Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

Post by mxfh » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 11:20 PM UTC

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #60

foepys wrote: post #33

Earlier 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…

Post by adrianratnapala » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

thomastjeffery wrote: post #81

basseq wrote: post #65

This 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…

By the way, indenting comments makes them frustrating to read on mobile. The generally preferred method on HN is to begin the line with a > and optionally wrap the quote in * (asterisks) to make it italicized.

Post by thomastjeffery » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 11:25 PM UTC

DrJokepu wrote: post #76

basseq wrote: post #65

This 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…

Post by thomastjeffery » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 11:28 PM UTC

adrianratnapala wrote: post #84

thomastjeffery wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the way, indenting comments makes them frustrating to read on mobile. The generally preferred method on HN is to begin the line with a > and optionally wrap the quote in * (asterisks) to make it italicized.

> The generally preferred > method on HN is to begin > the line with a > The problem with ">"-style quoting, is that the markup doesn't recognize them. Nor does it preserve the preceding newline. So if you are quoting anything more than a one-liner, you get a mess.

Post by munificent » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

foepys wrote: post #33

thomastjeffery wrote: post #26

Earlier 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.