For starters, Google: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=major%20labels%20invest%...

Doesn't take long at all to find out that the deals struck with majors included not a decent percentage, but actually ownership. Ownership means access to a revenue stream — good for labels, bad for artists who don't receive royalties on investment revenue.

Go beyond that one Google search, you can quickly learn that indie labels — the folks who win more than half the Grammys — don't get the same arrangement. So the music one their labels actually subsidizes the competition. They're not all that happy about that.

And lastly: artists. You can listen to them. Plenty are outspoken. For every Metallica getting onstage with Spotify there are many others essentially saying that they receive nothing — and that makes sense because the payouts are designed to work at scale, not at the level most working musicians operate.

Saying all this without judgement. I think the streaming market could be a good one for artists if it were more geared to driving direct purchases — but thinking about it as the answer is a problem. It's the start of exposure, like radio used to be, not the end goal.

Open source by itself isn't a tax-exempt action, but for many it's an important part of releasing free software for the public benefit. Services for the public benefit that are open to all can generally be framed as tax-exempt activity, but the lawyers at the IRS who review 501(c)(3) applications are tax attorneys, not software/tech specialists so a lot of confusion ensues.

Our review came back arguing that providing open source software is not only non-exempt, but actually provides a competitive advantage in the market because some companies would be paying for the same service, therefore they are at a disadvantage — even though they would have the same access to that free software as anyone.

Talking to other nonprofit directors and experts it seems like the arguments around open source are inconsistent at best. It makes sense because the IRS generally fast-tracks more common arguments and passes off specialty cases (think software) to individual reviewers. As enough case-law builds up they'll provide a more consistent decision based on internal protocols.

Out of the scope of your question, but the end result for us is that we're doing a bunch of legal wrangling, establishing more outreach and education efforts (which were always part of our mission) and getting ready to re-apply by year's end. It's not unrealistic to think a full ten years will pass from the start of the organization to the point where we get 501(c)(3) status.

My own organization is a nonprofit startup. Our 501(c)(3) application took four and a half years in review. During that time we had no final status so rule out most foundational support and as a nonprofit there's no equity investment either. Essentially we had to scrape for what help we could find little by little without much to offer in return. Luckily we're in a high-profile space (music) so we could return enough PR while building.

The IRS eventually denied our application for status. It's not uncommon, especially in the open-source space, but luckily we now have a major law firm representing us pro bono, we hold credible domestic nonprofit status (at the state level) and we've build up enough of a reputation. We're still cut off from most grant-making, but we're finding ways to be creative.

My point is that the administration of the organization itself is no trivial matter, and it's especially difficult to carve out a space for yourself as a nonprofit if you don't fit a traditional nonprofit mold. (And innovation in the nonprofit space is vital — both in the models and the regulation. Sadly the latter lags behind.)

Not a complaint at all, but I'd definitely argue that the differences are many. And for nonprofit startups without a 501(c)(3) you're going to face a challenge, even if you're supported by a fiscal sponsor. It's similar waters for sure, but a whole different ocean.

Fully saturated rich black (100% C+M+Y+K) is usually a little too jarring against a bright stock — take a look at most high quality books and notice that the stock is off-white and the ink isn't nearly as rich as #000 black on screen.

I think the original point as a lot of merit. Staying even just a little bit further from #000 or even pure grays (try #335, etc) can give more even tones and keep contrast high while reducing fatigue.

You're right about comparing art to print though — different goals, even though the conclusion is valid.

Pandora pays a compulsory streaming rate. Similar to radio they're allowed to play what they like as long as it's not on-demand. Hence you can only skip so many times, and you can't request a specific song. They pay both publishing and performance royalties so rightsholders for the publishing and recording get paid.

Spotify, as an on-demand streaming service, has to negotiate direct deals with rightsholders to use the music. So when you see them paying out a lower rate than Pandora it's because they've traded equity to major labels in exchange for better rates — a very clever way for majors to get money directly from subscribers without needing to distribute it to artists. Independent labels and musicians also need to authorize Spotify, but have less negotiating power so they don't get ownership stakes and have to choose to be completely absent from the system or take the rate offered them.

Pretty exciting stuff, and I can't wait to see what they do next.

Yes there are a lot of really bad record labels, but the hard working people at Sub Pop, Domino, Mom+Pop, and dozens of other indies are integral to the success of artists. Marginalizing them or even playing devil's advocate claiming all they do is content creation is silly. It's akin to saying all Facebook does is "make a website."

The music industry is far more complex than people assume — so while massive change is certainly needed, thinking that a simple HN upvote system is remotely related to the work of a label is silly.

Vilifying all labels based on the majors is like vilifying all startups on the behavior of only Oracle or Google.

The original lawsuit brought by Universal is quite a bit more serious: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57332246-261/grooveshark-e...

I'd say that Apple's 30% is a commission based on the sales and service they offer, and yes it's worth it...especially given the market position and the fact that there's verification of IP ownership, etc. But in the end the app itself belongs to the creator, just as the music belongs to the artist (or label, depending on the deal.)

Seems a bit like perspective, but it goes deeper: if the music belongs to the artist who created it then they should have the right to pull it from a service and expect reasonable effort to keep it out of the service — YouTube's content ID does a commendable job. (Though it is abused by some of the majors...but the algorithm itself is really solid.)

And yes, some labels make money off of the backs of artists, some are really great and make money with artists. Just like some streaming services work out licensing deals before launching a service and others don't.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111512

I've spoken with a lot of label heads from the more influential names on the list and they were in no way okay with being listed, some actively upset by Grooveshark providing a bad list. The comments echo that, albeit with too much hostility at times.

As for rude: you just demonstrated it. If you think you're giving away 70% of "your money" you don't get it. You're getting a 40% commission of THEIR MONEY. Your money has been made of the backs of creators, and to turn around and call those indie label executives shitheads doesn't endear you to anyone no matter how many concerts you go to.

The only accusations being made, not by me, are the ones in the lawsuit: which claim that Grooveshark executives were uploading content illegally to their own system. If true this is one of the more offensive things I've ever seen from a startup.

I'd also keep an eye on eMusic. It's more geared towards downloads, but they offer a lot of really great editorial content for discovery plus they offer multiple streaming radio stations for members. They've got smart people so I think they might make a surge in features.

A lot of people are into MOG.com as well. I have issues with their CEOs attitude towards licenses and how the money goes to creators, but otherwise the catalog is strong and they offer solid access across multiple platforms.

Everyone in this industry understands playing fast and loose with regulations but Grooveshark repeatedly crossed the line and has made only hollow attempts at seeing artists compensated. For once this isn't RIAA greed, it's acceptable and appropriate action.