"Spotify is the second largest source of digital music revenue for labels in Europe and, by launching into one of the world’s largest music territories [i.e. Germany], is about to get bigger."
In conversation at SXSW http://soundcloud.com/danielterdiman/sounds-from-wednesday-1
Napster founders Sean Parker and Shawn Fanning told a SXSW audience that though services and technologies like Spotify and iTunes make it easy for music lovers to discover and download vast collections of songs online, they are still behind what Napster originally offered.
Nah. It was the only time I've ever paid for non-physical music. About five album's worth. Then it closed down.
-massive catalogue (especially in the context of 6+ years ago).
-no pissing about with proprietary download programs.
-no daft drm.
-actual mp3 files, rather than attempting to impose a self-chosen format.
-no world regional restriction bullshit.
-charged per MB, so you could get low quality for cheap or pay for quality.
-claimed to pay /some/ money to artists via whatever russian royalty rules they claimed they were adhering to. more than megaupload have ever claimed, afaik. could all be bull, but i wouldn't be surprised if artists somehow ended up doing better out of that than they do out of spotify, or maybe even amazon/itunes. maybe.
illegal downloads that you have to pay for.
but 6+ years ago megaupload etc weren't around, and it was all about the torrenting, p2p, and all that pissing about which i have never managed to be arsed with bothering with it (not to mention the fact that this was in the leaky internet explorer pre xp sp3 era when viruses and malware were seemingly lurking around every corner).
allofmp3 was slick and simple. which is sometimes something worth paying for. same as spotify, which is legit, but gives effectively zero to artists.
not really sure what my point is here, other than to say that 'the industry' shut something useful down, that people were paying money for, but didn't put anything in it's place.
I'm assuming record companies at least are getting more from spotify than from allofmp3 as they tried to close down the latter and are happy to sign deals with the former. If artists are getting less then they need to sign better deals.
it's coming to New Zealand very very soon apparently, yay! (which I assume means a lot of other smaller countries that aren't the UK and US will be getting it also) http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5996144/Cheap-music-service-coming-to-NZ
*Now* I can move back to NZ from the UK and still get my music.
It just seems strange to have any feeling either way. Why does them being based in London make any difference to you?
i've done a little precis of it http://seaninsound.tumblr.com/post/19568527366/sean-parker-shawn-fanning-sxsw
how come video sites like Lovefilm and Netflix etc have to pay upfront licensing fees to host content for streaming, but Spotify doesn't? I think that's the way it needs to go. It'd pretty much shut everyone up as well.
with distributors through other means. Typically cinema gets first release, Pay-TV gets second, LoveFilm mostly has a second pay-TV window deal, then DVD, cable, Sky, itunes, etc follow.
Music on the other hand has a single date of release to tie in with radio/TV/live promotion so there's no period of exclusivity (although Coldplay did try the inverse approach by delaying the streaming release)
and is obvs to do with the historical way in which the different types of content have been distributed and consumed.
but we're moving to a time now in which distribution models are more similar than ever, so it makes some degree of sense.
but would argue that the move needs to be in the other direction - I can choose how I want to access music on release, why can't I choose how I want to access a movie? I'm restricted to a new release model created around production times for redundant media formats.
Spotify had to give a share of their company to the major labels (and the indies shuffled in behind them)
at least I think this actually happened 
I still buy all my music physically and will do so until it's no longer available in a physical format.
I guess I'd diagnose Compulsive Listening Disorder as characterised by:
1. No appreciation of the album format nor ability to listen to one album in its entirety in one sitting
2. (A related) preoccupation with 'shuffling'
3. The inability to return to, absorb and grow to love a single release (by which I mean multiple deliberate plays over a contracted period such as weeks or months)
4. A music acquisition rate far exceeding the rate of listening, such that the gap between what is 'owned' and what is listened to is ever enlarging
I actually listen to my music via digital formats (i.e. in itunes, or if that didn't exist something else like MediaMonkey) but am not beholden to any specific mode of digital delivery, but I guess I take a 'physical' attitude to my mode of listening.
I still prefer cds to vinyl because you don't have to get up to turn the thing over (auto-reverse on cassettes was marvellous for dealing with that little issue).
I would imagine a lot of DiSers feel the same.
Don't listen to digital music any differently to how I listen to CDs. That is, primarily by repeat playing of full albums, with the occasional session of making mixes from across artists/albums (this is a whole lot easier with digital music though). When I started really buying CDs I used to buy several a week (massive student loan payments wahey!), sometimes in multiple weekly sessions. I distinctly remember having a couple of piles of CDs on my desk: pile one would be CDs I'd bought but not yet listened to (at all), which usually numbered around about 20; pile two would be another 10-15 that I'd listened to a couple of times but hadn't got a handle on yet. After that they went into the general shelf.
It's theoretically easier to acquire silly amounts of music (i.e. beyond my capability to listen to it), but I don't do it any more because I've ceased to be silly. Hasn't got anything to do with the medium.
It might affect some people, but it isn't inherent to the respective media. This is just sales talk from a shop. (aside: also must laugh at their self-description as an `independent` source of advice or filter/curator of music - let's see some recommendations of things that you aren't selling in your shop then eh?)
but it isn't how everyone is. he wasn't trying to pigeon-hole everyone!
the stream of what people are listening to down the side of my Spotify just shows people darting from one act to the next, so his theory is not without grounding.
and Spotify is fucking Wix Malix.
Fuck iTunes. iTunes hates our troops. Spoti fooooooooooooiiiiiiezzz!!