> The middle man entity would have enormous bargaining leverage, like Apple does with the App Store.
That's a great point and speaks to a true danger with this model.
I imagine content publishers could distribute their content across multiple distributors if they existed, though I imagine the market would only support a handful of competitors.
> Spotify worked a compulsory license provision of copyright law that applies specifically and only to music streaming. (Originally intended for radio.)
Could you speak more to this point? I'm incredibly interested. How was this provision created, and did they start their business with a law team? How were they able to get this accepted? What about other, earlier entrants in this space? Grooveshark obviously failed (they walked a slightly shadier path), but had they tried to get on proper legal footing they might have made it.
Could a news aggregator start out as a Grooveshark, then pivot into a Spotify without getting sued into oblivion?
That's a great point and speaks to a true danger with this model.
I imagine content publishers could distribute their content across multiple distributors if they existed, though I imagine the market would only support a handful of competitors.
> Spotify worked a compulsory license provision of copyright law that applies specifically and only to music streaming. (Originally intended for radio.)
Could you speak more to this point? I'm incredibly interested. How was this provision created, and did they start their business with a law team? How were they able to get this accepted? What about other, earlier entrants in this space? Grooveshark obviously failed (they walked a slightly shadier path), but had they tried to get on proper legal footing they might have made it.
Could a news aggregator start out as a Grooveshark, then pivot into a Spotify without getting sued into oblivion?