The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Daniel Ek's Spotify... here we go AGAIN!!!
Old 6 days ago
  #61
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nd33 View Post
So if the labels have negotiated themselves a piece of Spotify each, it is conceivable that they'd be able to sell their shares once the IPO hits Wall Street. Then they could happily up their wholesale prices to Spotify, because running Spotify into the ground at that point would probably be in their best interests.
Why would it be in their best interest? Spotify is generating revenue for them. Their best interest is to see Spotify be successful.

Alistair
Old 6 days ago
  #62
Gear Maniac
 
hubba bubba's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
This is what you wrote:

"ek made his fortune by distributing and monetizing stolen content? even ek himself admits to it"

Ek does not, in any of the above quotes, "admit to" having made "his fortune by distributing and monetizing stolen content".

That's what I asked you to show us all and that's what you failed to show. That's why people with a clear head can't take what you say seriously. Just stick with the argument that Spotify's compensation is immorally low and you have case for it all. Stick to criticizing artists and labels for entering into terrible contracts and you have a case for it. Stick to campaigning against people (consumers) taking content without paying and you again have a case. Every time you make a statement like the one you made, and it turns out to be untrue, you lose some people.

We, content creators, can't afford to lose people.



PS: I know what you're about to say, so preemptively;

1. Look up the word "monetizing"
2. Look up how ad agencies work when demoing content internally
clearly you dont know much do you? (you keep saying you do and then inevitably prove yourself wrong) I knew you would not read the interviews (no surprise there) because in fact he does admit to profiting from illegally obtained content. even as a teen he was already pirating video games, taping music and recording and indexing "every tv show in the world". utorrent and spotify were built on illegal content, by pirates (with ek at the helm) and to this day are run by pirates, all of whom have greatly profited from piracy. even you know what piracy is, dont you? ("piracy is the illegal copying, distribution, or use of..") once again, let me explain the basics here.... piracy is theft. stealing is a crime. ek is by definition a career criminal.

"monetizing" okay....

"The term "monetization" may also be used informally to refer to exchanging possessions for cash or cash equivalents, including selling a security interest, charging fees for something that used to be free, or attempting to make money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable or had been considered to have the potential to earn profits. And data monetization refers to a spectrum of ways information assets can be converted into economic value."

"how ad agencies work when demoing content internally" - what does this have to do with anything? if youre referring to spotify using pirated content before, during and after launch, again, that is a fact that even ek admitted to.

you and the usual others chiming in now can defend ek, ridicule others, mince words, play the semantics game, praise the facade and ignore the blatantly obvious truth all you like, none of it will change the facts.

now why dont you look up "reading comprehension"
Old 6 days ago
  #63
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
name calling, baiting, bickering, laziness.. where does it end with you?

"Ek was one of the pirate band...he had briefly been the C.E.O. of uTorrent, which made money in part by monetizing pirated music and movies"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...evenue-streams

"Ek briefly became uTorrent’s chief executive while Strigeus began to build Spotify."

https://www.ft.com/content/ca45f6b8-...8-00144feab7de

"Spotify.com registered on April 23, 2006"

https://www.quora.com/Which-Came-Fir...or-Grooveshark


"Spotify CEO Daniel Ek originally worked with uTorrent creator Ludvig ‘Ludde’ Strigeus before the pair sold to BitTorrent Inc."

https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-be...te-bay-170509/

"Ludvig Strigeus (Ludde) is a Swedish programmer, best known for developing software such as the BitTorrent client µTorrent, OpenTTD, and Spotify... He currently works as a software engineer at Spotify."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Strigeus

"December 7, 2006, BitTorrent Inc just announced that it has acquired the popular BitTorrent client, uTorrent. Ludvig Strigeus, the writer of uTorrent will serve as a technical consultant"

https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-...%C2%B5torrent/


"Parker (Napster) invested US$15 million in Spotify. Parker currently serves on Spotify’s board"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_P...iredspotify-46


"Spotify Teardown – Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music"... “The entire Spotify beta period and its early launch history was propelled by the Pirate Bay,” ...“Spotify’s beta service was originally a pirate service.".. “It was distributed mp3 files that the employees uploaded from their hard drives.”

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...-investigator/

"It took a custom build of the program (Spotify) loaded with pirated tracks to finally convince record labels to sign up."

https://www.europeanceo.com/profiles...ustry-forever/

"The White House Just Joined Spotify: Listen to the President's Summer Playlist"

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ummer-playlist


"CNN: And what about you yourself? How do you consume music?

Ek: It's actually funny because I have two -- I probably shouldn't even admit this -- but I have two listening modes. One is obviously Spotify, but I've started becoming a bit of a vinyl buff so I actually listen to vinyl. There is something warm, and I just really enjoy vinyl. So I tend to buy a lot of vinyl records. I like it for the artwork but also for the warmness in sound."


Spotify founder: I'm not music industry's savior - CNN


on and on and on.... enjoy! (I know you wont)
While much of this is widely known fact, still these are some pretty eye opening interviews. I'm really looking forward to the forthcoming whistleblower book on Ek and Spotify. Man, how about that judge in Sweden presiding over the Pirate Bay case who WORKS for Spotify?! WTF.

As this thread is about raising awareness, thanks for the links!
Old 6 days ago
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
in fact he does admit to profiting from illegally obtained content. even as a teen he was already pirating video games, taping music and recording and indexing "every tv show in the world".
Again, this is what you said was true:

- Ek made an admission
- The admission was about how he made his fortune
- The admission was how those means were "by distributing and monetizing stolen content?"

