Sean Parker on Spotify: "We've Got You by the Balls" 

Man was Sean right! Spotify took the US by storm and EVERYONE followed. He hit the nail right on the head with "people will pay for convenience and accessibility" that's why Spotify is so massive, thats why Netflix is so massive and others in the streaming game.

He was SO right, I can’t imagine a world without Spotify today

Sean is a product genius. He said some key words; WHAT ARE PEOPLE WILLING TO PAY? This is the golden key question for any product or service, that truly tests the value being delivered.

This dude was always a head of the curve by a decade!

I don't know why people hate on Sean Parker. Most people didn't know who he was until The Social Network came out. He really does have a brilliant mind, considering how impactful Spotify has been.

Lars Ulrich opened 101 youtube accounts just to down vote this video.

It's amazing that the idea for digital distribution of music started with this kid. New ideas never come from the old and established. The spark of inspiration and true innovation seems to burn exclusively in the young mind. Youth. Velocity. Total upset of the status quo. Revolution of ideals. Re imagination of the very nature of reality. I love it. The old is almost gone forever. I can't wait to see what a conspiracy of brilliant young minds will create next.

"We got ya by the balls" lol

That model makes more sense than anything I've ever eard from the RIAA or any other old people's home...

Only one problem with streaming music. It can be recorded with any recording software as it is streamed and saved to an MP3 on your computer. There is no way to prevent piracy.

I think an interesting point is that perhaps the mp3, a file stored on your own system is an idea that could easily be replaced. With whole countries poised towards setting a nation-wide wifi connection, to which users are also connected and pay for that privilege, the idea of needing to have a songs' file in your possession becomes less and less important. People will be more and more willing to pay to infinite music stream-able with no concern towards hard disk space.

Just got Spotify in the U.S. Awesome!

He might not be the most responsible human in the world but that doesn't change the fact that he is a genius

@greyztone Copyright theft and theft are two different things. I was responding to claims of theft. As for existing copyright laws, I obviously disagree with them. "This doesn't validate stealing or mean that the hard work of artists "--How am I stealing their work? Don't they have their own copy? The point of my other example was not to provide a perfect comparison, but to illustrate the point that existing business models are out of date.

This is actually really accurate.

He was 100% right, I can play the same songs for free on youtube, but spotify lets you make nice playlists, has higher quality bitrate, and has a nice user interface.

Spotify now dominates the music industry in 2024. This aged quite well.

“1 million dollar isn’t cool. You know what is cool?” “You?” “1 Billion dollar. “

I have the exact code that Sean Parker used to build Napster, layout, format, etc.

@sciomni2008 listening to music that streams or has been captured on a disc is not stealing. Sneaking into a concert is stealing because the artist receives a fee to play live. The business model we all grew up with (CDs, DVDs, MP3s even... is dead. Musicians should only get paid when they work i.e. playing LIVE.

I don't understand what he has to with Spotify? I thought it was run by some guys from Sweden?

CD ?!?!? IS IT 2001 AGAIN ?

Steve Jobs - Why join the navy if you can be a pirate

@greyztone Perhaps I should have worded that statement differently. I am not against copyright laws in all cases. I should not be able to take someone's music or movie and sell it without permission, for example. Rather, I reject that claim that it is ethically (and by extention, legally) wrong to copy music without purchasing it.

@jjbb81 thats the point of the advertisement though. the reason that spotify is better than illegal downloads is because people either pay for the service out of pocket, or they pay for it by watching ads. Either way, even if it isnt as profitable for record companies as actual downloads, its a hell of a lot better than having trillions and trillions of illegal, completely free downloads

@greyztone I should clarify, I'm not arguing that copyright laws shouldn't exist at all, but rather, I disagree with their current form. If Publishers are to create a desirable distribution model that people are actually going to use, they need to offer some inventive so people don't merely download their music. If they were to offer a large range of high quality, songs, music videos, and related media in a single user friendly source, this convenience would be very attractive.

@greyztone "You can't seriously say that you're in favour of a free market for music when you think it's your ETHICAL RIGHT to have it free!"--Why not? Earlier I listed examples of other media providers that are perfectly capable of generating revenue streams while not charging clients. It's the same concept as the free local newspaper, you don't have to pay for that, but they still manage. So obviously other markets do in fact work just like that.

