
How Apple Influenced The Labels To Shut Down My Music Streaming Startup - meeper16
https://medium.com/@492727ZED/steve-jobs-made-warner-music-sue-my-startup-9a81c5a21d68
======
dxhdr
I read this half asleep and a little inebriated but it seemed to evolve into
some kind of bizarre self-aggrandizing pitch on how this Kasian Franks is a
super-human with deep hard-to-duplicate knowledge and insights spanning
multiple important and lucrative industries. Almost some kind of cred piece
bolstered by his proxy encounter with Steve Jobs. Weird.

~~~
hamburglar
I agree, although I think he sort of predisposed me to this attitude right off
the bat with the desperate-seeming link to google results that are supposed to
prove people called them an "itunes killer" (note: I could not find a single
instance of anyone referring to them as an "itunes killer" in any of those
results).

~~~
rimantas
Being called "{Apple product there} killer" never turned out to be good for
the "killer" involved.

~~~
Polecat
Or anything "killer" in general. As evident by every MMORPG that is coming out
being the "World of Warcraft killer" an then disappearing into obscurity after
a few months of hype while WoW keeps on going.

------
guelo
They were crawling the web for mp3s the same way that Google does. Though
admittedly Google hides the mp3s much better nowadays then they used to. And
the web is way more balkanized into all these corporate walled gardens so
there are fewer free roaming mp3s on random websites as there used to be. But
technically it was a search engine the same as Google.

It always bothers me that this area of the law seems to be entirely based on
judges' interpretation of the purpose of a UI. A UI is illegal if it guides
the user towards the illegal action. If it is possible to perform the illegal
action but the user has to put in a little thought into how to accomplish it
then the UI is legal. Google can't have a file-type search box with an mp3
option but if users know the right incantation they can achieve the same
thing. So we have lawyers telling us how we can build UIs. It seems wrong and
like a dangerous slippery slope.

~~~
notahacker
I was under the impression that the UI was pretty incidental in most judges'
interpretations that platforms used _mainly_ to locate copyrighted material
were on shakier ground than platforms which incidentally, and despite
ostensibly significant efforts on the part of developers to limit it, could be
used to locate copyright material. It's not like Google doesn't get hit by
content-provider lawsuits either, it's just that they're big enough to usually
get a settlement agreed on favourable terms and far too big to be bankrupted
by legal costs, which is a wider and more general problem with litigation.

Ironically I'm writing this listening to YouTube streaming in the background:
a far superior free way to locate and listen to music without paying for it
than most of the early pirate platforms ever could have hoped to be.

~~~
kenrikm
When people think of "copyrighted" material they usually think Songs, Movies
etc. However if you stop and think about it most content on the web is
copyrighted, from the news articles you search for to images and websites
themselves. With that in mind Google also is used "mainly to locate
copyrighted material"

~~~
zaroth
Hosted by the copyright holder. A crucial distinction!

~~~
x0x0
And, in the case of websites, _almost always shared with the copyright
holders' permission_.

------
dangero
I kept waiting for the payoff, but the article never gave proof that Steve
Jobs was behind it. Sounds to me like what happened is that Steve when
negotiating with Warner Brothers said something like, "How can you charge us
those rates for your music when I have a whole list of places online that have
it for free?" At which point Warner said, "We'll take care of those. So the
rates can stand."

~~~
meeper16
Fairly clear here: "During one of these breaks I was by myself in the office
of the CTO. He came in and we chatted about the state of technology and music.
I then thought to ask a question of which the answer would shed light on the
real reason behind the litigation and contention technology companies share
with old media companies. I asked Howie, why is it that Warner chose to sue
SeeqPod? He said that they maintained a short list of companies and we were on
top of that list. I then asked how we wound up on the list and at the top.
This is when he mentioned that Steve Jobs had held meetings with several
labels including Warner and disagreed with streaming music services like
SeeqPod and that companies like ours would inhibit a deal between Apple and
the labels, so they collectively decided to keep a running list of “problem”
companies that need to be “addressed” by Warner. It was at this point I
realized we were not in a fight with the labels but in a proxy war waged by
Apple against innovative music technology companies."

~~~
geofft
Yeah, you can interpret that the way that dangero did. I think the interesting
thing there is that streaming music services of that era (including Internet
radio) were generally unlicensed and operating on slightly-questionable
interpretations of copyright law that had them paying nothing. So, if Jobs'
complaint was that there are these other companies that weren't paying a cent,
and could play music anyway (including on Jobs' devices), that would "inhibit
a deal" because it wouldn't be rational for Apple to pay either.

Depends, as always, what "innovative" means. Are cities against innovation in
transportation? If the innovative thing is ignoring regulations that nobody
else has thought to ignore, then yes, of course they are. (As with copyright,
it's not obvious that the regulations are _good_ , but they are what's on the
books.)

------
npp
This article reminds me of a lot of what Dalton Caldwell spoke about in his
talk about why not to start a music startup at a Startup School in the last
several years.

This business seems to have been run and have proceeded horribly, for the
exact reasons that Caldwell and everyone else with experience in that area
seems to be extremely familiar with.

Is there anything legitimately interesting to the "Apple" and "Steve Jobs"
parts of this story other than the usual clickbait?

