The thing is, we can cover the costs of streaming in us,uk,de with advertising, and we can't in other countries because their online ad markets are a lot tougher. We have listeners in almost every country in the world - it's simply impossible to have ad-sales teams in every country, and stuff like google ad-sense doesn't even come close to covering the licensing fees. It sucks that we have to charge some people, but we're keeping it free (ad-supported) in countries where we can sell enough ads to pay the bills. Simple as that.
Я ему ответил:
Thank you for response. There're few words on my opinion. Firstly the decision you made is just not fair for all the people who like meself brought new listeners here, wrote the wikis, contributed in translation, uploaded photos and videos, provided info to make last.fm better (similar artists feature, huge last.fm database, fingerprinting etc) and improved the service from modest audioscrobbler to splendid last.fm. Secondly, what about the artists? The possibility of carrying their music to net-wide audience was the driving force for many artists to sign on but I think many of "lesser" ones didn't want to get _any_ royalties if it restricts their possible audience and they still don't. Thirdly, the way those news were delivered was absolutely disgraceful. I was dumbfounded by _that_ blog entry. The message was absolutely clear - "ok lads, the dirty work were made, now pay or f*ck off. You have five (!) days to decide your future". You MUST revise and correct it. Last.fm name at stake.