
It became a function of "how much is this going to cost us?" We ended up changing the name of our company even though we didn't think the accuser had a case. It wasn't about who was right. It was about how much money did we think they would be willing to put up because we'd have to match it.
But how is that?
Is it that the party with a lot of money can file many briefs and that the other party has to respond to them? (and what if they don't? Do they lose by default?)
And could it not be fixed by limiting the number of possible briefs, by law (depending on non-hackable criteria such as, amount of damages awarded in similar cases, etc.)?
Fighting the music cartel, on the other hand, that's a completely different animal. They can afford to pay big teams of lawyers to slap you silly, and keep doing it for as long as they want. If they want you out of business, they're going to find a way.
Picture all the people trying to make the world a better place as a bunch of ants. Fighting the government is like fighting a bear. The bear can crush a few of you but not all of you. Fighting the music industry is like fighting a hoard of dragonflies.
That hits the nail on the head. Adding to that, it's an issue that goes both ways. For indie artists, it sucks even worse than for small-time programmers, if you can believe that. They get all the problems the big boys have on top of the lack of resources to produce, pay licensing fees, pay assistants, make up for other losses. Stepping on toes is alot easier given how subjective music recording law can be.
Now here's the $1M question: How can we help the little guy? You seem to suggest it's not possible (in that last sentence), but do we really want to let the system devolve into purely RIAA vs BitTorrent?
You can help artists by offering access to your distribution network and your marketing services, likely in exchange for copyright as success is impossible to predict and artists don't have capital. In short, become a record company. The way you actually help is by creating competition to the establishment. It is likely, however, that just like with tech startups you will be bought out by the Big 4, though. To avoid a buy out and ensure you can work for the artist's best, make sure to be profitable.
No, no no. "If only ${members of group X} all decided to do ${something that goes against individual self-interest of members of said group, but benefits the group as a whole}" is never a solution, because this generally does not happen for groups other than family&friends. Coordination is extremely hard to create, and very easy to destroy - it takes just one person who defects, thinking that "I'll stop doing that agreed-on thing; I'll gain a lot individually, but the group is big, so it won't lose much" - because suddenly you'll have everyone following suit and situation will be back to square one.
That's why you always need some changes that make interests of the group align directly with the interests of the individual.
(Might be a good time to start again my habit of linking to http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.)
The things that you listed are examples of that kind of progress.
Also, not everything that looks like a tech business is progress. Uber, for instance, is nothing but a taxi cab that uses investor money to break the law and get away with it, and they're also pretty douchy about doing that. A sociopathic bully that pretends to be a white knight, basically.
[0] - though lsiebert's caveat about working conditions applies.
If you want to make money and have an impact, do goddamn anything but try to do it through or with, or anything around music. You can make money, or have an impact, but fuck you if you try to do both. The music industry and the world Hacker News was birthed in are at complete 180 degree odds with each other.
The payment processors tend to cut ties if you do things that are deemed illegal.
I have zero knowledge about this stuff, quick googling returned a result[1] which says the owner might be held personally liable if "intentionally does something fraudulent, illegal, or reckless that causes harm to the company or to someone else"
[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.htm...