Hacker News Reader

Comment by tmikaeld | Hacker News Reader

Does this mean they won't have the Warner music in Spotify?

No, this is just business. Sony and Merlin have already sold all or parts of their shares, and are in the process of sharing the windfall with their labels. It's a pretty significant chunk of cash, so if Warner didn't do the same they would look incredibly bad.

Broader picture the majors want Spotify to succeed, because the alternative is having the business run by Apple and Google, who only have an ancillary interest in music.

Probably not in the short term. But I always felt that Spotify having the labels as shareholders was the main guarantee that they would keep their content on the platform.

Maybe they'll need to start producing their own original content like Netflix did.

That really wouldn't work though.

Most people use Spotify like the radio, they listen to the top 40 chart, or they listen to music they know and love.

If Spotify was missing the Warner catalogue, it would be completely neutered. It relies on the fact that I can find 99% of the music I want. Every time an artist or an album gets removed from Spotify, so many people get up in arms about it. Imagine a major label dropping Spotify.

Radio style play gas compulsory licensing. If the user can't pick the music directly, Spotify can play any song, without an explicit license.

This undermines the entire purpose of paying for Spotify.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com