That's what you wrote. If you want to tell me that he made a fortune as a teen pirating video games (like a ton of kids did), taping music (like a ton of kids did), and recording tv shows (like a ton of kids did), then by all means show us just how that led to a "fortune".

If you're honest about it, it looks like Ek, like a ton of kids, copied music off of other people's cassette tapes, recorded TV shows onto VHS and copied video games, but NOT that he made a fortune out of that.

There's a HUGE difference between making literally a fortune out of literally committing crimes, and NOT doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
utorrent and spotify were built on illegal content, by pirates (with ek at the helm) and to this day are run by pirates, all of whom have greatly profited from piracy.
- Spotify to my knowledge wasn't "built on illegal content". See below for why that wasn't the case;

- You are saying that Ek is currently a "pirate", and that's pretty much libel. What proof do you have that he's currently engaging in piracy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
"monetizing" okay....

"The term "monetization" may also be used informally to refer to exchanging possessions for cash or cash equivalents, including selling a security interest, charging fees for something that used to be free, or attempting to make money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable or had been considered to have the potential to earn profits. And data monetization refers to a spectrum of ways information assets can be converted into economic value."

"how ad agencies work when demoing content internally" - what does this have to do with anything? if youre referring to spotify using pirated content before, during and after launch, again, that is a fact that even ek admitted to.
I was trying to get you to consider just how the content in question was used.

In an advertising agency - as well as in film btw - it is common to use a temp track for music. The temp track is basically place-holder music that conveys the emotions desired for a scene. Could be in a film or in a commercial. The point here is that the goal isn't necessarily to sell the music in the temp track, it is to improve the user's/listener's/viewer's experience of the final product actually to be sold, for the purpose of proving a concept. Once the concept is proven the place-holder is replaced by the actual content being sold.

What Ek has said is that he used music that (to my knowledge) wasn't bought in order to prove the concept of Spotify, to prove the technology. Once the technology and concept was proven the music was replaced with actual music licensed through agreements with record labels.

This means that the original batch of music was used just the way an ad agency uses a track - as a place-holder to prove a concept. The music itself, the one that is a place-holder, isn't monetized at all. Ever. Once you go into production it gets swapped.

Now, if this isn't what Ek was saying then you can feel free to quote him again where he explains how the production for-sale revenue-generating Spotify for a significantly long time contained on purpose copyright-infringed content. Because that would be news to me.

So, to recap:

- When you monetize something it requires that the "something" that is supposedly monetized actually generates... well... 'money'. If it doesn't then it isn't monetized. There may be other objections to the practice, but it isn't what you say it is. Read the definition you provide yourself and you'll see.

- Additionally the question was how Ek made his fortune, according to himself. He has not said as far as I can see that he monetized stolen music to make himself incredibly wealthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
mince words, play the semantics game, praise the facade and ignore the blatantly obvious truth all you like, none of it will change the facts.
But you can't determine whether or not something is a fact without a detailed analysis. That will almost always necessitate understanding what words mean.

Look at it this way:

You and others are super-annoyed that wealthy people that act immorally end up not being punished. Well, what if what they do is actually literally legal, but to you obviously immoral? What then? Well, in order for you to change things so they can be punished the law has to be changed. You can't go into a court room and say "Well, this guy acted immorally, and should be punished, and that the law says what it says is just a semantics game to me". Do you get my point? Saying that this is just a semantics game is missing the importance of speaking clearly and, quite frankly, truthfully.

If you want to change society and legislation you have to be careful with how you use your words. They have a meaning and those definitions are especially important in a court of law (as well as when trying to influence people and win them over to your cause).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
I knew you would not read the interviews (no surprise there)
Well, curiously, you left this out of the very first article you pointed to:

"“It came back to me constantly that Napster was such an amazing consumer experience, and I wanted to see if it could be a viable business,” Ek went on. “We said, ‘The problem with the music industry is piracy. Great consumer product, not a great business model. But you can’t beat technology. Technology always wins. But what if you can make a better product than piracy?’ "

Curious you left the above out of your narrative......
Old 6 days ago
  #65
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
No. He started his first company at age 14 and has continued being an entrepreneur since. Some of the companies he launched he sold for great profits. He was just a manager at uTorrent for a brief period of time. That is not where his "fortune" comes from. And most of his "fortune" is just on paper. (See previous post).



Rubbish. Ek was a manager at a company that developed and distributed a client for a particular network protocol. That is not theft and not criminal. Saying so is plain ignorant.

Alistair
No. Ek was Chief Executive Officer at uTorrent for 1 year. The original uTorrent platform "the #1 BitTorrent download client on desktops worldwide" was only in operation from their 2005 launch date until the end of 2006 when BitTorrent purchased the company for an undisclosed amount. The only record of the purchase amount I can find is $25,000,000. of funding used towards the purchase. So maybe comparatively it was just a small "fortune". Spotify launched in EARLY 2006 with the same people from uTorrent. Yes, much of his $400,000,000. fortune probably is "just on paper", as is yours and mine to a much much smaller degree. After all money has no value right, it's "just paper". Are you saying this valueless "paper" cant be spent?

