Facebook Is Building a Streaming Service to Rival Spotify


Facebook may be negotiating with major labels over music video licensing, but according to Music Ally that’s just a first step in a much larger music strategy.

Sources say that once music videos are up and running Facebook plans on launching a full-fledged streaming service to compete with Spotify and Apple Music.

Facebook wants to get the video monetization and content identification process right before moving onto audio streaming.

Sources say music videos will launch in the next few months.

Now if Twitter and Snapchat launch their own streaming services I’ll probably quit the internet…


Nina Ulloa covers breaking news, tech, and more: @nine_u


Image by Daniel Lee, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

16 Responses

  1. Hey DeMovillin

    Interesting to see how this plays out. Sean Parker is an investor in both.

    • Anonymous

      He may be a fan of censorship, but most artists are not.

      And that’ll be a problem for Facebook now.

      • Anonymous

        Facebook will also need a takedown system that actually works (as opposed to ContentID).

        • Anonymous

          Facebook will probably build its own protection system, according to Musically.

          Here are the challenges (and why YouTube’s Content ID failed in each case):

          1) The system needs to be available for indie labels. (YouTube’s Content ID doesn’t seem to be available for indie labels unless they sign YouTube’s Music Key contract.)
          2) The system needs to be available for individual indie artists. (YouTube’s Content ID is not available for most indie artists unless they go through aggregators like Tunecore and Audiam — and these companies can’t be used in most cases; see below!)
          3) The system needs to be available for contemporary musicians. (YouTube’s Content ID is not available via Tunecore, CD Bay or Audiam for artists who use sample-based keyboards or sample libraries. And that’s almost everybody today.)
          4) The system needs to be reliable. (YouTube’s Content ID makes a lot mistakes that result in ridiculously complicated disputes.)
          5) The system needs to fully monetize all songs. (YouTube pays less for UGC than for authorized videos.)
          6) The system needs to monetize video as well as audio. (YouTube’s system can only be used to monetize 50% of a music video — the audio part — via aggregators like TuneCore and Audiam. YouTube keeps 100% of the video revenues!)

  2. Adam

    This would be an odd move for FB. They’ve shown time and again that rather then get into the content business themselves (news, games, videos, etc) they’d prefer to be a platform for multiple services. Why they’d want the headache of running a music service themselves (not much profit in it) when they could just work to increase the existing relationship they’ve had with Spotify, Rdio, etc seems odd.

    • Anonymous

      “Why they’d want the headache of running a music service themselves”

      Because they need music — and especially music videos — to make the site relevant for kids.

      Facebook’s current solution (to steal YouTube’s music videos) can’t go on. It would end in court and cost billions.

  3. Anonymous

    “if Twitter and Snapchat launch their own streaming services I’ll probably quit the internet”

    That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite way. I think Twitter and YouTube would be the perfect combo.

    In fact, the only thing I can’t stand about YouTube is its super slooow 20th century mood — I always get the feeling that everything on the site happened last week, and I have to leave if I want to know what’s going on in the real world.

  4. Anonymous

    According to Musically, Facebook’s move into monetized music videos is “way, way ahead of YouTube.”

  5. agraham999

    Personally I think this spells disaster for the music industry. Facebook launching a music streaming platform or even creating another form of YouTube means that the music business has ceded control to essentially 4 major corporations. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook. What no Spotify? Of course not, they can’t compete with these guys. They don’t have the capital or audience. It also means anyone below Spotify in numbers or capital funding is done as well. You can’t compete with a company that has the platform, the audience, the apps, the tools…the platform that makes you pay it to reach people to make money to pay the platform to reach people.

    Not to mention FB getting into the business ultimately doesn’t make more money…it just cannibalizes money from other platforms. Google and FB are going to go head to head.

    And…it is terrible for consumers…even less choice.

    • smg77

      The ‘music industry’ had its chance to drive people to digital instead of piracy. They chose to sue kids’ grandmothers instead.

  6. Lyle David Pierce III

    If defending the impending onslaught of U.S. Copyright Termination Rights litigation which “has significant implications for the entertainment and publishing industries” were not enough to keep the major labels, et al., occupied in the courts in the coming months and years as the composers, songwriters, recording artists, et al., strive to fully recover their rights from the music publishers and record labels by way of the copyright legislation, in view of the content of the posts and the discussions as of late on DMN, among other things, I think that there are more pressing concerns looming on the horizon for both music publishers and record labels than whether or not “Facebook is building a streaming service to rival Spotify.”

    Source: http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2012/04/article_0005.html

    For example, I am curious to see how the major labels, independent labels, et al., as well as other digital music streaming based services such as Spotify whose business model, economic survival and exit strategies are dependent upon converting free-users to subscribers will deal with the apparently legal free music streaming site, StreamSquid.

    Source: https://torrentfreak.com/free-music-streaming-site-revives-grooveshark-magic-and-more-150712/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    • Lyle David Pierce III

      Of course, the U.S. Copyright Act is a means by which those composers, songwriters, recording artists, et. al., who have previously assigned their property rights to others such as a music publisher or a record label for the purpose of exploitation within the meaning of the U.S. Copyright Act may perhaps fully recover the same provided that they satisfy, among other things, the legislative requirements for doing so such as the termination notice requirement, but obviously, the scope of the further issues regarding the intellectual property which has not yet been, including, but not limited to, released, assigned or otherwise licensed to others are by far more interesting. Needless to say, but I do, these are exciting times, exciting times indeed!!!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *