Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.
That doesn't make it okay to flaunt the law, Travis.
So we should obey the law because it is the law?
Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
51–60 of 347 posts
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#52> In May, the Stockholm, Sweden-based company agreed to pay more than $43 million to settle a proposed class action alleging it failed to pay royalties for some of the songs it makes available to users. This number seems closer to reality. It may be Tom Petty, Neil Young, and the Doors, but they're not worth nearly 10% of Spotify's valuation, and that certainly wouldn't match a compensatory amount in revenue that Spo…
> This number seems closer to reality. It may be Tom Petty, Neil Young, and the Doors, but they're not worth nearly 10% of Spotify's valuation Why not? Is there some plausible way to build a $19bn company that lets you listen to music without the works of major globally famous artists? I am willing to agree with you intuitively that this suit is overstating damages as well, but it's definitely not a prima facie argum…
Spotify didn’t have anything by the Beatles for years and it still became very popular.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#53This doesn't shock me at all. I recall a while back reading how Spotify allegedly started their service with downloads from The Pirate Bay: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.
It's a double edged sword. Less capital would flow into creating new technologies if there was no way to protect that investment. On the other hand onerous copyright protections slow the pace of innovation.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.
This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years after the death of all participating authors. If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change.
[deleted]
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#55...and Lars Ulrich is cheering from his grave.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#56This doesn't shock me at all. I recall a while back reading how Spotify allegedly started their service with downloads from The Pirate Bay: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
It is my belief that their library was in some portion built by exflitrating data from user's computers. I have an enormous collection of lossless audio and noticed it using lots of bandwidth. The desktop versions insist on loading when the machine boots, and use subsantial amounts of bandwidth/memory at idle.
I'm pretty sure that's just the absurd inefficiency of today's trendy software.
I've also long shunned the spotify "deskop apps" and stuck to the website because firefox can contain the damage a bit, and ublock origin can make a surprising difference in the cpu usage of spotify! The ads are crazy javascript sometimes, and I'm guessing the same crap is loaded into the desktop electron apps.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#57This doesn't shock me at all. I recall a while back reading how Spotify allegedly started their service with downloads from The Pirate Bay: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
Spotify cleaned up a lot in 2014.
They used to be peer-to-peer, and they'd give "free" service to employees of certain big tech companies because they could take advantage of the upload bandwidth of the big tech offices.
They culled the P2P tech in 2014 and went to a standard server-client model.
https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/17/spotify-removes-peer-to-pe...
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.
This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years after the death of all participating authors. If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change.
Short answer: Disney
In the US, money = speech.
Huge media corporations like Disney have deep pockets, and therefore have deep influence.
Increasing copyright length only benefits these corporations.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#59> In May, the Stockholm, Sweden-based company agreed to pay more than $43 million to settle a proposed class action alleging it failed to pay royalties for some of the songs it makes available to users. This number seems closer to reality. It may be Tom Petty, Neil Young, and the Doors, but they're not worth nearly 10% of Spotify's valuation, and that certainly wouldn't match a compensatory amount in revenue that Spo…
That's not how damages work though. A factory worth $1 million can create hundreds of millions of dollars of damages with a spill or accident.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.
This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years after the death of all participating authors. If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change.
I don't think companies like Disney lobby to extend copyright endlessly because they can't make money in the first 20 years, but because they can continue making money after 20 years and would prefer to do that than not. Especially with things like Disney cycling availability of older films and stuff, I'm sure they make loads of money on their older material and just want to keep doing that even if it was successful when first released.