What's truly rubbish and ignorant is saying uTorrent circa 2005-2006 was not involved with theft and was not criminal. It wasn't merely "a client for a particular network protocol." ffs. Hilarious!
Old 6 days ago
  #66
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
@mattiasnyc You are twisting words, dismissing, deflecting and mocking people again. As far as I know and have read into it, everything he claimed indeed is absolutely true and in the interview links posted. If you cant even admit that, well, as far as I'm concerned anything else you comment on in this discussion is entirely irrelevant and a time waster. Ignored.
Old 6 days ago
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
Yes, much of his $400,000,000. fortune probably is "just on paper", as is yours and mine to a much much smaller degree. After all money has no value right, it's "just paper". Are you saying this valueless "paper" cant be spent?
I think his point is that business entities are valued according to what people would hypothetically be willing to pay for them, should they be sold. In other words, if you have a car, your net worth can be viewed as including the value of the car, and that value is determined by current resale value. First it decreases, and if you're lucky and keep the car it can then increase as it becomes a rare classic.

This is to say that the "paper value" he's talking about is the value of the total of what Ek has ownership rights to. That value isn't a bunch of money on a bank account which is what "money" is. It is the value of all of his (known) assets. And he's right to say that if you have a company for example and decide to start selling a large amount of shares in it then the value decreases, because you're increasing supply relative to demand.

So, no, in a sense it can't just be spent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
What's truly rubbish and ignorant is saying uTorrent circa 2005-2006 was not involved with theft and was not criminal. It wasn't merely "a client for a particular network protocol." ffs. Hilarious!
It's similar to saying that the postal service is involved with theft and is a criminal entity simply because criminals use it to ship contraband. That's similar the argument that's being made.

But on top of that you could of course argue that if it's technically truly peer-to-peer the company producing the software doesn't even see the content being transferred. So under what legal basis do you ascribe culpability here?

If it was clearly illegal we'd have seen a great deal of peer-to-peer software developers taken to court and convicted. There's a reason prosecutors and lawsuits have focused on users that share rather than software developers.
Old 6 days ago
  #68
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
"Parker (Napster) invested US$15 million in Spotify. Parker currently serves on Spotify’s board"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_P...iredspotify-46
Wow...I did not know it ran that deep. The founder of Napster investing $15 million in Spotify. A man who by all counts should be in prison but because of money he was able to wiggle his way out of countless theft charges.

The DMCA has protected a lot of crooks over the years and it is long overdue for a revamp. SOPA and PIPA attempted that in 2011 but we all saw the propaganda machine from the big tech companies come out in full force.

Granted, those proposed bills did have a lot of problems. But those issues were ironed out and you never heard about it again with a bill called OPEN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online...ital_Trade_Act.

Quote:
According to protest organizer Fight for the Future, more than 115,000 websites participated in the protest, including Google and Wikipedia.[1] Websites that participated in the blackout included Cheezburger, Craigslist, Boing Boing, A Softer World, Cake Wrecks, Cyanide & Happiness, Demand Progress, Destructoid, Entertainment Consumers Association. Free Press, Failblog, Newgrounds, Good.is, GOG.com, Gamesradar, Internet Archive, Marxists Internet Archive, Jay is Games, Mojang, MoveOn.org, Mozilla, MS Paint Adventures, Rate Your Music, Reddit, Roblox, Oh No They Didn't, Tucows, blip.tv, Tumblr, TwitPic, Twitter, The Oatmeal, VGMusic, Wikia, WordPress

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protes..._SOPA_and_PIPA
Most of those web sites stand to benefit from copyright infringement in one shape or another. They know its a problem but don't want to help solve it.

Quote:
Motion Picture Association of America chairman Chris Dodd admitted that the content industry had lost the public relations battle with the Internet industry, adding that "[y]ou've got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there's no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want.
Spot on, Mr. Dodd.

I've personally contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation and asked them their thoughts on solving the issues of online piracy. They refused to respond to me...which says EVERYTHING. I don't think they believe it's a problem. Which is why I suggest draining THEIR resources to show them what's it about. Watch what happens when you visit their offices, start taking their office equipment like copying machines, computers, etc. and I bet $1,00 they call the cops on you. They would not sit idly by and watch property be stolen right in front of their eyes...which is what content makers have had to deal with for decades.

Now, that's if security guards or electronic locks don't deny you access to their buildings to make the physical analogy. The content creators (writers, software developers, musicians, filmmakers) need a security guard. They need electronic locks. The OPEN Act would have provided that. Silicon Valley companies denied content makers the ability to secure their property with their propaganda and it is SICKENING.
Old 6 days ago
  #69
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
It's similar to saying that the postal service is involved with theft and is a criminal entity simply because criminals use it to ship contraband. That's similar the argument that's being made.

But on top of that you could of course argue that if it's technically truly peer-to-peer the company producing the software doesn't even see the content being transferred. So under what legal basis do you ascribe culpability here?

If it was clearly illegal we'd have seen a great deal of peer-to-peer software developers taken to court and convicted. There's a reason prosecutors and lawsuits have focused on users that share rather than software developers.
Oh @mattiasnyc if you don't think the people who created P2P software knew exactly what they were doing then I have a bridge to sell you in NYC. They use decentralization to skirt the law. They still provide the mechanism to allow the crimes to be committed. It's called being an accessory to crime. Currently the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects them...as long as they make an effort to ban users who steal. SOPA would have put a stop to internet services whose primary function was piracy.

What was layed out in the OPEN Act is the only realistic way to fight digital criminals. Put a stop to it immediately then if they want to fight it then they can go to court. This is no different than a cop witnessing a crime and stopping it before the situation escalates. There is currently no digital equivalent, which is why pirates fester.

