Spotify Removing Neil Young's Music | Hacker News Reader

Spotify Removing Neil Young's Music

reuters.com

39 pointsbrewdad108 comments

Discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30093354

I'm sure Mr Young knew that this would be the end result and that it would be a hit to his pocketbook in taking the stand he did. I respect his integrity for doing so and hope other artists do the same.

He just sold a 50% interest in his catalog for an estimated $150m.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/business/neil-young-rights-de...

The buyer may have a claim against him for spoiling the value of their purchase.

Seems unlikely to me, this plausibly increases the value more than it decreases the value. A ton of press, driving people to support him, driving direct sales (e.g. https://neilyoungarchives.com/account?screen=plans). Increases the potential audience from "people who like his music" to "people who dislike Joe Rogan (or like his music)". Etc.

It could turn out poorly for him, but even from a purely business perspective it's not an obviously bad decision.

> Young, 76, said Spotify accounted for 60% of the streaming of his music to listeners around the world. The removal is "a huge loss for my record company to absorb," he said.

So, at least according to Young, the move is "a huge loss".

Or he might have miscalculated his clout. Or indeed he may have just wanted to withdraw his catalogue as protest —if the latter, I think it’s misguided idea. Lots of musicians or artists can have diametric opinions to each other. It would be a disservice if they all started dictating who could be on the same service as them. What next, only allow streaming to people who hold my views on X, Y or Z?

I don't think he miscalculated anything. We're all talking about it, and he publicly voted with his money. I doubt he believed Spotify would drop Rogan the next day or anything.

You're missing an important distinction. Spotify isn't just letting people stream Rogan, they're actively producing the content.

It surprises me that some people are talking about this as if Neil Young really thought he would win this fight. He’s been in the business for a while. I highly doubt he’d be naive enough to think Spotify would capitulate.

I guess he could have simply said he was removing his music because he disagreed with Spotify’s business practices, but this way, Spotify owns the action of removing his music from their service. NY didn’t walk out, Spotify chose Rogan over him.

> Or he might have miscalculated his clout.

I doubt it. Spotify wasn't going to cave; we all know that. There are many influential artists whose work is/was not on Spotify for whatever reason.

The goal was to draw attention to the subject, and that was a success.

How come? If I'm a proponent of cause A, and I participate in a group with a member who is anti-A, it's actually against my fundamental beliefs to be associated with that person. In this case, I can propose a solution to this: either I go, or he goes. I benefit from either result, since my beliefs in A are more important to me than the group (even if the group is still a very important part of my life).

That’s the problem. People ought not be so egotistically fragile that they cannot be in the same room as someone else.

You either sell him water or me water, but I hate him, so I implore you not to sell us both water.

So you think Neil is being "egotistically fragile" by having Spotify decide between him and Rogan because he "hates" Rogan?

What do you call eleven people having a dinner party with an active anti-vaxxer?

Twelve anti-vaxxers.

But this isn't about "diametric opinions". As i understand, it's because of Rogan spreading proven misinformation about vaccines on his platform.

This is a dangerous slippery slope.

Mr Rogan’s discussion may contain misinformation, but so can many other discussions.

Are we to have real-time “fact checkers checking?

What do we do retroactively to all the people who retrospectively said untruthful things?

Certainly very few politicians would be allowed to speak at all.

I may have to write a browser extension to highlight greyed out, censored votes.

Wait, so theres been a prevailing thing about "censorship" and "platforms are allowed to dictate what content they host"

are we now moving onto "private citizens are not allowed to dictate where their content is served from?"

Nobody said anything about not allowing people to dictate who can distribute their art. Why must we take every "you shouldn't do this" statement to mean "you shouldn't be allowed to do this?"

Europe has a concept for copyright that is not recognized in the U.S.: moral rights.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2020/08/04/10-ways-eu-copyri...

> 2: Moral Rights

> Moral rights are the rights of an artist to claim authorship in their work (IE: Right to attribution), object to offensive or derogatory treatment of the work, including destroying it.