Even if I get addicted to the song. I will still download online. And you can find songs even on here, why do I need that program.

how does this have almost 50% dislikes??? he's COMPLETELY correct!

I can see why they had Justin Timberlake play this guy - you wouldn't guess it by his appearance or his occupation, but - he's got some swagger. He seems like kind of a G.

@Pirat12 I'm on your side but two things... 1) Tim Berners Lee gave the world the internet. He never made one cent from it. He never wanted to. And look what it has turned into :) 2) Music is copyrighted. Ideas cannot be copryrighted. What this means is that if you want to imitate (play instruments/sing live) music created by another artist you must get their permission to do so. But in saying that no artist should believe they have the right to sue someone for playing a DUPLICATE of their wrk

@skyfisk as a musician (yea well, kinda).. Thanks man!

Tbh I kinda disagree on the statement that the war against piracy is lost. The thing was that no one ever tried to renew the way music is/was sold. After becoming a spotify premium member I haven't downloaded a single song illegaly. And I wont ever stop being a premium member. Having spotify synced to my telephone, and offline songs when I take my laptop on trips is priceless. And well worth the monthly cost, hope others will realize this aswell. Keep up the good work Spotify!

isnt this called Pandora?

@greyztone "subcription as with Spotify, or a method for charging users for what they consume, with caps etc."--Yup, these are a step in the right direction. "But your examples are just not valid as people don't sit at their computers consuming music"--I do. Approximately 98% of the time I spend listening to music is at my computer desk, with, say, 1% from a phone in the shower and 1% in the car. I have no doubt there are others who are much the same.

@luckycharmz336 but they can if they pay. If you choose the 10$ subscription for Spotify you can use the spotify app on both apple devices and android devices.

I think this is pretty compelling. He's right that what we want as a society is convenience, easy access, and something outside of convention. And he's again right that what we need to concentrate on is protection of transfer. I love my iPod, my Hulu, my Netflix, my internet; and I'm willing to pay for it. However, if I can't give my friends what I just bought, we're in a different licensing zone. Copyrighting needs to evolve.

@venuecam Hi, there. About the point 2) "Music is copyrighted. Ideas cannot be copyrighted." Yes, but that's merely a circumstancial legal situation, in some places and times. The law could be (or could had been) the inverse. What I mean is that they are not universal o "nature" -given- rights, for instance, like 'freedom of the human being', that -not long time ago- use to be just for some people...

The guy is the internet version of Simon Cowell, as far as I'm concerned.

@greyztone "No, I haven't known that, nor have you said it."-- I would have thought it would be obvious to conclude that if I am arguing against your claim that downloading music is wrong, that I therefore think it is right. You are right in stating that I'm not willing to pay for music CDs and direct download and that I expect music to be free. However, it does not necessarily follow that I think artists are not entitled to compensation. As I pointed out, other revenue streams are available

because.. when you buy it, you can transport it on your phone.

I dont want playlists. I want to download full albums.

Are piracy laws in the us really extreme? I m asking cause its really easy to pirate a shit load of software on p2p platforms. Even if you don't torrent it theres a load of secondary sites that give you access. Is internet security cracking down on piracy ?

AMERICA! Why you not get until now that SPOTIFY ROCKS!

the way you get people to purchase music is to offer a value added. That used to be album covers that were significant pieces of art in their own right, and liner notes that spoke about the content of the disc, the people involved, all aspects of the production. People are myopic now days and only want the tunes jacked into their earbuds, and miss the rounded cultural experience of music as art. I have no interest in Spotify. I buy music from iTunes, I buy vinyl, i buy physical media.

@AaronCee but they get exposure which is really more valuable.

There is something I don't understand. Sean Parker did not found Napster I know that. He did not found Spotify either. I know that he was an employee in Napster, but I have never heard about him being affiliated to Spotify in anyway. Yet he talks like he is/was in control of both. I have also seen other mediums imply the same thing. Am I missing something? Or is this just a huge misunderstanding?

Yeah, i should have counted only internet. Although with mp3 and cd's it's not restricted to internet only. Anyway, all I say is that a lot of time it's a compilation of dozens or hundreds of songs (like albums or greatest hits), but only listened to a few. And it would be interesting to see a source or study he bases his number on.