Allow for due process? Absolutely And if the government employee who took down a site is in the wrong then they will have to pay a fine which will go to the web site/service that was pulled down. Most of these criminals would not bother to show their faces (remotely or in-person) because they know what they do is illegal and would just start up another site. Sure, it'd be a whack a mole game but when you get 12 arms and 12 clubs (which OPEN would have provided) it is a lot easier to win.

One argument I have heard from people is that piracy is just more convenient than purchasing. Well, make it inconvenient for them to find the material and you once again have buyers!

Had you bothered to look at the web sites I cited on page 1, you would have seen this study:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...d-to-be-legal/

Quote:
I further my goals with technology. I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes. I release my code and writings freely, and publish all of my ideas early to make them unpatentable.

Source: BitTorrent: Bram Cohen Says 'I commit digital piracy'?
While it's nice that Mr. Bram Cohen has the free time to create a bunch of things without compensation...most of us do not have that luxury. We need to work to earn money to keep a roof over our heads and food in the fridge. If I had to guess, Bram Cohen is a trust fund baby who programmed as a hobby since he was set financially for life. Without looking into his background, that is my guess.

There used to be honor among digital thieves. Sure, rip off the big media companies because they won't be hurt badly. But don't steal from the small guy/girl. Well, that went out the window many years ago. Plenty of independent media creators have their creations stolen. That's one reason why crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo started.

You can't pirate something that does not exist! If you want it to exist, pay for it upfront. Of course, the issue with crowdfunding sites is big companies can "spy" on them to get new ideas. So, hopefully these people who make things patent their ideas whenever possible before putting them on those sites.

Last edited by doom64; 6 days ago at 02:43 AM..
Old 6 days ago
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Oh @mattiasnyc if you don't think the people who created P2P software knew exactly what they were doing then I have a bridge to sell you in NYC. They use decentralization to skirt the law. They still provide the mechanism to allow the crimes to be committed. It's called being an accessory to crime. Currently the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects them. SOPA would have put a stop to internet services whose primary function was piracy.
I obviously never said people didn't know what was going on, what I was saying was that Ek didn't make a fortune off of it, and secondly that it doesn't appear to be a clear cut crime to create p2p software, as you admit above.

Also, and much more importantly; Spotify isn't BitTorrent.
Old 6 days ago
  #71
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Why would it be in their best interest? Spotify is generating revenue for them. Their best interest is to see Spotify be successful.

Alistair
Because (apart from YouTube) isn't Spotify paying some of the lowest royalties?
The labels would make more money from users migrating from Spotify to Apple Music/Google Play from the payout numbers I last saw.
Old 6 days ago
  #72
Gear Head
 
jj88's Avatar
 

Ek made his fortune by starting, running and selling companies as well as through the billions in annual funding ad sales the so called black box back alleyway undisclosed secret deals salaries bonuses speaking engagement fees etc. all of which at one time or another in one way or another revolves around piracy. He created the problem and provided the solution which is creating even more greater problems hence the vicious circle.

It has already been well established that both Utorrent and Spotify were initially built and publicly launched using illegal content obtained and provided by Ek and employees. Furthermore he used illegal content to rope in the major labels. The majors now own a stake in the circle. If it weren't for the illegal content then there would be no company in the first place. No personal $500 mil and no $8+ bil company to sell. No mansions, jets, sports cars, boats and so on. Be it real or just on paper Ek is so wealthy and famous now that he rarely if ever actually pays for anything at all. Actually he is getting paid millions just to prance around talking and consuming ****. Fame and fortune 101.

If you look at who is on the rosters and who funded who they've crossed paths throughout the history of all of these companies (and govts as well). Sure, Napster, Pirate Bay, Utorrent, Spotify, Facebook, BitTorrent etc. are totally different companies. In name only.

So ya want to be a musician do ya? Welcome to the vicious circle.
Old 6 days ago
  #73
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
No. Ek was Chief Executive Officer at uTorrent for 1 year. The original uTorrent platform "the #1 BitTorrent download client on desktops worldwide" was only in operation from their 2005 launch date until the end of 2006 when BitTorrent purchased the company for an undisclosed amount. The only record of the purchase amount I can find is $25,000,000. of funding used towards the purchase. So maybe comparatively it was just a small "fortune". Spotify launched in EARLY 2006 with the same people from uTorrent. Yes, much of his $400,000,000. fortune probably is "just on paper", as is yours and mine to a much much smaller degree. After all money has no value right, it's "just paper". Are you saying this valueless "paper" cant be spent?
On what planet is a CEO not a manager? And on what planet does a CEO get all the money when a company is sold? And if you do not understand the difference between speculative value based on speculative share value and real money, you really need to educate yourself.

Quote:
What's truly rubbish and ignorant is saying uTorrent circa 2005-2006 was not involved with theft and was not criminal. It wasn't merely "a client for a particular network protocol." ffs. Hilarious!
Yes it is merely a client for a network protocol. A torrent client maker does NOT host any files. uTorrent did not host illegal content. The individual users of the network host the files! They are the ones that (depending on what files they are sharing) are stealing and sharing illegal content. Not the people that make the client.

What you are doing is the equivalent of calling Microsoft (or Apple or anyone else) criminals because they wrote an email client and people discuss their criminal activity through email. It is utterly ignorant of how these things work.

Calling Daniel Ek a thief and a criminal is like calling the postal service criminal because people can use the postal service to send illegal drugs. Or calling car manufacturers criminals because people use cars to transport illegal drugs or dead bodies or whatever. It is like calling the department of transport criminals because people use roads to get to and from crime scenes. Calling Daniel Ek a thief and a criminal shows a complete lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of how the internet works and what does and does not constitute criminal behaviour.

