Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Why is music still sold like this?

Why isn't everything digital sold like apps?

What's the point of these middlemen?

iTunes provides the store and artist provides the product. In 2013 why does capitalism and technology allow this to occur




It is available and it's called bandcamp. I said it before but I think it's a superb platform for musicians and listeners alike.

iTunes / Apple takes the curated approach with their catalogue, they obviously don't want you there unless you're signed to a label. That is fine - let's not act as if iTunes is the holy grail of music distribution - I'd argue that if you aren't big enough to get into iTunes without another middle men you're very unlikely to make any sales there either - especially as a small indie artists. It caters to casual listeners of popular music.

Bandcamp on the other hand is for enthusiasts actively seeking for obscure music. Depending on your audience you might be a lot better served there.


When I was reading this, I was asking myself the same questions. Unbelievable that a musician can't just upload a song to iTunes. I thought that was one of the huge driving factors of digital music distribution, breaking down the old barriers? I don't use iTunes, but apparently I missed something - sounds like the music industry hasn't changed much after going digital.


I think Apple was/is scared of "unprofessional" music. Apple doesn't want to be the YouTube of music. Not allowing shitty (or pirated!) music is a hard problem to solve. A bunch of suits and contracts does a decent job because not many people are going to take the time if they just want to troll.


So, how does Distrokid factor in to this? After reading, I had the impression that anybody with $20 could upload their music via Distrokid... is the idea that the annual fee is supposed to be a filter to prevent shitty music? Pirated music is one thing, but 'shitty music' seems a bit tougher to police.


pud said in an earlier post that there's a propietary spam filtering system in there that he's understandably reluctant to share details on.


A spam filter is different than an "amateur" or "unprofessional" filter though. I don't see how it could protect against that.


Who decides what shitty is? Well, just listen to Gagnam style and compare it with others. Everybody is different. And the tastes are different, too.


Agreed. Good music is 100% subjective, good apps are at least partially objective.


Not allowing shitty (or pirated!) music is a hard problem to solve.

As others have said, shitty is entirely subjective.

But pirated is a really easy problem to solve. Just run it through an identifier like Echoprint.

http://echoprint.me/


> As others have said, shitty is entirely subjective.

I strongly disagree that shitty is entirely subjective. Contextually, "shitty" could mean music recorded on a cell phone, or tracks that were 2 seconds long, or tracks that have been transcoded 7 times and sound like they're being played from a walkie-talkie at the bottom of a well.

I can understand why a music platform might want to enforce some standards of professionalism or technical competency, even if they didn't want to do so for matters of taste.


or tracks that are actually completely stolen. this is a HUGE problem on BeatPort. DJs take 90s house records and just change the speed do a small edit and then release it as their own production. and BeatPort releases it. I have many friends who are furious because their music has been blatantly stolen.


They literally do the same thing with apps. Pay a yearly fee and you're good.


A yearly fee AND every single app has to go through an approval process.


Which just weed out competition with what they have/will have. Fart apps pass just fine.


initially it was very difficult to get on iTunes unless your label was big enough for Apple to deal with. or if your indie label could work with their own indie distributor (Caroline etc.) to do a deal with Apple.

then came TuneCore which became the middle man to make it easy for both sides. this was great and empowering. but they have a big yearly fee.

it is possible to deal directly with Apple but its actually a significant value add to go through a middleman and reduce the labor and billing complications.


A few year ago I worked for a company that offered a similar service, but was more focused on labels than individual artists. Even though iTunes, Amazon, Spotify and Play may be there big ones there are 100s of music stores, plus ring tones, call back tones, lyrics sites, user generated content sites (youtube, vimeo etc) etc that need to get the latest content, either the music or just the metadata. There are new sites springing up and dying regularly.

When a site starts up, they don't need to go cut individual deals and setup the transfer technology with every label and artist. They can approach a few companies like the one I worked for, write a plugin and get a huge amount of content right away. The labels don't want to monitor every site that starts up and send content and handle royalties. They could set usage rules and the content would be sent to the appropriate sites.

Once sites get huge like iTunes, they cut their own deals with the major labels. But without services like this there is no way small artists and music sites could ever survive, it would be far too time consuming.


> In 2013 why does capitalism and technology allow this to occur

I'd ask why music is sold at all when people will freely distribute it for you, and marginal costs are gone.

The answer to both cases, though, is legislation. Tons of law around recording, labels, etc that make it even if Apple wanted to be kind and play nice it is probably a legal morass to let anyone sell music next to labels.

Though the more likely case is that the middleman exist because they are powerful. Apple couldn't have launched itunes and had the success they did by trying to ignore labels - when all the popular bands are on labels, and new musicians think they need a label to be successful, Apple has to play ball with that mindset.

And mindsets change slowly. Expectations will evolve much slower than technology. It is the same reason apps took 15 years past the launch of the Internet to come to fruition, because moving past pieces of plastic in ones hand took some time.


If iTunes et al solely deal with distributors/publishers, then they can pass all copyright concerns onto them - there's a vetted company/organization (which presumably must be a legally-formed entity).

As someone else pointed out, they don't want to become the "YouTube of Music" - but I suspect it's more because they want to avoid all of the copyright issues that come with such a mantle. No need to be sued or worry about DMCA so much etc.


There are multiple music store providers and a musician should have presence in all of them.

It seems that DistroKid solves this problem by uploading the music to all the music stores (not really all atm but maybe they will get there). This way musicians doesn't need to study what kinds of hoops they need to hop through to get included in any of the stores.


It will change eventually. Responsive web albums are just a matter of time.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: