Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by j1elo 2358 days ago
> in early 2016, we were required to cut off streaming to listeners outside the US and Canada

I didn't fully understand who it was that required 8tracks to stop streaming abroad, but I wholeheartedly hate them so much. It was my preferred music service, I loved discovering all sorts of playlists and new music, while I've always disliked the Spotify client.

To see it dissappear, probably due to greed from royalty owners somewhere, was a loss. Now it's all just random Youtube mixes, but it is not the same.

I also used some other site that tuned music according to a chosen "mood"... but cannot recall the name right now. Stereomood, maybe?

3 comments

A tragedy, these laws were created to promote art and nowadays are exclusively used to hide and destroy it.
No, these laws were created to promote art being paid for.

This sort of worked! But maximizing the payout ≠ maximizing the breadth of distribution. It often is more lucrative to segment the market, only sell to those who is ready to pay more than a pittance, and never try to sell for cheaper to a wider audience. It's especially true for digital goods that can be perfectly moved around the globe in under half a second of latency.

They were created "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Allowing creators to monetize their work is a means towards getting more creative work produced, not an end in itself.
Ironically, yes. That's the net effect. Not only for what sunks today, but also for what never gets to be, because they evaluate the current state of things and decide that it's not worth the effort trying to innovate in that area.
Probably GEMA or some overbearing rights organizations (though it would be probably "we have to stop in X countries, not only keep in US/Canada)
> due to greed from royalty owners somewhere

Expecting to be paid for your content is greed?

Locking your content out of a country because you don’t care enough to make a monetization deal there, sure.