Alistair
Old 6 days ago
  #74
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But on top of that you could of course argue that if it's technically truly peer-to-peer the company producing the software doesn't even see the content being transferred. So under what legal basis do you ascribe culpability here?
Indeed. uTorrent don't even see the content being shared and have no responsibility over it.

Alistair
Old 6 days ago
  #75
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nd33 View Post
Because (apart from YouTube) isn't Spotify paying some of the lowest royalties?
The deals between Spotify and the content providers are secret. The numbers you often see are based on what the artists receive which is only a fraction of what the labels receive.

IMO fighting for more transparency would be much more useful but guess who doesn't benefit from transparency...

Alistair
Old 6 days ago
  #76
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj88 View Post
Ek ... created the problem and provided the solution which is creating even more greater problems hence the vicious circle.
Ek did not invent the torrent protocol and even if he had, it isn't really the problem. The problem is that open data communication can not be controlled. Unfortunately there is no easy solution to this problem. The solutions being proposed here and elsewhere tend to be much worse than the problem.

Quote:
It has already been well established that both Utorrent and Spotify were initially built and publicly launched using illegal content obtained and provided by Ek and employees.
The only thing that has been established is that a lot of people don't understand the subject.


Alistair
Old 6 days ago
  #77
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
@UnderTow What a load of utter codswallop. Your philosophy on business, legal and ethical conduct is delusionally comical. Ek and accomplices are both criminal facilitators and in many instances the actual persons committing these crimes. The double whammy!
Old 6 days ago
  #78
Gear Maniac
 
hubba bubba's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
On what planet is a CEO not a manager? And on what planet does a CEO get all the money when a company is sold? And if you do not understand the difference between speculative value based on speculative share value and real money, you really need to educate yourself.



Yes it is merely a client for a network protocol. A torrent client maker does NOT host any files. uTorrent did not host illegal content. The individual users of the network host the files! They are the ones that (depending on what files they are sharing) are stealing and sharing illegal content. Not the people that make the client.

What you are doing is the equivalent of calling Microsoft (or Apple or anyone else) criminals because they wrote an email client and people discuss their criminal activity through email. It is utterly ignorant of how these things work.

Calling Daniel Ek a thief and a criminal is like calling the postal service criminal because people can use the postal service to send illegal drugs. Or calling car manufacturers criminals because people use cars to transport illegal drugs or dead bodies or whatever. It is like calling the department of transport criminals because people use roads to get to and from crime scenes. Calling Daniel Ek a thief and a criminal shows a complete lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of how the internet works and what does and does not constitute criminal behaviour.

Alistair

on planet earth at least, regardless of what roles one plays in the daily operations of a company, the word "manager" is nowhere to be found in the title of "chief executive officer". nobody said "a ceo gets all the money when a company is sold". ceos typically get the highest salary and indeed commissions, bonus packages and/or percentages of a sale be it in cash or stock depending on company infrastructure. any way you shake it, he profited from and made is fortune by both directly and indirectly peddling pirated content. period. speculative schmeculative.. "real money" has no value either and yet ek and cohorts still manage to obtain lots and lots of stuff with it huh. educate that.

"merely a client for a network protocol." really.. this again?!!!

"Ek was one of the pirate band. Before starting the company (spotify), he had briefly been the C.E.O. of uTorrent, which made money in part by monetizing pirated music and movies on BitTorrent, a major file-sharing protocol. Later, the Napster co-founder Sean Parker, for years Public Enemy No. 1 to record-company executives, joined forces with Ek."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...evenue-streams

as with your friend, its clear what your agenda is here. deflect with smoke and mirrors all you like, on planet earth its still thievery. bottom line, he and others within these companies made (and continue to make) their fortunes by stealing from others. career criminal is the spot on assessment.
Old 6 days ago
  #79
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
@UnderTow What a load of utter codswallop. Your philosophy on business, legal and ethical conduct is delusionally comical. Ek and accomplices are both criminal facilitators and in many instances the actual persons committing these crimes. The double whammy!
Clearly the legal system does not agree with your conclusions or he would be in jail. It is clear you don't understand how the technology works or you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense.

Alistair
Old 6 days ago
  #80
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubba bubba View Post
on planet earth at least, regardless of what roles one plays in the daily operations of a company, the word "manager" is nowhere to be found in the title of "chief executive officer".
In the English language (as opposed to American) the term for a CEO is General Manger. Look it up. And regardless of that, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that what a CEO does is manage a company.

Quote:
nobody said "a ceo gets all the money when a company is sold".
Then why mention the sale price of UTorrent?

Quote:
ceos typically get the highest salary and indeed commissions, bonus packages and/or percentages of a sale be it in cash or stock depending on company infrastructure.
Sure but if you have issues with the way capitalism works, this isn't really the right place to discuss it.

Quote:
"merely a client for a network protocol." really.. this again?!!!
Yes that again because it is crucial in understanding that Ek committed no crime. If you don't understand that, go and educate yourself on the topic of how a torrent network works and why he committed no crime.

Quote:
as with your friend, its clear what your agenda is here.
As an ex systems and networks architect, I actually understand the topic and why no crime was committed. You could shut up and learn and we could then move the discussion on to possible solutions to the problem of piracy but as long as ignorant fools spout over emotional drivel without understanding anything about the subject, we are stuck.

You and your peers are holding the discussion back!

