Why aren't our podcasts on Spotify?

New Warhorn Media post by Joseph Bayly:

5 Likes

This this this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1 Like

Interesting stuff. Anybody running a less-open ecosystem than Apple really needs to take a look in the mirror.

I suspect that Spotify’s ridiculously open-ended licensing terms wouldn’t hold up in court (IANAL), but if they wanted to push it, you’d need deep pockets or some generous lawyers in order to get them to stop abusing your stuff.

And certainly their verbiage around religious organizations is pretty unsettling. I have sometimes mused that if Facebook had been founded and run by Texans, “current church” would be a first-class object rather than being relegated to a “like” jammed between a TV show that has been off the air for a decade and the smoothie shop you tried on vacation. I believe Wikipedia took religious affiliation off of people’s top bio box a few years back. This is a shame, IMHO, but the people who run Wikipedia can’t imagine that anyone is genuinely motivated by his religion, so they took it off.

Thanks for the links to Stratechery.

3 Likes

Well written and thanks for taking one of the hundreds of individual stands against Spotify that will be needed to keep podcasting open. I miss when Stitcher was the big baddie in the podcasting world.

3 Likes

I have been surprised how these open ended licenses can hold up in courts. Here is an example:

A professional photographer uploaded a photograph to Instagram. A news website offered $50 to photographer to use the image in a story. Photographer declined. News website used the image anyway by embedding photographer’s Instagram post in its story.

Instagram’s Terms of Service includes the following license (quite similar to the Spotify license referenced above): “a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to the Content."

Photographer lost copyright infringement claim because (1) under Instagram’s terms of service, Photographer gave Instagram a sub-licensable license to use/display the photo, and (2) the news website received a sublicense from Instagram to display the photo.

5 Likes

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing that example.

2 Likes

This: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/05/19/rogan-spotify

And then this: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/05/19/wilkinson-howard-stern

2 Likes

Unbelievable money

3 Likes

Spotify’s terms are such that it makes no sense for any show to allow Spotify to play it unless Spotify is paying the show.

Yep.

Personally, my second favorite podcast is The Bill Simmons Show, and during the NFL season it’s probably my very favorite. But [if] it went Spotify exclusive (Spotify bought Simmons’s The Ringer website and podcast network a few months ago), I’d probably stop listening. But I’m an outlier.

@jacob.mentzel, we talked about this sale, and you were blown away based on what Simmons had already been through. But Spotify is willing to throw serious money at this now in order to break podcasting so it can skim huge amounts of money off the top later. The context is that Joe Rogan is not only finally on Spotify, but Spotify exclusive.

2 Likes

Joe Rogan is moving his podcast to Spotify. I read this news after reading Joseph’s article. I wonder if Rogan was advised properly? We’ll see.

1 Like

Well, if I was offered hundreds of millions of dollars to do so, I’d say I’d be a bit more inclined to consider it. Lol.

2 Likes

Joe Rogan’s deal is very (very) likely not subject to Spotify’s standard terms and conditions

I read a fair bit of discussion about that. I learned that Rogan has had Alex Jones (of Infowars) on his show several times. Spotify won’t allow Alex Jones on their service. I suspect there will be limits to what Rogan can do, though they will probably come down as rules after the fact. (Ie, he may have Jones in again, and then be told he can’t do that anymore, or at least have pressure applied.)

But as for the regular terms and conditions, no, he has his own contract with its own terms.