~~~
marrs
I found it interesting to see how - if the story is true - your enemies may
not be who they appear to be. He thought the labels hated his business whereas
they may have actually been quite partial to it in slightly different
circumstances. That's useful to know for when your circumstances change.

------
72deluxe
" If I could compile and debug kernel issues along with X11 X86Config files
with assistance from a good friend at the QNX-based Caprica Internet in LA and
the 2-person Slackware “helpdesk” on the East Coast every few days then I’d be
able to continue to test NCSA webserver over SLIP and PPP to deliver
electronic faxes with a web interface for the Mosaic Browser for a sugar
company in Marin County to save them a few thousand a month in fax fees to
China. "

How does one "debug" X11 config files? I had to do that when it hated my
monitor and rubbish graphics card but that sentence appears like complete and
utter rubbish.

EDIT: For clarification for those disposed to downvote, looking through an
XF86 config file is not rocket science.

~~~
IshKebab
Maybe modern Xorg config files are not rocket science, but surely you remember
the days of manually listing video modes, and trying endless combinations of
video drivers. Hell I think you even needed to add special directives to get
three button mice to work properly.

Fortunately those days are gone, but you definitely _could_ debug xf86 config
files.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
It wasn't so much debugging as it was laying our your video card and monitor
manual, listing the config file and making sure all the little numbers match
up.

~~~
nitrogen
The coolest thing one could do with a legacy XF86 config and a CRT monitor was
invent new "overclocked" video modes. I had one monitor that was rated for
1280x1024 running at 1600x600 to match another monitor for a Xinerama setup.

------
lectrick
So they intelligently crawled the web for music files to download which
were... not purchased.

The reason why they failed is because they, like many others, were
"nebulously/quasi legal." (You know what was ALSO awesome yet not legal or
respectful of creator pay?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiogalaxy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiogalaxy)
.) At least Apple was trying to make it all legit. They did start with DRM
(note: no longer the case for years) but this was to make the record companies
more comfortable with it.

The reason why SeeqPod was sued is because Warner Music (and others) had a
case. It was not a purely frivolous, harassing lawsuit.

------
milesskorpen
". I also spent time through the years developing algorithms and predictive
analytics associated to uncovering patterns in historical stock market data. "

A bizarre comment — did he expect to see it coming? How does this relate to
the story at hand? "Somehow, even someone as sophisticated as me, didn't see
the downturn coming" ... if he could predict any kind of change in the stock
industry better than investing professionals he wouldn't be running a
questionably-legal streaming startup.

~~~
TheCowboy
He's expressing that he didn't see it coming:

    
    
      Even with this knowledge base I failed to pay attention to what I knew was a deep systematic fissure in the financial markets signaled by the fall of Bear Stearns. I was focused on user acquisition, growth and resolving litigation as opposed to revenue, a mistake when the Black Swan appears.
    

He's not claiming to have the ability to time markets perfectly. He had enough
experience where he might have some awareness of the bigger economic and
financial picture. He's saying that even people in the financial industry were
caught off guard, especially investing professionals who are key to keeping
startups funded.

I found this context to be the most interesting part in addition to the role
of how companies behaved in an oligopolistic way.

It could also be taken as an argument for greater financial transparency, or
recognizing that the stability of the financial sector is another risk to
startups and innovation.

~~~
nsgi
It doesn't seem to say whether he had any further success with that approach,
other than predicting one event which may have been a coincidence.