Quote:
deflect with smoke and mirrors all you like, on planet earth its still thievery.
Clearly not or he would be in jail. You can keep screaming blue murder but it will not change anything and no judge will ever convict Ek as he has committed no crime. Anyone that understand the subject will just ignore such claims and the people making them because they know that they have not educated themselves on the topic and arguing with them is a waste of time. Is this what you want? To be for ever ignored by everyone that can maybe do something about it?

Alistair

Last edited by UnderTow; 6 days ago at 12:46 PM..
Old 6 days ago
  #81
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post

I have a copy of the contracts that the majors have with Spotify. Anyone interested can drop me a private message to get a copy. (Last time I offered this only one person was interested).
Maybe it’s because copies of those contracts have been readily exposed and available on various music biz blogs already. It’s not like it’s a big secret anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Streaming (and Ek) are not the problem and never were. They are the solution but the usual suspects on Gearslutz keep parroting the copyright lobby. A lobby that does NOT have the artists' best interest at heart. You guys have been fooled (time and again).

...

Not secret deals. Just reason. They stopped listening to the big copyright lobby propaganda machine because now they have the facts and numbers. They see that streaming is growing exponentially and generating revenue. They want to be part of that.
no secret deals, just reason . Right :
"Sources have told Music Ally that Spotify was in advanced discussions with Radiohead’s management company Courtyard and label XL Recordings about a deal to make A Moon Shaped Pool the first album to be windowed to premium subscribers on the service."
http://musically.com/2016/06/09/excl...indowing-plan/

Of course they are making deals and negotiations. Swift, Radiohead, Adele, etc.. they're powerful enough to demand a negotiation. And the terms are not to be made public.
I can't afford that. No indie label/artist can afford that.

What is this «*big copyright lobby propaganda machine «* you keep referring to ? Is it some occult organization with an aim to control the world ? Are their members endowed with superhuman telepathic powers or something like that ?
Oh wait, as an artist, I own the copyright of my music… Maybe I’m part of this occult organization without knowing it ! ( Well, now that I’ve blown my cover, yes we are a BIG propaganda machine. All your base belong to us. Surrender now ! )

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Spotify is not making a profit. They can NOT compensate artist more because they are already loosing money with the current fees. The vast majority of the revenue is going straight back to the labels. If the artists are not seeing this money, it is pretty obvious that the problem is not Spotify but the labels. Luckily, as streaming grows (for instance by bundling streaming subscriptions with mobile operator contracts in emerging markets in Africa and Asia, tapping into markets, especially Africa, that currently don't generate any revenue to speak of), the economies of scale should kick in and make it a profitable business for all involved. .
«*Spotify is not making a profit. They can NOT compensate artist more because they are already loosing money with the current fees. «*
Average annual salary for a Spotify employee : 168,747 $
Average annual salary for a Spotify Executive : 1,34 million $

Spotify’s average salary keeps rising—even as its losses mount

I wonder... Perhaps those salaries explain why there isn’t much left for artists…

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
That is, only if the artists and musicians wake up to who is really fleecing the profits. Otherwise everyone will be making profits except the artists and musicians whom will still be the sad victims of their own ignorance
I guess you’re referring to the Major labels and the fact that they are not paying their artists what they should. Perhaps then you ignore that you don’t have to be on a major label to get on Spotify or any streaming service. Any aggregator will get your music on them. Guess what… Indies are also getting the same chump change. The numbers are out there, plenty of indie artists have publicly shared their Spotify revenues. I have my own numbers in front of me as well, from my CDBaby and Tunecore dashboard. ( But oh wait, I’m part of the secret occult copyright propaganda machine, just as are all indie artists. )
If you want a real propaganda machine with real powers, look no further than Google. Guess who is the biggest Electronic Frontier Foundation financier : Google.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Then there is all the speculation about Ek's motives. Obviously they are made up as no one knows his motivations. Then there are the complaints about his estimated net worth. It is only a paper valuation because it is based on his Spotify shares and the market valuation of Spotify.
Right. I bet in reality he is living in a van with his old mother, and eating tuna cans every night to make ends meet at the end of the month.

How Women, Booze, And Money Made Spotify's CEO 'Completely Depressed'
Quote:
Ek decided to retire in 2006 after selling his online advertising company, Advertigo, for about $1.25 million.*He was just 23 years old.
As many young men his age might have done given the same privilege, Ek bought himself a Ferrari*and hung out in Stockholm nightclubs, where, The New Yorker reports, he got his friends expensive tables and wooed lots of attractive women with fancy champagne.
But a year of this lavish lifestyle wound up making Ek "completely depressed." He tells The New Yorker that many of the women he spent time with were not very nice and his friends were only using him for his money.
And that's when he was 23.

Quote:
Sean Parker lives in the Plaza Hotel, in a private residence in the northeast corner of the building, looking out at Fifth Avenue and Central Park South. The grand, high-ceilinged dining room has commanding views in both directions, and it was there that the thirty-four-year-old billionaire was sitting on a warm fall afternoon, dressed in jeans and rust-colored high-tops, drinking tea from a white china cup. It was a setting that would have impressed Edith Wharton, even if the owner’s attire might not have.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...evenue-streams

Nah, they certainly didn’t make any money from Napster, they just won the lottery or found a bag with a lot of bills inside, something like that….