> Though moral rights are a part of the Berne Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory, the U.S. never fully implemented moral rights into their code. Instead, it passed the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) a law that extended moral rights to an extremely limited subset of visual works.

> As with fair use, this limited view on moral rights is another uniquely American element. Copyright holders in the EU enjoy much broader more rights. However, this is true in much of the rest of the world as well.

Perhaps rather, if you pull up stakes every time someone else on the same platform announces they prefer grape jelly over strawberry (fucking animals!), pretty soon you're going to have N platforms for N people. Which I suppose is one possible Fediverse end-game: millions of individual platforms, federating and un-federating on a daily basis as people discover that someone they thought was cool actually voted for McCain in 2008.

Yes, if you carefully pare away every bit of context then it's true that nothing makes any sense.

In actual real life though it's not the difference between flavors of goddamn jelly, it's a serious moral concern for a lot of people.

Similarly it's not even a matter of forgiveness, or permanently staining someone's reputation over one action many years ago. These actions are ongoing and Rogan hasn't repented of them. If you believe they cause harm then you probably also believe they are currently causing ongoing harm. Which is a situation with different considerations than "someone did something bad a long time ago".

Nope.

It wasn’t: “Hey Spotify, I want off your platform”

I was: “Hey Spotify! It’s me or him, you pick”

I think it's honorable to stand up for what you believe in in this way. But in this case I believe the cause he stood up against was a bit misguided.

It's true. Joe Rogan is very misguided.

He doesn’t want his music to be on a platform that is bankrolling someone who helps spread misinformation about vaccines. He suffered from Polio as a kid so this is something that means something on a personal level. That doesn’t seem that misguided to me.

people have a right to speak their mind wherever they want; that's the basis of the internet, free expression.

And people have a right not to want to do business with a company that gave a hundred million dollars to someone producing misinformation.

Pretending this is a case of "spotify has an open platform that people can come speak on" is disingenuous, Spotify went out of their way and spent a ton of money to get the content he disapproves of on their platform.

(Comment aimed at a number of comments in this thread, including but not limited to the one I replied to)

did he catch polio after he was vaccinated?

Google tells me he caught in 1952, and we only began mass vaccination in polio in 1955, so almost certainly not.

Well he does have a Heart of Gold. That must be worth something based on the average weight of an adult human heart and price per ounce of gold.

He found it after all? Good for him! I know he looked all over for it.

Turns out it was a Southern Man from Alabama who told him it was he, the Old Man, who had the heart of gold, and he was just searching for it in the wrong place. After all, it was After the Gold Rush and he had it all along.

Did it show signs of myocarditis?

I hope other artists stand up for the same freedom of speech and expression that allow them to be artists.

He's asking for an open platform to become moderated to limit content to media consistent with his own beliefs.

If he doesn't want to do business with an open platform, that's his problem. But I would not call that "integrity."

C’mon. In what world is Spotify an open platform?

Earth. The real one we're currently living in.

Got any source that lists artists censored or not able to put their stuff on spotify due to the speech content?

If you want to be on Spotify's platform, you have to play by their rules, 100%. There is/was a number of artist whose work was not on Spotify for whatever reason.

They specifically said so in their statement: "We have detailed content policies in place and we’ve removed over 20,000 podcast episodes related to COVID since the start of the pandemic." [0]

They just won't touch their golden goose.

And remember, they're not just not removing Rogan's misinformation, they're producing and promoting it.

[0]: https://deadline.com/2022/01/neil-young-leaving-spotify-joe-...

No, he hated Spotify already because they only had lower-quality versions of his music. He wanted to take his music off Spotify already, he just used the Joe Rogan issue as virtue signaling to cause a commotion.

It is incomprehensible for me to understand why people call this "principled". It is bullying in the words of President Obama - "That's not activism" [1]. If Neil wants to go and debate, he should show up on JRE and put his points forth.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

Pulling one's business from sources you disagree with is 100% activism. Hell, it's the entire idea behind economic sanctions.

