So, who wants to build a communal music distribution service? :BoostOK:

Follow

“Communal music service <insert name here> is run by gay furries, co-owned by the artists signed to the service, and distributes 80-90% of its profits to those artists while paying its staff actual living wages”

How cool would this be??? Can we make this happen???

Define the company as holding an arbitrarily large number of voting stock shares. These shares are required to be distributed evenly among employees/artists/staff at all times.

Use the voting shares to define operations in lieu of a board of directors. Boom: hierarchy-less decision making.

Also, people are now staked in and have both incentive and ability to grow the collective and make it better.

Setup the bylaws to prevent the company from ever issuing public shares, preventing it from going public and becoming influenced by the stock market or investors.

This keeps the collective accountable to itself, the artists, and the employees. And that’s the real point. Build a company that’s as resistant to the corruptions of capitalism as possible, and can transcend the founders’ whims and greed

Okay, so that’s voting structure out of the way. How about da money?

Open books. Anyone in the company can examine the ledger at any time. No secrets. It’s music distribution, not rocket science. This lets anyone point out problems they see, hopefully before the problems become company-ending.

So frequently I’ve existed in companies where the bottom-rung employees have a better idea of what customers want and will pay for than any of management. Flat decision-making and open books fixes that.

How about pay? Every employee makes the same amount of money. What that ends up being is, of course, determined by the operating profit.

Set aside expense accounts for hosting fees or datacenter rent, a fund for licensing deals, and an artist defense fund (for when capital comes calling and steals one of our artists’ work), and the rest pays out wages and royalties with at least 80% going back to the artists making the music (the whole reason for the service existing in the first place!)

@shyra reminds me of resonate, the artist-owned streaming co-op! i'd be behind this tho if it's more like bandcamp since i'm not much of a music streamer

@goaty that’s the idea! A bandcamp that can’t be scooped up by a billionaire!

@goaty @shyra

Can you download purchased tracks from resonate? The fact that bandcamp wasn't a streaming service was always one of its killer features to me.

@RussSharek @shyra not yet, unfortunately, though they've apparently got plans for it down the line. they're still pretty early on in getting it all figured out, i think. it's definitely a streaming service first and foremost, intended to be an artist-owned alternative to spotify et al

@goaty @shyra

A step in the right direction, though I question the entire model of streaming at this point.

@RussSharek @shyra yeah, i'm not much for streaming personally, but folks like it for the playlist stuff and i can kinda get that—it's kinda like radio, another thing i'm not much into!

an artist-owned bandcamp alternative is basically a dream come true for me, so i hope it comes along

@shyra adding ourselves to this mailing list.

we have some experience with audio engineering, and several strongly held opinons about the technical side of things.

@luka @shyra whoa this looks really cool, thank you for sharing!

@shyra

definitely good ideas... but how about also making it actively hostile to stock market or investors, do what is neccesary to lower VC valuations without impacting service or employee lives.

@shyra backend infrastructure would be very expensive, regardless of cloud/collocation

@hax bandcamp has been doing it and has been profitable since 2012

Expensive =/= impossible

@shyra oh very true, I tend to look at things by the infrastructure first.

@shyra I don't know about the gay furry part but resonate.coop exists and seems to fit most of the rest of that description

@balrogboogie @shyra Resonate looks to be a blo*kcha*n system, though. That alone is disqualifying, IMO.

@balrogboogie @shyra "Can we get someone to comment on the gay furry presence on your dev team"

@shyra @TQ Seems like the idea gets moving. :-) The cooperative approach sounds great to me, also because a cooperative cannot be sold (AFAIK). Just one point: I think the shares should be held by customers primarily, else we'd be pushing artists to also pay for their own distri channel. So more like krautreporter did this for journalism.
And: it is 2022 and yes we can!

@ceha @shyra I'm down for that. Know my share about ux design and product management.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
LGBTQIA+ Tech Mastodon

*Due to increased bot signup, manual approval is required. Please write some applicable request text on signup with why you want to join. Blank submissions will be denied.*

This Mastodon instance is for tech workers, academics, students, and others interested in tech who are LGBTQIA+ or Allies.

We have a code of conduct that we adhere to. We try to be proactive in handling moderation, and respond to reports.

Abridged Code of Conduct

Discrimination & Bigotry Won’t Be Tolerated.

We're not a free speech absolutist. We're not interested in Nazis, TERFS, or hate speech. No homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia, racism allowed.

Respect Other Users.

This instance is meant to be a friendly, welcoming space to all who are willing to reciprocate in helping to create that environment.

Consent is Important in all contexts.

If you’re ever unsure, ask first. Use CWs where required.

Listen; Don’t Make Excuses.

If you’re accused of causing harm, either take some responsibility or ask moderators for help.

Use the Report Feature.

Our moderators are here to listen and respond to reports.



For more detail, please
Review our Full Code of Conduct


This instance is funded in part by Patreon donations.