Quote:
But now, artists are wising up that streaming is essentially a promotional vehicle for the real ways they make money — concert tickets and merchandise. Listening on Spotify can turn someone who heard one of TayTay’s singles on a radio into a hardcore fan that shells out lots of cash for her shows and t-shirts.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/08/taylor-swift-spotify/

This is the drum Spotify has been beating for years towards artists who complain. I still remember that.

Yup.. While Daniel Ek & friends are getting depressed because they've become too rich, have too many Ferraris, booze and women, we have to get wise and accept those 0,00000000000000000125 cents a stream, and start selling those t-shirts so that our Overlords can keep their depressing lifestyle.
Makes complete sense.

Last edited by spaceman; 6 days ago at 01:34 PM..
Old 6 days ago
  #82
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Yes it is merely a client for a network protocol. A torrent client maker does NOT host any files. uTorrent did not host illegal content. The individual users of the network host the files! They are the ones that (depending on what files they are sharing) are stealing and sharing illegal content. Not the people that make the client.
Napster did not host the files either but they got into big trouble. uTorrent skirted the laws by linking to trackers instead of providing a search engine within their software. Had they hosted the trackers themselves, they could have been sued/shut down. They were however complicit in the "file sharing" because they could have made a blacklist (which disabled the client from downloading files with certain names) but did not.

Same for Google. When you DMCA a link on their search engine they remove it but also provide a link to what was removed. Yes, it's on a third party site but they are skirting the law. This is the message you'll see:

Quote:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed X result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at LumenDatabase.org.
LumenDatabase.org is a link to a database page (I'd link to an example page but that would violate GS rules) that lists the removed sites. That way, a user can just search for whatever "shared files" they were looking for and find it. At one time, Google even included the street address for the people filing takedown notices. GOTTA LOVE GOOGLE, RIGHT?!?!?!

As far as the tech is concerned, I think it is solid. A genius idea to segment files among many users instead of the typical server/client distribution model. In fact, I wish more live streaming companies would adopt BitTorrent Live.
Old 5 days ago
  #83
Lives for gear
 
donsolo's Avatar
I just want to chime in and point out that the "they can't afford to pay more" argument is bunk.

I can't afford to pay more for a Jupiter 8, that doesn't mean it's ok if I go steal one. It doesn't mean it's ok if I create a captive market and exploit it to buy that Jupiter 8 at a ridiculously low cost.

The only reason venture capital backed spotify was because they were paying so little. It has the potential to be profitable at these rates, rates that I argue are exploitative.

We have minimum wage for a reason. Just because someone is willing to work for $.50/hr doesn't mean it's somehow ok to actually pay them that. If your business can't survive paying better rates (rates that Apple and Google pay for example) then you have no business being in business.
Old 5 days ago
  #84
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceman View Post
And the terms are not to be made public.
I can't afford that. No indie label/artist can afford that.
This is part of the problem. Hence my plead for transparency but the irony is that being independent is actually an advantage when in comes to streaming. See below.

Quote:
«*Spotify is not making a profit. They can NOT compensate artist more because they are already loosing money with the current fees. «*
Average annual salary for a Spotify employee : 168,747 $
Average annual salary for a Spotify Executive : 1,34 million $
The average pay package last year for a corporate executive was $22.6 million, up from $20.7 million in 2013, according to an analysis of companies' proxy disclosures by executive-compensation data firm Equilar.

If you have a problem with the way CEO's and IT specialists are paid, that is fine but this is not the place to discuss that. Spotify are just paying (below) the market value for these people.

Quote:
I guess you’re referring to the Major labels and the fact that they are not paying their artists what they should. Perhaps then you ignore that you don’t have to be on a major label to get on Spotify or any streaming service. Any aggregator will get your music on them. Guess what… Indies are also getting the same chump change. The numbers are out there, plenty of indie artists have publicly shared their Spotify revenues. I have my own numbers in front of me as well, from my CDBaby and Tunecore dashboard.
The problem is that the way the contracts between Spotify and the majors are written. The majors receive preferential treatment. They get paid more per stream than anyone else. That means that independent artists will be paid less.

Do you think this is fair? I am pleading for transparency so that this can not happen. What are you bringing to the discussion besides childish antics?

Quote:
And that's when he was 23.
Yes he was already rich before working for uTorrent or luanching Spotify. Thanks for proving my point.

Quote:
Nah, they certainly didn’t make any money from Napster, they just won the lottery or found a bag with a lot of bills inside, something like that….
We are not discussing Napster or Sean Parker. (Although apparently, according to several sources, Napster have the highest per play payment of all streaming services. you seem to be aiming your attacks at the wrong targets).

Quote:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/08/taylor-swift-spotify/

This is the drum Spotify has been beating for years towards artists who complain. I still remember that.
I find it ironic that people arguing against streaming services bring up Taylor Swift. Apparently she has a net worth of $280 million. Hardly the poster child for poor struggling musicians but it is even more ironic now as she has joined Spotify and all the other streaming services. This again just proves my point. Spotify makes money for artists and keeps making more money for them or she wouldn't want to be on that platform. She is a pretty savvy business woman (at least her team is) or she wouldn't have a net worth of $280 million. She (or her managers) have done the maths and chosen streaming including Spotify. You really think you know better than them?

You are fighting the wrong battles.

I also looked up some numbers about payment per play for the different streaming services. There are big differences and Spotify is not the best payer but nor is it the worst. They end up in the lower half of payments per play on some lists. Close to the top on some other lists. So again, you are attacking the wrong target.

What I also noticed is that for all these services, an unsigned artist gets 6 times as much per play compared to a signed artist. The streaming service isn't paying less (usually more actually) but somewhere between the payment and the artists, the money disappears. Guess who is pocketing it.

