Comment on YSK: Deezer, the music streaming service, is owned by a company whose Founder and CEO is a Russian Oligarch with connections to the Kremlin and donates to the American Republican party.

mitram@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• joyjoy@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Looks like new sign ups are paused right now, but it’s definitely something to keep an eye on.

  source
• daw@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Its not even a flatrate

  The pricing looks like its stacking quick if you do neither listen to the same songs over and over or entirely new ones, i dont know if I find the pricing fair for the consumer.

  source

  • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yeah this is not a transparent pricing model. You start at $0.025 and “go up” from there but I can’t find how much. After you listen to a song 9 times and have paid $1.40 you “own” it but can still only listen to it on their service?

    This sounds like iTunes with more steps.

    source

    • mitram@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I’m not sure where you get the information that it’s not DRM free

      They explicitly say you can download songs while not mentioning the inclusion of any DRM

      I’m curious where you found that

      source

      • kurcatovium@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It's still not possible, according to the FAQ:
        Q: Can I download music I own on Resonate?
        A: In the future, we intend to offer the ability to download tracks that you own on Resonate to your local device. This feature is not yet available.

        So for now, it's just streaming.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• teawrecks@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This is an interesting idea, but I would assume that over time, the number of “owned” streams would dominate the number of “new” streams, and thus eventually their operating costs would reach a point where they don’t have the revenue to cover it…

  source

  • mitram@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    At that point their governance structure would show it’s strengths by enabling a democratic decision taking that could solve the issue

    Workers, for example, could suggest a small subscription fee that would cover the infrastructure cost, while listeners will most likely object, their view would be valued and impact the approval of any proposed solution

    source

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That’s fair, just…for this to scale, it needs to be competitive with existing streaming services. And if the experience for a listener is the same whether a democratic panel raises prices, or greedy enshittification raises prices, there’s not going to be an upside.

      To me, the potential upside is identifying the problems with their revenue stream now out in the open, and addressing it now, rather than trying to build a captive audience now and pivot to something more sustainable later.

      source
  • satansbartender@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I guess it depends on how much new music is released, added to the library, and then streamed by the users. It’s a valid concern to be sure, but I wonder if it could be offset by user growth and new music to be a non issue

    source

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Even if we assume there’s an achievable rate of growth that can consistently outpace owned plays at any given time, as with every business, there will come a day when growth slows. And at that point, they’ll be forced to solve the problem.

      And then there’s all the questions of, can I download my tracks to play offline? What if they go out of business? How many artists/labels are even going to agree to this? What about tracks I buy outside of their platform? And what does “own” actually mean given that you never “own” music you buy physical media for, you don’t have any copyright, you can’t play that media for profit, you just have a license to listen to that copy personally. By default the artist “owns” their art. But do they have to give that ownership up to the co-op?

      It’s going to be tough to convince people who don’t care to switch away from spotify, and there’s no reason for someone who can self-host to use it unless it’s somehow more effective at funding musicians than just buying their tracks directly.

      I wish them luck making the idea work, but I think they have their work cut out for them.

      source

      • satansbartender@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I think that’s all fair.

        I was really interested in the idea of using it as a way of growing my offline and/or self hosted collection. Fair compensation for artists while still being able to have good new music discovery and grow my library at the same time would be really cool.

        Still to be seen if they can manage, to your point, but I’ll hold out a little hope until they lose their goodwill

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• kurcatovium@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This is an interesting idea, but I find their catalogue to be quite terrible for me (so far). Service like this really, really needs big names and much broader catalogue to attract people and start moving. Even though I'm far far from listening to mainstream I literally could not find a single interpret I looked for, and believe me I tried.

  source