Going to talk to Joe Rogan isn't going to change anyone's mind, and is just providing him more attention and validating him as a 'platform', and thus perpetuating the problem.

I completely disagree. Activism is "Pull", not "Push". You need to put your points forth so as to rally people behind you, not beat them into submission.

This is just wokeness and cancel culture. It is top-down attempt for censorship, absolutely not activism.

That doesn’t match any dictionary definition of activism that I know. Boycotts are activism. Always have been.

> He wrote: “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” [1]

So he wanted Joe Rogan removed. It wasn't "I'll leave because I disagree with people on this platform". He insisted to remove Joe Rogan and threatened. That, in my book, ain't activism. It is bullying and exploiting his position in the industry.

I would be fine with Gandhi's approach towards boycotts (Salt March).

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/business/neil-young-spoti...

That might be your personal definition of activism but it isn’t any accepted one.

Think about the anti-apartheid boycott movement against South Africa. Effectively they said “you can have Apartheid or you can have us buy your products”. Was that bullying? Was that exploiting a position? In what world was it not activism?

(as a side note the idea that an artist the likes of Neil Young even has the capability of bullying an company like Spotify is kind of funny in and of itself. The power dynamic between the two skews very, very heavily towards Spotify)

> It wasn't "I'll leave because I disagree with people on this platform"

?!? That’s exactly what it was. According to the source you just posted that’s exactly what he did. He asked for his music to be removed, he did not issue an ultimatum. You’re quoting a rhetorical flourish he made and ignoring his actions.

He didn't threaten and wait until they blinked; he wasn't trying to bully them. It was simply "I do not want to do business with you while you support and provide a platform to that guy".

His letter -specifically asked his music be removed-, with that explanation as to why.

Your book is wrong. No one just boycotts something without also explaining why to the thing being boycotted; that -might- achieve in the business or whatever folding, if enough people do it, but it won't lead to them changing. -That- would be "cancel culture"; we won't tell you what you can do to fix things, we're just going to complain that you did a thing, take our ball, and go home.

If the goal is to have them change, not to kill them, you have to tell them what they need to change.

> This is just wokeness and cancel culture

He didn't "cancel" anyone. He opted out of a business relationship. Who do you think was canceled? Spotify? Rogan?

> This is just wokeness and cancel culture.

What? How? Neil decided on his own to pull all his music. No one bullied him, no one called him out on twitter, etc. This isn't even a 'woke' issue. Neil decided he doesn't want to share a platform with disinformation spreaders, period.

Seriously. He's playing the culture war and identity politics game for his own benefit.

People who are downvoting you think it is "principled" to bully an open platform to moderate content and censor voices inconsistent with their own beliefs. Insanity.

thank you, engage in discussion before threatening to take your ball and go home. I think it's a little dramatic to call it bullying, but from the other side it looks pretty pathetic.

Joe Rogan has changed his stance on a lot of topics over the years. And his listeners aren't all idiots. Some people, despite what we occasionally see here, and what some believe by default, are still open to hear whatever good points might be made. Everyone has an agenda, but it's not always diametrically opposed to what's decent.

In the past when I listened to his show, he's said some stupid shit, but he's also admitted being wrong, and agreed to hold conversations with people he disliked or disagreed with, and was able to take something positive from it.

But sure, people can think he's harmful to society, but I think that kind of grandstanding/absolutism is pretty harmful in itself.

And as a final note I guess I just want to know why people are still here if they think discussion won't change the mind of Rogan, or his listenership, or other people in general. Is it that you think his listeners are uniquely stupid or malevolent? Is the idea that at a certain point, shouting opinions you like and hiding/distracting from opinions you don't is the only way?

*Per Neil Young's request. That part is important to add. They aren't punishing him or something.