Numbers drawn from several sites but they are best summed up here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmci.../#29daae448cb7
How Much Do Music Artists Earn Online – 2015 Remix — Information is Beautiful
deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2<\/title><path d="M10,3.5l3-3,3,3Z" style="fill:%23fff;stroke:%23fff"/><path d="M0,3.5H10l3-3,3,3H26" style="fill:none;stroke:%231b3a4d"/><\/svg>')}.f_branding_on.blog-group-deadspin .editor-inner.post-content .pu


Alistair
Old 5 days ago
  #85
Gear Maniac
 
hubba bubba's Avatar
 

"Ek was one of the pirate band...he had briefly been the C.E.O. of uTorrent, which made money in part by monetizing pirated music and movies"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...evenue-streams

"Ek briefly became uTorrent’s chief executive while Strigeus began to build Spotify."

https://www.ft.com/content/ca45f6b8-...8-00144feab7de

"Spotify.com registered on April 23, 2006"


https://www.quora.com/Which-Came-Fir...or-Grooveshark


"Spotify CEO Daniel Ek originally worked with uTorrent creator Ludvig ‘Ludde’ Strigeus before the pair sold to BitTorrent Inc."

https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-be...te-bay-170509/

"Ludvig Strigeus (Ludde) is a Swedish programmer, best known for developing software such as the BitTorrent client µTorrent, OpenTTD, and Spotify... He currently works as a software engineer at Spotify."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Strigeus

"December 7, 2006, BitTorrent Inc just announced that it has acquired the popular BitTorrent client, uTorrent. Ludvig Strigeus, the writer of uTorrent will serve as a technical consultant"

https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-...%C2%B5torrent/


"Parker (Napster) invested US$15 million in Spotify. Parker currently serves on Spotify’s board"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_P...iredspotify-46


"Spotify Teardown – Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music"... “The entire Spotify beta period and its early launch history was propelled by the Pirate Bay,” ...“Spotify’s beta service was originally a pirate service.".. “It was distributed mp3 files that the employees uploaded from their hard drives.”

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/201...-investigator/

"It took a custom build of the program (Spotify) loaded with pirated tracks to finally convince record labels to sign up."


https://www.europeanceo.com/profiles...ustry-forever/

"The White House Just Joined Spotify: Listen to the President's Summer Playlist"

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ummer-playlist


"CNN: And what about you yourself? How do you consume music?

Ek: It's actually funny because I have two -- I probably shouldn't even admit this -- but I have two listening modes. One is obviously Spotify, but I've started becoming a bit of a vinyl buff so I actually listen to vinyl. There is something warm, and I just really enjoy vinyl. So I tend to buy a lot of vinyl records. I like it for the artwork but also for the warmness in sound."


Spotify founder: I'm not music industry's savior - CNN
Old 5 days ago
  #86
Lives for gear
 

I rarely resort to this, but.....
Old 5 days ago
  #87
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by donsolo View Post
I just want to chime in and point out that the "they can't afford to pay more" argument is bunk.

I can't afford to pay more for a Jupiter 8, that doesn't mean it's ok if I go steal one.
I don't think anyone here is saying that it's ok. As a matter of fact, I think everyone agrees with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donsolo View Post
It doesn't mean it's ok if I create a captive market and exploit it to buy that Jupiter 8 at a ridiculously low cost.
That's a reasonable argument. The question is what a person should aim for then. How about if we see if streaming could be a viable business, because the problem with the music industry is piracy. And maybe we can make a better product than piracy?

Does that sound like a reasonable goal?
Old 5 days ago
  #88
Gear Head
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
We are not discussing Napster or Sean Parker.
Wrong again. As has already been proven time and again, Napster's Sean Parker worked on, invested in and currently IS part of Ek's Spotify, so in this thread we are indeed discussing all of the above. They are one and the same.

But of course, as per usual you're resorting to word twisting, deflection and ignoring the evidence and blatant facts. Ignoring the obvious and established connections between all of these intertwined criminals and companies shows your true agenda. Frankly, your "ignorant uneducated childish antics" (NICE!) are very tired. The constant tit-for-tat, bogus English lessons, bunk theories, denial of facts, downplay and ridicule of others, blatant disinformation and flat out dismissal of proven facts is like speaking to stubborn toddlers, you and mattiasnyc.

You'll be joining him on the ignore list. Thanks!
Old 5 days ago
  #89
Lives for gear
 
latweek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ;

Does that sound like a reasonable goal?
I think the larger question when you step back and really look at who the culprit is, it's the customer. So the question to really solve is, what music product would a customer willingly choose to pay for today?

Must it be in physical format like a limited run, or with amazing packaging/artwork, in order to perceive value? Must it be a niche where a community "contributes" because they want to support their particular brand? In other words, remove the conflict and provide a solution where the customer is looking to pay as much as it costs, as they do today for technological dribble like smartphones, watches, and games, etc.

I think it comes down to the "exclusivity" that one creates, unfortunately. All I know, is some crazy folks are paying like $30 for vinyl re-issues of "Seven and the Ragged Tiger" down at the Amoeba last time I checked. Nutz.
Old 5 days ago
  #90
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 121 View Post
Wrong again. As has already been proven time and again, Napster's Sean Parker worked on, invested in and currently IS part of Ek's Spotify, so in this thread we are indeed discussing all of the above. They are one and the same.
By one and the same do you mean the one that pays artists the most according to forbes?
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump