Successful publicly traded companies have a responsibility to generate more revenue and increase the stock price every year. Year after year.
Once their product is mature after so many years, there aren't new variations to release or new markets to enter into.
Sales stagnate and costs stagnate; investors get upset.
Only way to get that continual growth is to increase prices and slash costs.
When done responsibly, it's just good business.
The problem comes in next year when you have to do it again. And again.
Then the year after you have to do it again. And again.
Such as all things in life, all companies eventually die.
"The goal, in short, was “down with algorithmic listening, down with royalty theft, down with AI-generated music”."
In the article they do mention Massive Attack, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, Deerhoof and Hotline TNT delisting their music and then further speaking out in protest- removal being 1/3 parts of the listed "goal".
But really it seems like the discourse on Spotify is making waves again with the recent reveal of Ek's Helsing investment. Given this is the same dude who said that "the cost of making content is close to zero", it's understandable that people are speaking out.
Google Glass was a loud, clunky script, whereas these are a stealthy, AI-powered rootkit hiding in plain sight. The fundamental change isn't the hardware, it's the social engineering masterstroke of weaponizing fashion to make the public willingly install a backdoor to their entire life.
Exactly. The real danger is how they turn every wearer into a walking surveillance camera, creating a permanent, searchable record of your life without your consent, simply by being near them.
This fundamentally rewrites the rules of social interaction, creating a panopticon where you have to assume you're always being recorded, forcing self-censorship and destroying the trust essential for any authentic relationship.
And because our antiquated consent laws and pathetic safeguards like a tiny indicator light are completely unprepared for this, you have no real way to opt out of their surveillance network.
Ever since I saw that episode I've felt like it's inevitable that something like this will become commonplace. If I had a product like this that actually worked as imagined, and the full data pipeline was under my complete control, I could think of a dozen reasons why I'd want to use it. If we take it for granted that this is coming whether we want it or not (and I'm not saying we necessarily must, but it's worth pondering)... is there a way to design the technology, and cultivate new social norms, such that we end up with something that's a net positive rather than a dystopian panopticon? I haven't been able to answer this for myself, at least not yet.
(Even setting the social repercussions aside, though, Zuck/Meta being involved is a dealbreaker for me.)
There's a reason the term "glass-holes" was invented.
As a general rule, it's probably best to stay away from these kinds of people for a while. Because nowadays it doesn't even have to be you. It could be someone standing in the frame somewhere with you that does something objectionable. Thus awakening the wrath of society. Or even worse - the government.
Yeah, this article misses the mark.
The author definitely frames the issue of AI-generated music and stock music in Lofi Hip Hop through a Spotify-centric lens.
While they acknowledge that lofi originated and gained popularity outside of Spotify's control, particularly mentioning YouTube channels, it's BS to act like Spotify is the be-all and end-all of this (or any) genre.
Disclosure: I've never paid for a Spotify account.
The Truth: Lofi Hip Hop continues to flourish far beyond the profit-prioritized walls of Spotify's garden, a meticulously manicured space where genuine discovery is choked out by the weeds of algorithmic control.
True artistry is blossoming in the wilder, freer spaces online.
Also I really recommend Shlohmo & quickly quickly for some fresh Lofi.
For those on Youtube, check out OGDONNINJA. He has a channel of literally thousands of old-school underground boombap hip hop tracks, in their dusty and 12-bit glory.
If this Super Mario supermarket was clearly unrelated to video games and didn't use Nintendo's logos, characters, or branding style, then it's unlikely consumers would think it was officially connected to Nintendo-> Trademarks primarily protect against confusion.
If the supermarket didn't use Nintendo's font, colors, imagery, or characters —just the name—then the court likely ruled that:
-No confusion exists since a grocery store isn't competing with a video game company.
-No dilution occurs because Nintendo's brand strength in gaming isn't weakened by a supermarket.
-Fair use applies if the name has a legitimate reason unrelated to Nintendo.
Successful publicly traded companies have a responsibility to generate more revenue and increase the stock price every year. Year after year. Once their product is mature after so many years, there aren't new variations to release or new markets to enter into.
Sales stagnate and costs stagnate; investors get upset. Only way to get that continual growth is to increase prices and slash costs.
When done responsibly, it's just good business.
The problem comes in next year when you have to do it again. And again. Then the year after you have to do it again. And again.
Such as all things in life, all companies eventually die.