I AM a music producer, and I know for a FACT that IF you can play it you CAN record it... for FREE!!! Bottom Line: Sean Parker is here to make money on other peoples music just like Apple. Sound is Sound... Don't try to make it out to be Food!

@Taurusaud its your choice.. completely.. whether you'd like to support your favorite music artists.. ..or not.

Why are there so many dislikes? I kind of think he has a point, but then again I am just a "user"

I don't think he's aware that we can hack anything they'll ever throw at us.

"Trying to control music sharing by shutting down P2P sites or MP3 blogs or BitTorrent or whatever other technology comes along is like trying to control an affair of the heart. Nothing will stop it." -Thurston Moore

@greyztone "The 'fair price' I refer to is free, I thought that would be easily inferred. I consider it fair because media companies that offer free content and generate revenue through advertising is not a new concept and has been proven to work where the content is desirable. "And I'm happy in a world where courts (i.e. people) decide what can and can't be copyrighted."--As am I. The keyword being 'people', which is why we're having this conversation.

@greyztone You have known from the start that my contention is that consumers should not need to pay for music in it's traditional cd/direct download form. You take this to mean, in your own words "You are stealing (or depriving them of!) their living". So, to clarify, I object against the specific methods of consumption comprising CD and direct download purchases. You claim that without these means I am depriving artists. So yes, your implication clearly was that these are vital revenues.

@synthaxx the thing is that people won't need to buy the files. the key of the modern music listener is mobility. if you look into spotify you'll see you can stream from your phone or ipod or any network. why would you buy OR download the file if you can just look up any album and stream it for free from anywhere? this makes storage obsolete. theres no worry about space if you don't need the file. if the streaming is decent quality, record labels are fucked.

I don't know how Sean Parker can sit there, and say the "distribution model" is broken. This is the man who basically ignored Artists Copyright laws, and can sit there and act if he is an expert on Music Industry.

@iconicbrand5 Wait what?Spotify signs contracts with pretty much every label they can find, and artists on Spotify get a fair share of what's theirs.

@DamonRecordCo Listen to the video again. He says that you can't put songs from Spotify on your iPod without going Premium.

@greyztone "Go debate the many people then! "-- I think I can decide who I want to talk to. "The discussion is about copyright theft, which IS theft"--Great argument! Saying X is Y without any reasoning certainly makes it so...

@synthaxx Maybe the main issue here is that you have an enormous, huge industry that had spend the last decades forcing people to listen what they produce, and to pay for what they sell, and "suddenly" they realize (or try to don't realize) that they can't anymore force to pay, so they can't sell, so, they lose (their power).

@SupermarketsRevil Yes, and I'm free to question those decisions if you choose to argue with people about things they haven't said on the basis that "many people" have and/or your own misplaced assumptions. Copyright theft is a form of theft. It is legally defined as such and calling it theft is entirely valid. The context of the discussion makes it perfectly clear which kind of theft I'm talking about. Your X and Y retort is nonsense.

I've never had a problem with paying the artists and those involved, who actually put in work and resources, their fair share. But way too much of the money goes to corporate scum that do little more than use that money to live the high life.

Yes downloading music without paying is theft...but overcharging for music, petrol, food and ultilities and pretty much everything else is also theft by the corporations selling them. You reap what you sow!

This guy is hooked on speed.

I like Parker. He created Napster, which I had, he basically started the digital download revolution. I admire the fact that he's big enough to come out and say that his invention ultimately had a negative impact on the industry. I'm a musician and a consumer. The value of music has dropped so much in the last ten years I honestly cant say that that is a good thing. We are still in a weird place right now Industry wise and I respect him for trying to find a solution, but its hard to see one!

And he was so right about Spotify!

What are you complaining about. Before iTunes was launched the music industry wanted to hire music to the people. No one would like to 'hire' music or get music through a subscription so that's a big no no!

I'm starting to think there could be some reasons why Sean had to learn programming at 7 years (so early)... , being an hacker... then a startupper creating Napster, Plaxo, Causes... a facebook executive member and now a managing partner for Founders Fund.. also invited to Bilderberg's Group secret meeting to discuss world wide business future... there must be something more then what is told the be "truth" about him...

