Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CEO is a former CEO of BitTorrent.com.
Do you mean uTorrent? Seems he headed that until it was sold to BitTorrent Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ek
The guy is who made utorrent also works for spotify
Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
71–80 of 347 posts
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Spotify uses (or used?) peer to peer technology for streaming.
Long ago, removed almost four years ago. https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/17/spotify-removes-peer-to-pe...
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nah. This was the desktop app long before the web app existed. To this day it still uses absurd amounts of disk space / ram.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#74Earlier 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.
[deleted]
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#75> 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…
My guess is that the amount being sought reflects statutory damages for willful copyright infringement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma...
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#76This 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 carr…
It’s kind of a gray area, the whole performing/mechanical rights system was obviously invented before streaming. Radio stations pay for performing rights, so the question arises whether streaming is more like radio broadcast or manufacturing and distributing physical copies (e.g. CDs)? Without further legislation, ultimately only the courts can decide that.
My guess is that ultimately streaming rights will end up as their own category, separate from performance, mechanical or sync rights.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Swif…
When an artistic pursuit is personal, it seems like it could maybe be passed on in a will or something similar. This might be a ridiculous idea, but I guess I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#78This article adds a bit more context. Spotify claims that Wixen is overstepping their authority as music licensors and suing on behalf of clients who have not given Wixen that authority. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-hit-16-bil...
That article is discussing several different legal actions. I understood Spotify's comments regarding the artists to be in reference to the class action lawsuite Wixen is (in their opinion) interfering in.
In general to have standing you need to show you have been directly harmed. The exclusive licensee of a song would be directly harmed if someone distributed it without paying for a license. So while Wixen may not have standing in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of the original artisits, they would have standing in their own action which they have now filed.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#79This 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 carr…
Thank you for this! I was quite shocked that Spotify would just outright steal a bunch of songs and publish them without any kind of license. This makes a lot more sense.
Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's simply nonsense to claim that sampling and mashups have been stifled by copyright law.
Ignoring a few ancient parody/satire acts like Negativland, samples are made, used, cleared, and paid for with no serious negative consequences. Likewise remixes.
There's some extra paperwork, money changes hands, and on the whole everyone is happy.
What's been far more damaging is Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that.