Unrelated to this drama – I wish Spotify had a music-only (non-podcast) plan. It is annoying to think of the huge chunk of my monthly bill that is going to Rogan and a billion True Crime podcasts and lots of others that I absolutely don't use or care about. Meanwhile artists are getting paid peanuts.

Completely agreed... I'd love to be able to only subscribe to music.

I see a lot of takes that it would be censorship for Spotify to remove Joe Rogan's podcast. I get where those are coming from. However, Spotify isn't just hosting Joe Rogan's content, they actively advertise for it and try to get more people to listen to it. It seems like that is a much more editorial role and something worthy of criticizing them for.

Not really. They pay him a lot of money and want a return on investment. It's a great podcast with a lot of interesting guests. I see nothing wrong with Spotify advertising for it.

Kinda funny because I never even thought about listening to Rogan on Spotify till this whole stunt but I started listening to his show for the first time today. Its not my thing but I'm not sure I understand the uproar over it. Maybe I am missing something?

I don’t even know who this Rogan is, I never listened to a podcast in my life and I don’t remember a song by Neil Young.

I started downloading MP3s again. I am tired of postcasts and electron music players.

Lastfm works great to discover new music.

I read that he actually doesn't own the rights to his music catalog any more, so technically Spotify could ignore his demands. Although if that's true, it's surprising the article doesn't mention it.

He sold a significant stake in it at least, reposting my comment from another thread:

I'm confused. I read Neil Young recently sold significant stake in his music catalog to an investment company [1]. Doing something like this pretty much nullifies that investment. Perhaps the particulars of the deal he signed still allows him to do this, in which case the investment company made a bad deal.

If Spotify is just doing this as a courtesy, without full permission from all relevant stake holders, or specific contractual cover, then the investment company should be looking to sue both Neil Young and Spotify.

Surely I'm missing something.

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/06/neil-young-sells-50percent-o...

> Perhaps the particulars of the deal he signed still allows him to do this, in which case the investment company made a bad deal.

Or they factored that into the price. The dude is known for political activism as much as he is for his music.

Any investor who did their due diligence knows that Neil Young is very opinionated about how his music is used. So if he negotiated for continued control over his music, the investors should have known he was going to cost them money.

This controversy will be over in a few months at worse. Spotify nullifies the damage by removing the music now, and the investment in the music would be a long term investment.

I predict within a year or so the content will be back. Quietly and with zero press…and it would not surprise me a bit of all parties involved have already agreed to a date.

This is the music business after all.

I've been learning more about music rights this week (plug for the Taylor Swift episode of the Acquired podcast).

I think it depends on how much of his catalog he was the song write on? There seem to be some veto writes that songwriters get even if they have sold the rights to their master recordings.

This is good news for spotify. They haven't been able to make any inroads into podcasts, video segments despite penning deals worth millions of dollars with the likes of rogan.

They need series of controversies like this for people to even know that they now have content other than music. I haven't listened to rogan in years but now i am curious to give it a try.

Meanwhile I'm switching my family's subscription over to Tidal instead of Spotify. Don't need to be contributing to that kind of thing.

Does anyone else remember a time when different people could have different opinions without getting offended?

In all seriousness: no.

There have always been protest moves like this, boycotts and so on. Everyone likes to pretend that protesting the views someone else has is this brand new snowflake era but that’s never been true.

Even if that once existed, this comment seems to exemplify what you wrote. The GP can freely voice their opposition to Spotify by moving to another service. They don’t seem offended to me, but rather resolute on a reasonable issue.

Not about absolutely every issue, but it does seem like there are more absolute redline divisive issues on which we can't be friends if we disagree. In fact, we not only can't be friends, we can't even get together to have a good argument, because that's offering you legitimacy and, after all, you're one of the bad people who aren't really even human at this point.

I genuinely do not remember a time like that. How long have you been alive?

yes, give your money to someone that pled guilty to stabbing another person... you are sooooo virtuous amirite?

