You actually included this? No wonder the guys wearing a hoodie.

If the major labels continue to move in this direction don't be surprised if class action lawsuits against them, for any number of reasons, gather like dark clouds on the horizon. The music business may need to hit its' bottom and then rebuild from total collapse. Musicians and songwriters are already reaching their breaking point with some choosing not to release recordings. Sadly, everyone but a handful of profiteers are suffering badly. The true irony? Individuals running some of these unsustainable, money losing businesses are being compensated extravagantly as most creators fight for their financial survival.

Important. Keep this domain out of the hands of corporations.

and Merlin.

Conflict of interest. For Sony to accept a side deal, equity in Spotify, would have bearing on the negotiations. I think this may be a big problem for every label that agreed to those terms.

I'm with the majority of commenters here. This is rehashed hype for online piracy and the misleading message that there's more music being made and listened to today than ever before.

Windowing and exclusives; all good news for those who see no future in a streaming only business model. What does this all mean? Listeners aren't going to pay for subscriptions to multiple services, yet they are going to want the music of specific artists that they follow closely. This will support the sale of downloads and CDs, at some level, and keep additional money coming into the biz.

Let's just get down to it. Spotify isn't going to shut their doors. So songwriters and musicians need to put on our big boy pants and take back control. Interactive music streaming is a zero sum game with an exit strategy based on finding the greater fool to buy into an IPO. The biggest loser is you the artist, as long as you choose to give them your music. Interactive music streaming should not exist. It can't pay market value for product and it can't make money either. It is up to the musicians to decide if they want to do business with Spotify, etc. The best thing is that Interactive music streaming services are not entitled to compulsory licenses, hence the windowing we see with new releases and other artists who simply choose to not have their music available there. Signed artists can tell their labels that they do not want their music available there. As the courts are finding, many artist contracts do not have digital distribution clauses and the artists are beginning to challenge the major labels in the courts and wining. Artists do have power and the labels are vulnerable to legal action on numerous levels, including conflict of interest.

Bono is certainly an enigma.

My biggest concern is that the economics of streaming really aren't working for enough artists. The alternative stream of revenue benefits talked about for over a decade by the pro-piracy crowd never materialized, so what we're ending up with is a far smaller pool of talented artists that need time to mature. it always surprises me when I see how far away the millennials are from physical product, so it's interesting to hear Liv respond from the other end of the spectrum: "I'm shocked when someone says they bought a CD." One thing about CDs, I do believe they are the best promotional tool a club band has for building a following. Music is an impulse buy and if you miss an opportunity to have a fan get your music in the moment, it may never happen. Perhaps the work around there is a flash drive with the music, photos of the band and bio. I heard Liv speak at a conference in Miami recently and she was one of the few presenters who actually spoke about a few bands she was following. Hardly anyone else even mentioned music, unless they were promoting themselves.

Too big to fail? Has Goldman Sachs too much invested to allow Spotify to go under and does their need to go outside the US and Europe for investors any indication of how tough a sell Spotify is becoming? Given the disruption Spotify has created in the sale of recorded music and the impact interactive music streaming has had on the industry and individual musicians and songwriters are investors chasing an investment that will have a negative impact on the future of music?

This piracy argument really has no merit. Replacing one bad business for another, even if marginally better is no solution. It has already been proven that alternative forms of compensation have been unable to sustain musicians and songwriters. We have ended up with fewer, less interesting successful artists, because the business no longer supports them. Even the title of this post is biased. The industry is not opposed to free listening that supports discovering new talent, it is opposed to interactive music streaming that dumbs down the discovery process for the majority of listeners who aren't adventurous and leaves no motivation to purchase music. Our purpose is not to appease "customers" who have become accustomed to not paying for product, but to create a real business, where real artists, can make real money.

"I mention all this because we, as music tech people, need to stop and recognize that we’re way, way ahead of everyone else (or behind, if you’re one of those people). A buddy of mine shared some work he’d done recently with me, and he found that huge numbers of people still listen to terrestrial radio. Still! With the annoying ads and silly DJs and ten song playlists, people still listen. There are times when I feel like a manic cult leader repping streaming music apps — a better way is possible! You don’t have to live like this! You can’t possibly enjoy hearing that jewelry store ad again, can you?" First, Music-Tech is a non-sequitur. There is music and there is tech. They are two separate businesses. One is primarily about distribution, data and analysis; the other is about creativity. The biggest problem is most of you tech fan boys, know nothing about the creative process. You haven't managed bands, booked bands, done radio shows, selected songs, booked club dates, spent hours in a recording studio. You might as well be selling pizza, cars or shoes. So when you say to me your the smartest kid on the block, how can I possibly have any respect for you? Same with these guys from Spotify. The founders were programmers, they didn't know anything about music or the music business. I don't respect you because you have no fing idea what music is worth .