------
JustSomeNobody
"We had 50M monthly active users and 250M searches every month. Steve Jobs
told the labels, including Warner Music, to sue us. So they did and for $40B.
How do I know? I know because Steve Jobs gave them a list of music streaming
sites that were competitive threats to iTunes, and told them to take care of
it."

Citation needed. Or did I miss it amongst the self-aggrandizing?

~~~
agentultra
He named an engineer at Warner Music as his source.

~~~
jasonlotito
The "engineer" being Howie Singer, the CTO of Warner Music.

------
musesum
I saw Kasian Franks speak at a meetup in Oct 2007. A friend suggested that I
check out SeeqPod since I had worked at an earlier music streaming startup. As
I recall, he made a negative comment about the labels, near the end. His
position seemed precarious. Warner sued a couple months later.

------
brianmcconnell
TL;DR Music technology startups suck.

~~~
danieltillett
This is not a very HN comment even if true.

~~~
kowdermeister
It's a brianmcconnell comment. Why should anybody act like a hive mind? His
comment is quite true. I been there, done that.

~~~
danieltillett
Yes we know, but we are supposed to not be negative here even if what is said
is true :)

------
amelius
Hint: when you start a service solving a _very generic_ problem, you have a
big chance of being outmaneuvered by a competitor.

~~~
morganvachon
He touches on that when he goes into his background. He worked on a project in
the mid 90s that was duplicated by a competitor and sold to Yahoo.

 _" I then moved to Sun Micro-Electronics (SME) and that’s where I learned one
of my most valuable lessons. I began to build and ship the first HTTP-based
(yes, this was a thing back then) stock ticker and called it DigitalTrader in
1996 ([http://goo.gl/dQzPTC](http://goo.gl/dQzPTC)) It was built in Tcl/Tk and
Java/Tk. It auto-updated itself and crawled Quote.com and Yahoo for data. Six
months later a competitor duplicated it and Yahoo bought them and put us out
of business overnight. Lesson learned: realize when you are doing something
that is easily duplicated. "_

~~~
amelius
This is something else. A ticker tape is a niche product (not what I would
call "generic"). Also, the lesson learned is about something which is easily
duplicated, and this does not have to apply (in general) to a generic product.

------
jevgeni
Whoever uses "analyzation" publicly deserves to have a failed start up.

------
Libermentix
I actually like the second part of the article a lot more intriguing where he
talks about his and the company's personal background. It's these stories that
inspire to start a company.

------
phkahler
Being a search engine for independents seems like a good idea. It's another
area where eliminating anonymity can help. The problem for someone in that
business is people putting stuff they don't own into the system and getting
them sued. By making people more accountable that problem should go away.

People on the web today are not really anonymous and not really identifiable
either. I think we need to fix both of those problems.

------
tantalor
Can somebody with background on the law please explain how this is or isn't an
anti-competitive practice? i.e., Warner Bros sues Apple's rival at Apple's
request.

~~~
InfiniteEntropy
Because in America its only anti-competitive if you can't pay off the people
who decide if it is.

~~~
s73v3r
Care to point out where this guy's startup was paying royalties for the music
streamed?

------
billpg
I'd feel smug about my choice of cell phone but Samsung sponsored the
Olympics.

------
JohnyLy
This is why large companies should be more regulated. They should not be able
to put pressure on labels or producers and get all the benefits. What Apple
did by killing this startup is not ethical. Plus, by killing it, they tried to
get a monopole. Microsoft got so many fines at the time because they had the
monopole on PCs. If a large company tries to destroy startups just because
they feel threatened, they should be penalised the same way Microsoft did
(With huge fines) or I think of another way: forcing large companies to work
with startups instead of shutting them down.

~~~
jevgeni
1\. Apple was not a monopoly at that time. 2\. How do you rigorously tell,
which company is big and which is small? 3\. This is a competitive market and
ethics is not something that should be regulated. If people have a problem
with a company's ethics, they should just stop using their products.

~~~
zlnimda
Ethics and moral is regulated in some countries, because it's part of the law.
USA are so retarded on that point, that's all.

And people who buys Apple products doesn't care what could do that company
just because they are inspired by all the ads and hype around their products.

~~~
rimantas
I'd argue that Apple has done more positive and socially responsible thing
than many other big (and small) companies. And generally people buy Apple
products because they are great products. You can only fool once with
advertising, however people keep using Apple.

