Seevl, One More Music Discovery Platform…

Screen shot 2013-11-22 at 3.34.23 PM

Another music discovery platform has hit the scene… Seevl.

Seevl pulls music from YouTube and artist data from sites like Wikipedia to offer unlimited streaming and artist profiles. It offers music recommendations and genre and label search functionality.

Co-founder and CEO Alexandre Passant says:

“While existing platforms have done lots of effort to provide huge music catalogues, discovery has been impersonal and opaque for too long, and we want to fix this.”

However, competing with sites like Hype Machine and Shuffler.fm is not an easy task. Passant also says they want to “showcase what a Web of Data can ultimately offer to consumers and businesses”, but companies like The Echo Nest are already doing this.

 

Seevl is currently working on adding automatic playlists and expanding to other devices. They are currently available on the web and as an app on Deezer. They have raised about $68,000 so far.

16 Responses

  1. TuneHunter

    I assume the service is FREE!
    Just curious how big pile of cash this kindergarden is burning?

    Reply
    • TuneHunter

      ..I miss the numbers. Modest cash with monster potential to plunder Music House.

      Let’s allow the to make 30% out of every 39 cents they collect from SALE of a tune.
      If they are good and deliver good choices this tune teasing will become sales!

      Reply
  2. PiratesWinLOL

    Great stuff. I would say it’s like GrooveShark, just with a better design and more organized.

    Reply
  3. Cap'n Crunch

    Yep. It’s like Grooveshark in that it’s a totally illegal site and its not paying royalties to any artists.

    FYI – All Music Start Ups: Before starting a new discovery service, wantrepreneurs should take copyright 101 and learn that pulling music from YouTube doesnt exempt you from paying royalites (which they dont). Also, if in the US market there is another compliance hurdle called the DMCA.

    So… once the labels get wind of Seevr, they will contact their YouTube rep and add Seevr to the blacklist of sites that are no longer able to receive official music from YouTube. While Seevr could go full Grooveshark and work with UGC, for all intents and purposes, it would effectively be shut down. Second, since Seevr is HQ’d in Ireland, the IFPI’s cease and desist letter should arrive early next week. This wont be around very long.

    Reply
  4. the deaf pretend to be listening

    No mention of licensing from BMI/ASCAP/SESAC. So this platform is illegal and shady to the bone.

    Reply
  5. Cap'n

    It’s like Grooveshark in that it’s a totally illegal site and its not paying royalties to any artists.

    FYI – All Music Start Ups: Before starting a new discovery service, wantrepreneurs should take copyright 101 and learn that pulling music from YouTube doesnt exempt you from paying royalites (which they dont). Also, if in the US market there is another compliance hurdle called the DMCA.

    So… once the labels get wind of Seevr, they will contact their YouTube rep and add Seevr to the blacklist of sites that are no longer able to receive official music from YouTube. While Seevr could go full Grooveshark and work with UGC, for all intents and purposes, it would effectively be shut down. Second, since Seevr is HQ’d in Ireland, the IFPI’s cease and desist letter should arrive early next week. This wont be around very long.

    Reply
    • jw

      If a rights manager has registered their content via ContentID, they have the option to block embedding. If they haven’t, they are essentially sanctioning this type of embedding. I have a hard time believing this site would have to pay royalties on top of what YouTube pays. I’m not even sure it would be possible for them to track plays in order to report them.

      Is there some sort of precedent you’re referring to? Or is this just speculation on your part?

      Reply
      • @Krebs

        Question – I know that if I use YouTube’s videos to source my music service, YouTube can (1) run ads over their videos (with any payments going to copyright owners of the music that’s featured); (2) mute the audio in the videos and (3) block their videos from windowing onto my site. While all of these options are less than ideal, is there a chance I am also responsible for paying ASCAP and others for the performance even though I am only hotlinking (i.e. not copying anything – merely directing the flow from YouTube to the end user)?

        I’m perplexed – what is the legal basis for paying more royalties. As noted above, doesnt YouTube’s license (and presumably their payments) cover my use? And wouldnt an additional fee be double-dipping?

        Reply
    • Alex. (seevl.fm co-founder)

      Hi Cap’n,

      It’s not illegal, we’re using the official YouTube API (as many music websites do), and as jw said, if videos are registered through ContentID or official YouTube channels, right-holders will get revenues from the play. In addition, we fully respect the YouTube API TOS, i.e. don’t hide the video to stream only the music, don’t try to play blocked content, etc. Overall, we are fully compliant with their legal terms.

      In addition, our Deezer app (first release in March 2013) is using the official Deezer API program, in which, as well, right-holders get revenues from the streams.

      Our goal is not to hijack any revenue from right-holders, but to let people discover / re-discover music, eventually making them spend some through tunes, records, tickets or whatever that makes artists get some revenues.

      Hope that clarify things.

      Alex. – seevl co-founder

      Reply
  6. PiratesWinLOL

    “This wont be around very long.”

    Yeah, like IsoHunt it might be taken down in only 10 years or so. After that, we might have to wait for several hours before a number of clones appear.

    Reply
  7. Krebs

    Unfortunately, whether you host the material or not is irrelevant. If the music videos can be viewed under your URL, and any user can see these videos. This is considered a performance and a license is needed to prevent an infringement. Any website that streams music is responsible for obtaining permission for the material, whether the it is hosted on their server or not.

    I hope this clarifies the issue further.

    Reply
    • @Krebs

      Sorry – I initially posted under the wrong comment 🙂

      Question – I know that if I use YouTube’s videos to source my music service, YouTube can (1) run ads over their videos (with any payments going to copyright owners of the music that’s featured); (2) mute the audio in the videos and (3) block their videos from windowing onto my site. While all of these options are less than ideal, is there a chance I am also responsible for paying ASCAP and others for the performance even though I am only hotlinking (i.e. not copying anything – merely directing the flow from YouTube to the end user)?

      I’m perplexed – what is the legal basis for paying more royalties. As noted above, doesnt YouTube’s license (and presumably their payments) cover my use? And wouldnt an additional fee be double-dipping?

      Reply
      • jw

        There’s no way Facebook paid royalties each time Gangnam Style or Thrift Shop was played via an embedded youtube video.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *