| record labels don't try to partner and monetise sites like Mixcrate. When it comes to music streaming, with few exceptions record labels do not "partner," they dictate terms. The mere implication that Mixcloud should have any leverage in a negotiation of this type is anathema to the industry. A large number of folks uploading mixes to Mixcrate would be amateur, making no money from whatever promotional value using a track may give them The industry doesn't care about the failures of the bedroom DJ. It's just not a substitute for anything that labels are selling. In fact, the opposite is true, that people are much more likely to go and buy a track because the mix helped them discover it. Eliminating the thin edge of the wedge of ceding any copyright control is more important. The first rule about the music industry is that being a landowner in copyright country takes precedence over the desires of music fans. There is much lip service designed to counteract this perception, but if you look at the history and actions of the industry its priorities come clear. Sites like Mixcrate closing down kills two revenue streams for labels What revenue? People don't spend money on this stuff for a few reasons, one of which is because DJ mixes are so numerous, and another is "because they can't." The tracklists that would provide the names of songs for a listener to purchase currently have extremely low coverage, partially due to the litigiousness of the industry. The industry also resists the idea of having universal identification codes (cf. ISRC) that would make any of this more practical. 2) a direct licensing model. These are rare, and you have to be Pandora-sized to get them from the BigN cartel. |