Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might help if you explained why you think that is the case.
They mean the formatting of the link is busted by the quote marks.
The link is busted by the double quote at the end of it.
Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
61–70 of 347 posts
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#62I'm seeing several comments here that assume the lawsuit to be over recordings, but Wixen manages "mechanical licenses" (rights to melody and lyrics), not recordings.
Mechanical licenses are governed very differently from recordings. For one, they are subject to compulsory licensing, which allows you pay a statutory rate to license them, as opposed to directly licensing them from the rightsholder. The suit alleges that Spotify did neither in this case.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Another reason to be deeply afraid to see Disney acquire everybody else.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#64Isn't this just another grab by middlemen trying to take a bigger cut of streaming revenue because CD sales are dying?
When Spotify was in a spat with Taylor Swift's former label, the two companies couldn't even agree on how much in royalties she was making a year. https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213775/taylor-swift-spo...
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#65This article reads like a press release from the plantiff (Wixen) and took a little googling to unwind. Long story short, it sounds like there's disagreement about what type of license Spotify needs. Spotify has previously claimed that streaming is not "reproduction" and is more akin to "performance"... and they (may) have those licenses. What they do not have (in some cases?) is a "mechanical" license[1], which carries requirements for notification and payment that Spotify claims are onerous.[2]
Thus, I'd re-write the lede of this story to:
Music streaming company Spotify was sued by Wixen Music
Publishing Inc last week for allegedly using thousands of
songs... without [the right kind of] license and
[associated kind of notification and] compensation to the
music publisher.
[2] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-dont-compa...
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#66...and Lars Ulrich is cheering from his grave.
Why would he do that? He's not dead.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#67Earlier 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
#68* Tinfoil hat * Large music labels prefer revenue/relationships with Apple and Apple music and will use their monopoly to hurt or ruin competitors like Spotify.
They really don't care who , they only care about squeezing every penny they can out of copyright.
I would think that the authors/rights holders of the music really should get the majority of the revenue. The underlying technology is of little interest to the end user.
Who would really install and pay for spotify if the entire library consisted of a two minute track of street sounds from Los Angeles and thirty seconds of doorbells? Basically no one. Nobody really cares about the technology, what they want is the music, without which even the coolest technology is uninteresting.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.
Said no music artist ever.
Upvoted because I agree with the sentiment but also not true.
Look at how the interpretation of copyright as it pertains to sampling and mashing etc absolutely stifled innovation and continues to do so.
For visual art look at how ambiguous the law is around collage, which definitely stifles innovation.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is exactly my point. It only benefits the already big successful cooperations and people. It does nearly nothing for small artists while actively hindering people from enjoying cultural goods. Every song that is being created today will still be under copyright when you die. Meanwhile if someone creates a new way to manufacture a certain product, it's "only" protected for 20 years (which is fine).
If Taylor Swift lives until she is 80, her songs will be free in the year 2140 - maybe even later if someone like a composer lives longer. Isn't this just absurd?