@synthaxx We can think also in cinema, tv, press, books, etx; and take in consideration that we're talking about thousands of millions of people, so, changes take time, some number of generations (but if you think in the speed of internet's penetration in society, you can imagine that there will not be so many generations to get there).

@greyztone I'm not against media services utilising advertising, quite the opposite. "I seriously doubt that spruced up content would make much difference."--the marketing strategy of iTunes suggests otherwise. One of the things they're most vocal about is their comprehensive range. Now if they can fix their prices and ensure no repition of previous DRM blunders they might have something worthwhile.

I think Spotify could definately be a market force, there are a lot of honest people out there that just want a legitimate viable option to download music from at an affordable cost and it sounds like that program could provide that. I pirate music all of the time, but I also feel bad sometimes as I respect the artists and their music and do feel we owe them more than nothing for the right to listen to their music on demand.

I respect Sean as well but I totally disagree with how he is thinking. I tried spotify a little bit but it hasn't hooked me at all. Most people will still want music for free on their ipods, It is going to be about shared radio both on your desktop and on mobile devices. I think that what needs to happen for musicians ...a way to create concert tours without needing a big record company or lots of money to do it. Musicians want to live a certain lifestyle which is about performing and travelling

He is absolutely right, war on piracy is a failure.

Spotify doesn't pay artists hardly anything. They're the ones that are losing. I'm sorry, Spotify is not the answer.

@SupermarketsRevil Final thing. Just because you do this, and lots do, obviously doesn't mean everyone does. For me I'd say 40% out and about on headphones, 20% in the car, and 40% at my computer - and when I'm at my computer I have it in the background. I doubt whether banners or pop up ads would be effective. People would just stick to piracy and revenues would be minimal. But we'll see what happens. Will be interesting if nothing else...!

he's just enthusiastic about the product @BillyBannibal - maybe next time focus on what he has to say, he's really insightful

15 yrs ago, this guy created Napster to f*ck w/ the Majors so we wouldn't have to buy these songs getting into our heads after hearing them on the air. Now he says "Piracy wins!" but at the same time wants us to get the songs stuck in their heads for free (like... when on the air?) and then have us pay to be able to listen to the same songs on our mp3 player?! Does he want us to copy them with cassette tapes? Just accept the fact that music should be a vector for making money, not money itself!

@greyztone Why music SHOULD be pay? The problem is when you buy an album the money goes to Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner, etc and almost nothing to the artist, but when you go to a concert the moneys goes directly to the artist. If you want to buy a album go ahead but don't call criminals to the people just because they enjoyed music. ;)

You dont get it. thats still a playlist. Google music is way better. even though i dont use google streaming service i buy all the full albums and download them. its way more practical. you never have to wait for it to buffer cos your not streaming :)

Im not against free downloading, but im willing to pay 12 bucks/ month for a program like spotify. a library of instant music on the spot,connect it to the phone and the car, i mean its all about the fast and easy interaction. try it!

@SupermarketsRevil Fair point, but not that relevant to this debate. I did say "I don't see what's wrong with their present form as far as this discussion". This discussion being buying music in the first instance. I was responding to your apparent shift from 'rejecting music copyright theft entirely' to merely disagreeing with present copyright laws, which your customer incentive ideas don't affect. Once you've paid for music how you use it is another topic. I'm sure we'd agree on much there.

@greyztone Actually, theft is typically legally defined as taking property with the intent to deprive the owner of posession. Copying does not equal theft. Google doesnt charge me to use it's services. Neither does facebook, twitter, or skype. I'll shed no tears for multinational publishers just because they can't figure out a modern distrubution model.

Sean isn't a founder. He's "not doing anything" with Spotify. He invested a token amount. That's all. He's just riding on a wave created by real business people.

@SupermarketsRevil ... is that you think when so many other *types* of service can be delivered free that music should be delivered free also. They don't demonstrate anything else. If you think you SHOULD pay for music but just dislike CDs/iTunes, fine, I agree! But when you're so defensive about copying music, insisting it isn't theft, and when you cite facebook etc. it's hard to believe that you don't just feel entitled to free music - that if they don't give it away you're taking it anyway.

He's slick. Justin nailed him in the movie.

