Kim's story is interesting and I enjoyed that part of the article but I think the analysis of the music industry and Kim's new venture is very wrong.
Firstly: his monetization strategy is a browser extension that strips ads out of sites and places his own. This is appalling and I'm shocked the Guardian, a site that undoubtedly relies on internet advertising, doesn't realize that his monetization strategy would prevent even them from monetizing users who used both services.
Getting past the grossly immoral monetization, the article casts the music industry as, once again, some unchanging monolith that refuses to change in light of modern ideas.
Last time I checked, I can buy mp3's one by one, without DRM, and load them on any device I want, from any number of online stores. Last time I checked, I can use Spotify or another service and listen to the vast majority of popular music free with ads, or for $5/mo.
I don't get it, I can go to bandcamp or soundcloud right now and see thousands of indies who aren't signing labels and who are putting their music out there, selling it and giving it away.
It's not 2001 like that article desperately pretends, and our music reality is not what it was. (And if they think Kim or any web music site can upend the entertainment business of nationally popular celebrity/artists, then I charge that they don't even understand the basics of why it's successful).
I respect your beliefs, but I disagree that it is immoral to give people a tool that swaps ads for your own.
It's not nice but I think once you send someone some bits, you give up any claim to control what they do with them in the privacy of their own home. Even if they swap out the ads.
In fact I would argue using physical violence (police) to enforce what you deem to be "proper private use" of distributed bits is immoral.
Firstly: his monetization strategy is a browser extension that strips ads out of sites and places his own. This is appalling and I'm shocked the Guardian, a site that undoubtedly relies on internet advertising, doesn't realize that his monetization strategy would prevent even them from monetizing users who used both services.
Getting past the grossly immoral monetization, the article casts the music industry as, once again, some unchanging monolith that refuses to change in light of modern ideas.
Last time I checked, I can buy mp3's one by one, without DRM, and load them on any device I want, from any number of online stores. Last time I checked, I can use Spotify or another service and listen to the vast majority of popular music free with ads, or for $5/mo.
I don't get it, I can go to bandcamp or soundcloud right now and see thousands of indies who aren't signing labels and who are putting their music out there, selling it and giving it away.
It's not 2001 like that article desperately pretends, and our music reality is not what it was. (And if they think Kim or any web music site can upend the entertainment business of nationally popular celebrity/artists, then I charge that they don't even understand the basics of why it's successful).