So someone creates an ambient noise track, people enjoy the ambient track, and the person who created the ambient track gets paid. I don’t see the problem.
White noise it’s not copyrightable. So, anyone can make a copy, including Spotify themselves. They could “pirate” all the white noise podcasts and redirect them to something they own. Problem solved.
No one should care about a spotify exec. This includes their parents and wife.
Everyone who creates audio projects for spotify should be paid. This includes musicians and creators of ambient noise tracks. People like those tracks, they are popular, they should be paid. It’s not a difficult concept. Make a product. Distribute the product. Get paid for the product. You perception of the products relative value compared to other disimilar products in the same file format, is about the least relevant thing in the world. Even if you don’t think the product represents enough “effort” to be considered equal.
I didn’t say anything about “value”, I said about copyright.
If it is copyrightable, then the original creator of the concept should have rights, and the clones should be considered plagiarism.
If it is not copyrightable, then it doesn’t matter who is the author, and Spotify can just do their own.
All that, and we haven’t even mentioned that Spotify can just change the terms of service and get rid of the white noise podcasts. They are no obligated in anyway to keep a creator that is not worth the business.
so, you don’t believe that people should profit from the redistribution of public domain works? I think the entire publishing industry would have something to say about that. Considering the amount of non-copyrightable/public domain material that is bought and sold commercially every day. That’s a pretty funky belief you’ve got there.
You’re right, spotify could release a competing distro, yet they aren’t.
then they should create their own competing distribution. They aren’t actually making any ambient soundscapes. not even white noise, let alone rain, wind, birds, crickets, etc. And what about all those copies of “which side are you one boy” and it’s many covers. you could make the same argument for any traditional music, but you’re not. You only care about “white noise” because you consider it to be low effort. Low effort is not no effort, and the people that put in the effort to create those files should be paid.
All you’re saying is that different tracks/shows are competing for attention, and white noise is doing well in that competition. You could make the same argument about any genre.
Country music is taking a portion of the income that white noise could get paid. Therefore remove all country music from sp0tify.
Well then, from a purely business pov, it seems that what spoitfy should do is wipe these white noise casts, post some of their own (possibly from a subsidiary) and watch that extra 38mill roll in
There have been claims inside youtube against white noise videos, so at least in their privately managed rights system, white noise is fair game for diverting $ from the poster of the content.
Are you trying to say that took no effort? Instrumental went hard and the talkbox would have taken some time to develop progression. Especially in the 90s, where digital music technology wasn’t widely available. Today, a song like that would be no big deal but at the time, “Around The World” was much ahead of its time.
Thanks, I read Wikipedia for an hour a day and that was probably the most interesting biography yet. Mostly I just read about places around the world and musicians.
That is far more complex than you would imagine, as is most Daft Punk music. Their sampling is pretty amazing. They do things like take nanoseconds-long samples and put them together into something musical. There are breakdowns of their songs on YouTube and it’s very impressive stuff.
Why are you so worried about whether a giant corporation makes more money?
Tbf there are a shitton of severely underpaid independent artists on Spotify that make a laughable amount of streaming revenue. They’d at least somewhat benefit from a higher $ / stream rate
So someone creates an ambient noise track, people enjoy the ambient track, and the person who created the ambient track gets paid. I don’t see the problem.
White noise it’s not copyrightable. So, anyone can make a copy, including Spotify themselves. They could “pirate” all the white noise podcasts and redirect them to something they own. Problem solved.
What problem? There was never a problem.
If you are a Spotify exec, there is a problem.
If you are an indie musician who sees your payout being reduced because Spotify says they need to pay white noise podcasts, there is a problem.
If you believe that this is a zero-sum game and Spotify prints money like magic, there is no problem.
No one should care about a spotify exec. This includes their parents and wife. Everyone who creates audio projects for spotify should be paid. This includes musicians and creators of ambient noise tracks. People like those tracks, they are popular, they should be paid. It’s not a difficult concept. Make a product. Distribute the product. Get paid for the product. You perception of the products relative value compared to other disimilar products in the same file format, is about the least relevant thing in the world. Even if you don’t think the product represents enough “effort” to be considered equal.
All of this is crazy.
I didn’t say anything about “value”, I said about copyright.
If it is copyrightable, then the original creator of the concept should have rights, and the clones should be considered plagiarism.
If it is not copyrightable, then it doesn’t matter who is the author, and Spotify can just do their own.
All that, and we haven’t even mentioned that Spotify can just change the terms of service and get rid of the white noise podcasts. They are no obligated in anyway to keep a creator that is not worth the business.
so, you don’t believe that people should profit from the redistribution of public domain works? I think the entire publishing industry would have something to say about that. Considering the amount of non-copyrightable/public domain material that is bought and sold commercially every day. That’s a pretty funky belief you’ve got there.
You’re right, spotify could release a competing distro, yet they aren’t.
You are making my argument for me. Who is distributing in this case? I’d say that it is Spotify.
then they should create their own competing distribution. They aren’t actually making any ambient soundscapes. not even white noise, let alone rain, wind, birds, crickets, etc. And what about all those copies of “which side are you one boy” and it’s many covers. you could make the same argument for any traditional music, but you’re not. You only care about “white noise” because you consider it to be low effort. Low effort is not no effort, and the people that put in the effort to create those files should be paid.
All you’re saying is that different tracks/shows are competing for attention, and white noise is doing well in that competition. You could make the same argument about any genre.
Country music is taking a portion of the income that white noise could get paid. Therefore remove all country music from sp0tify.
I don’t think you know what a zero sim game is…
Well then, from a purely business pov, it seems that what spoitfy should do is wipe these white noise casts, post some of their own (possibly from a subsidiary) and watch that extra 38mill roll in
Not podcasts, but Spotify does curate white noise playlists just like they do other music playlists.
I listen to either Night Rain, Dreamy Vibes, or Floating Through Space some nights.
There have been claims inside youtube against white noise videos, so at least in their privately managed rights system, white noise is fair game for diverting $ from the poster of the content.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
RIP the royalties for Daft Punk’s “Around the World”.
Man, I never manage to keep up with the lyrics in that song
Are you trying to say that took no effort? Instrumental went hard and the talkbox would have taken some time to develop progression. Especially in the 90s, where digital music technology wasn’t widely available. Today, a song like that would be no big deal but at the time, “Around The World” was much ahead of its time.
Thanks for reminding me about Poe’s Law
Thanks, I read Wikipedia for an hour a day and that was probably the most interesting biography yet. Mostly I just read about places around the world and musicians.
That is far more complex than you would imagine, as is most Daft Punk music. Their sampling is pretty amazing. They do things like take nanoseconds-long samples and put them together into something musical. There are breakdowns of their songs on YouTube and it’s very impressive stuff.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Thanks but I’d rather patch the apk so there are no ads and jack up their bills
So what? Of absurdly the whole user base of Spotify got into white noise overnight and ditched music and voice podcasts, where’s the problem?
Users still pay for the premium/family subscriptions, and it’s only fair that creators of the content most listened to are rewarded proportionally.
deleted by creator
Spotify should do a lot of things differently. However as long people pay they won’t
So you didn’t read the article posted by *checks notes* you?
Besides, why should you get to decide who Spotify pays out to? Why are you so worried about whether a giant corporation makes more money?
Tbf there are a shitton of severely underpaid independent artists on Spotify that make a laughable amount of streaming revenue. They’d at least somewhat benefit from a higher $ / stream rate
So what? They wouldn’t be removed if people didn’t want that kind of content. Most media is junk. I don’t really see how this is unique?