Tidal is owned by Square these days.

the stabber still owns part and sits on the board.

> Don't need to be contributing to that kind of thing.

I guess you like contributing to actual crimes( vs thought crimes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(service)#Controversy

Harming one person in an isolated incident vs propagating misinformation which can result (has resulted) in many more than one death.

A comparison between the two is intellectually dishonest and it's hard to believe it's done in any way except bad-faith. Negligence in due diligence is also bad faith, mind you.

> Harming one person in an isolated incident

what one person? Would you mind reading links in that wiki and identifying the people who were harmed. Hint: its not "one person" .

> Negligence in due diligence is also bad faith, mind you.

funny stuff.

But who cares, really, which streaming service your family subscribes to?

I don't understand how any Spotify user doesn't know they have content other than music, because you have to scroll pretty damn far down to get to anything music related. That's not even getting into the damn popups their app has trying to get you to listen to podcasts.

Like others here, I wish I could unsubscribe to podcasts. I hate how spotify pushes them in your face constantly.

Well I hope Neil Young will remember, a spotify fan don't need him around anyhow

I appreciate the pithy quote and its references even if I'm sad to see Mr. Young's catalog go.

I have the feeling that Neil is going to be ok without Spotify, too.

Poor Joe. He just wanted to keep on rocking in the free world.

Free, except for speech. It's sad how an aging rocker who used to celebrate nonconformity and questioning authority now becomes a finger waving old man telling everyone that there's only one truth.

He is free to voice his displeasure at sharing a platform with an ill-informed blowhard spouting dangerous bullshit out of every orifice. Spotify has no obligation to platform Rogan, but they choose to tie their flag to his mast, and I for one am happy I switched to a different platform.

Neil was never one who questioned all authority. From "The Needle and the Damage Done":

> I sing the song because I love the man

> I know that some of you don't understand

> Milk blood to keep from running out

> I've seen the needle and the damage done

> A little part of it in everyone

> But every junkie's like a settin' sun

e.g., he "loves the man" for keeping heroin illegal, because he's seen how it ruins lives firsthand.

The great thing about art is that everybody is free to interpret it in their own way

I think people should recognize the distinction of an artist from their work and know their boundaries. If I said I enjoyed Alec Baldwin's "work" in his numerous film roles, I don't necessarily want to know what they are like in real life. In today's day and age that aspect is simply unavoidable.

There’s a difference between nonconformity and questioning authority and packaging those things for sale. Rebellion as a Service now sells you that feeling of fighting the man packaged up in easy to consume pieces.

Joe Rogan is an entertainer, not a rebel.

Isn't Neil Young an entertainer, too? Doesn't he also sell his products?

"There’s a difference between nonconformity and questioning authority and packaging those things for sale"

Yes. The things you're comparing have nothing to do with each other

Like explicit music lyrics, if you find it offensive, then don't listen, change the channel, etc.

Isn't a rebel somebody who takes controversial or unpopular stands?

Well, no.

Plus he’s doing it for the money.

What is a rebel then?

Neil Young fans: what's Spotify?

Spotify users: who's Neil Young?

Not sure of Spotify’s angle here. Artists don’t get enough money from Spotify to be loyal… could Lead to a mass exodus. I hope it does. Rogan gets to metaphorically drive drunk around town free from consequences it seems.

I think that angle is that until they reeled in JRE, they didn't really have anything original or exclusive. Virtually everything that people were listening to belonged to legacy record companies and artists. The Joe Rogan Experience is one of the biggest things going, and it's still young as a show, and they have it exclusively, so don't expect them to give it up for someone whose popularity peaked a long time ago (no disrespect to Neil Young).

Not a JR fan at all, but I suspect that Spotify knows very well who gets more listens between him and Neil Young. There may be ideology playing out on the edges of this thing, but Spotify's angle is 100% commercial.

Most artists don't have any say in the matter. For every Taylor Swift, there are a million Neon Trees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com