The music industry just witnessed a firm moral stand when experimental rock band Deerhoof pulled their full discography from Spotify. The San Francisco-based band’s radical move was in protest of CEO Daniel Ek’s massive investment in military AI technology.
Spotify founder Daniel Ek led a €600 million Helsing funding round in the last month, a company that develops AI software to modernize military equipment and other devices. Ek is also the chairman of Helsing. The $700 million-valued funding has made the music streaming industry leader’s billionaire founder a major player in the defense technology industry.
Deerhoof Blazes Trail: Band Pulls Music from Spotify Over CEO’s Military AI Investments
For Deerhoof, it was an easy decision. “We don’t want our music killing people,” the group said in a straightforward articulation of their exit from the platform. They were deeply troubled by the prospect of their creative work being indirectly associated with weapons technology by virtue of their presence on Spotify.
German company Helsing manufactures AI-driven military drones and sophisticated surveillance systems to reconnoiter the battlefield. Ek became involved with Helsing in 2021 after he founded his own Prima Materia investment company with Spotify investor Shakil Khan. Prima Materia was to invest $1 billion in tech startups in Europe, solidifying it further as a top name in the startup world.
Deerhoof did not hesitate to share their view of the matter. They described the investment opportunity as part of an unnerving trend whereby “AI battle tech is the hot new thing for the super-rich.” The band interprets this as symptomatic of its growing militarization, with rich tech billionaires placing bets on weapons technology instead of peaceful technology.
Aside from the ethics, Deerhoof also lamented the business model’s practical drawback. The group has long denounced the platform’s notoriously low royalties for artists, calling the whole system exploitative. Deerhoof considered Spotify a “data-mining scam” and called on artists to boycott platforms linked to weapons development.
But Deerhoof knew that they’re in a more advantageous position to attempt this protest. Most musicians depend heavily on Spotify exposure for their livelihood, and thus it becomes much harder for them to leave the site. The band understood that their decision was “easy” for them but other musicians might not be able to afford financially to abandon such a vast channel of distribution.
Deerhoof’s Spotify Exit Ignites Debate on Ethics of Entertainment and Defense Tech
Ek’s entry into defence technology comes at a time when his individual wealth has hit dizzying levels. With a net worth estimated at $10.3 billion, the Spotify co-founder can place massive bets on anything. Helsing is among a wider trend of defence investment, as governments respond to threats to security across the globe, the Financial Times states.
The timing of this scandal is especially significant considering the recent global political climate. Defense technology has increasingly been a desirable area to invest in, with venture capital in Europe’s defense and security sector hitting all-time highs in the past few years.
Deerhoof promised their listeners that this Spotify exodus would not leave them in the lurch. The group promised listeners that their music would once again be available on other sites. They are in the process of uploading their catalog to other streaming sites that better align with their values.
This protest could be the tip of the iceberg for a bigger movement. And as the backlash continues to build, more musicians will be inspired by Deerhoof’s example to take principled stances against what they perceive as the disturbing confluence of entertainment and military technology.
Whether or not other musicians will be brave and well-off enough to take a page from Deerhoof’s book remains to be seen. But their defying of the template has at least generated a helpful discussion about the morality of where our streaming dollars ultimately go, and whether or not artists have a responsibility to think about the greater good when choosing their platforms.
The band’s decision is a sign of growing tension in the internet age between principle, profit, and convenience forcing the artists themselves and the consumers to ask themselves difficult questions about the true cost of our entertainment consumption.