This is the only way back from the abyss they call interactive music streaming. No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, the majority of musicians, like any other artist who produces work for sale, must be able to monetize that work at a meaningful level to survive. While we read about the 'big' artists withholding their music, more and more mid-level and emerging artists are cutting back or totally eliminating their songs from these services. That's step one. Step two is create awareness with listeners that this is taking place and to not simply rely on interactive streaming for the music that matters to them.

Spotify is going to just keep trying to discredit Taylor Swifts' motives every chance they get. By the end of this year, Spotify will have to reposition their marketing campaign to reflect the loss of music from bands who choose to only have a couple of their songs on the service. Without the gatekeepers at Pandora, Interactive music streaming may become discovery radio after all.

Adam wouldn't it be great if everything was free. Seriously, who would be opposed to that? The only question is why should everyone else get paid? That's the part I just can't figure out. What are your thoughts Adam?

Actually, I'm amazed at this Lady's grace and gratitude. I saw the gift giving video the other day and like most people went to cynicism; what's this gimmick? But there's something about her that feels real and authentic. I've seen her ( on videos ) interact with her fans and friends and she's just present, having fun. Could it be that she just gets how much incredible good fortune she's had and how lucky she is to have this acclaim and admiration.

“Every word anyone utters about music goes through our system”, says Whitman. Okay Brian, listen very carefully. The world of art and creativity are not grist for your mill. What you're doing merits more than a negative remark or criticism. It is seriously messed up. Art by nature is unpredictable and random and what you're doing is quantifying human creativity as if it is a metric driven piece of data. I'm offended that a machine would be entrusted to make subjective judgements. What's next? A label where artists are signed by machines? Art galleries curated by Hal. I challenge you and your machines to make a better playlist than I can. I choose the genre and date range, because what I will give you is your data base is far greater then what I hold in my head and heart. GFY

What is even more newsworthy is the silence of artists and the industry over the serious problem artists and the industry have experienced for 15 years of online piracy.

The Internet brought down the barrier to bad taste.

White Collar Crime. Bankers do it, so why not Grooveshark? Amazing that Mr Pearson, EVP Corporate Communications of Grooveshark is behind the protective glass sticking his tongue out. Next year, I will be personally spending a significant amount of time insuring that the Safe Harbor loophole is closed and recommending, not just fines, but 3 to 5 years jail time for principals like Mr Pearson, or he can opt to run a gauntlet past the songwriters and musicians who were never compensated by Grooveshark.

People keep bringing up YouTube, when we all know YouTube plays the SafeHarbor game. Taylor Swift and Big Machine don't want to get into the piracy debate. They wanted to successfully exercise their right to have their work music taken down by Spotify, not play whack-a-mole with YouTube.

"When you understand that, limiting music to the paid-only version of Spotify becomes an obvious mistake. That’s because much of the revenue generated in the free tier doesn’t come from the consumer’s choice, but rather the choice of the playlist creator." Jay's obviously all in 'embracing the digital disruption'. Disruption being the digital way of saying we found a new way to screw artists. Simply add that to the closer 'Adapt' which simply means shut up and bend over...end of discussion. Now listen Jay. The clock has run out and all these failed concepts especially free. So without meaning to sound overly critical give it a rest dude, while the rest of us try and clean up your mess.

Bill, as a former Billboard Editor, I'm surprised you are not familiar with music streaming and Spotify in particular. Unfortunately, if you' happen to be artist-centric and not aware of the problems created by streaming services, you may want to take a closer look at the economics. A group of very smart people have looked at the streaming model and found that the numbers don't work, for either Spotify or the artist. It appears the only ones to really benefit from streaming are the labels, who are equity partners in Spotify with no plans to share their windfall with their artists and the owners and investors in Spotify. This is all dependent on whether they can float an IPO. Back to the numbers. Musicians and songwriters will not survive unless they are able to sell their music. I mean doesn't that make sense? If you value music I suggest you return to purchasing it. The person who commented before me was far more succinct and right; on the money.

By all means David, let's be fair and wait for the meteor to crash into the planet and then asses the damage. I do have to give it you for one of the best lines I've read in quite sometime: "Furthermore, consumers are notoriously bad at predicting their own behavior". May I quote you, David MacDonald?