@greyztone "Copyright theft is a form of theft. It is legally defined as such"--As I already mentioned, it is distinct from property theft, and I entirely reject the notion of copyright theft in the context of music. You again point out the legal definition of copyright theft, from which I can only conclude who neglected to read my response to that the first time you mentioned it. A law is not necessarily ethical, this being one law that I reject.

The reason i don't like napster/spotify is that I don't get all my cover art and they arent compatible with apple products unlike itunes were the music is at low price, and looks really nice when used with apple stuff. Also i don't agree with your piracy statistics because if multiple trillions of songs are being pirated thats more than there is people on earth. I really doubt any group of people download enough to eliminate that many extra billions of songs. I think you are mad about Facebook.

Why use spotify when i can use Rhapsody?

This idea is actually beautiful because honestly, itunes and apple has destroyed what the "album" had signified as a specific artform within Music. Everything is about the latest singles and it's a very edgy, capitalist and not at all beautiful system through which if you want to get rich, just make a hit "tune" - not real music, so the real artists are buried under what the studios decide are the pop-appeal dolls like Bieber, for example.

@greyztone ", I'm talking about why I can justifiably use theft in a sense that is commonly and legally understood"--Then I agree and this discussion has no purpose. Downloading music is copyright theft under many legal systems. Happy? The point is that I disagree with that law. I don't see why it would be about anything BUT ethics. "you believe theft to exclusively mean property theft"--Incorrect, there is services theft, for example. I do not consider that to apply to download of music

What he's describing is basically how I get music - I check it out on RU-vid or other ways, and then buy what I like. Still, I don't see how his scheme changes anything. Sure, you get hooked, and then either pay for it or pirate it, same as you would have done anyway.

@greyztone Nothing wrong with the present form? At present you can't even use a song as background music for a home made youtube video without viacom filing a dmca. Do they really expect individuals to pay to use a song they already own as background music? At present, Publishers are drastically over reaching. Feeling guilt for doing something wrong is reasonable. Do you think media company executives have trouble sleeping at night over excessive DRM regulations? I hardly think so.

@SupermarketsRevil It's not the same at all. There's a clear difference between a business offering you something free where part of the deal is that you're being advertised to, and you having the *ethical right* to have that something free without restrictions or caveats... without the ads in this case. If it is your right to copy music, if copyright theft doesn't exist for it, then why would or should you opt for a delivery system where you are being advertised to? Your logic is flawed.

... so you have to be willing to believe that since everyone else does it, it's o.k. for you to do it, too, because, after all, why should you be different then all of your friends...

@luckycharmz336 I see someone hasn't been doing their homework... Spotify is available on pretty much every touch-device there is, as long as you pay $9.99 a month, which, to be honest, isn't a lot especially considering you get over 15 million tracks (and counting!).

@greyztone Why does anyone use itunes or spotify (i.e. paid services) when songs can be downloaded for free? It is because they offer something more. Whether that be convenience, a well organised and conprehensive library of content or (presumably) good quality content. If the features of a such a service were desirable enough people would use it. they just need to ensure value for money. Until they care enough to draw my attention to such a service, however, they won't see any money from me

Thom Yorke had an excellent reason as to why people pirate music and that was because decent tunes are not being played enough on the radio. Fact is people dont tend to buy music nowadays not because of piracy but coz of accessibility video streaming via youtube etc. How many actually just listen to music nowadays? Someone invented the internet and others decided to come up with sites that provide music video. Then came internet phones. Spotify will try its best to shut down music video on YT

@greyztone "I don't see what's wrong with their present form as far as this discussion."--Who's present form? "Certainly your solutions as far as great content don't affect them in any way."--People aren't attracted to existing music services because they offer some value over just downloading the songs? Obviously there is some reason why people are opting to use existing user-pays services, and I strongly doubt it's just for the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they give their credit card #.

@greyztone "doesn't mean you should expect others to!"--I don't EXPECT anyone to mirror my beliefs. I would, however, prefer it, if people didn't hold beliefs which I think are unethical & counter productive. "reeking of misplaced entitlement (particularly under capitalism!)."--Au contraire. I am in favour of the free market. At present I choose to consume music through groups which offer it at a price I consider to be fair. Perhaps you'd be happier in a world where all ideas are copyright