Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 347 posts

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#171

Post by redwall_hp »

saalweachter wrote: post #143
andrepd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should obey the law because it is the law?

See, the "an unjust law should not be obeyed" rhetoric works better when the principle being upheld isn't "I want to be entertained for free". I can get behind the "the information wants to be free, man" line when we're talking about overpriced textbooks and academic journals and bytecode for tractors, but when it comes to entertainment, I have a hard time caring. I don't think producers have a fundamental right to c…

If it's "just entertainment," then why should the government (and by extension, we the people) be engaged in propping up the profitability of their industry?

If you can't find a way to make your entertainment profitable without legal protectionism, maybe you don't deserve too.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#172

Post by QAPereo »

emodendroket wrote: post #146
QAPereo wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the vast majority of history, musicians were not some of the wealthiest members of society, far from it. Music has traditionally been “near free” and only ceased to be during a brief period necessitated by tech. That period has long since ended. I don’t see that an artificial value placed on music, rather than the previous real value set on its distribution, is necessarily a good thing.

How would you feel if someone were applying this argument to software development? At any rate, rich, world-famous artists are the least harmed by changes in the music industry.

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not a software developer so it may not hit as close to home as you hope. Having said that, I would point out that programming isn’t an art, but engineering. You’re not performing, you’re building something. Traditionally it’s been easier to earn a living by making something people want to buy than making art which may or may not be popular.

I don’t have a problem with that, and as I said, I don’t think anything other than a brief moment in the history of art does either.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#173

Post by user5994461 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #93
cbhl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's sad to see that peer to peer is not utilized more, since it scales so well. The overbearing copyright propaganda has given BitTorrent a bad name, even though it has so many other uses.

It doesn't scale well. It saturates the upload bandwidth and grinds the connection to a halt. It ruins the internet for the entire family or office. Office sysadmins will block the software and start a witch hunt once they realize the problem.

Also, connecting doesn't work with NAT, carrier grade NAT and firewalls. They need a client-server model with a server that is accessible.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#174

Post by mortenjorck »

zaphar wrote: post #160
huac wrote: post #89

I hate to be that guy but maintaining records of who owns which license for which song seems like an actual use of blockchain tech.

It's also an actual use of you know... A database.

Well sure, but who owns the database? Where is it hosted and who vouches for its accuracy? What happens if it goes down or its maintainer goes out of business?

Of course, all these questions can be addressed in one way or another with conventional database tech. But blockchain has some undeniable appeal in an application like this.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#175

Post by QAPereo »

scarface74 wrote: post #168
CamperBob2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel if someone were applying this argument to software development? I'd ask how much FOSS software is running on your machine right now, and how you intend to pay for it...

How much FOSS software is actually funded by big companies that are either trying to upsell support or non free offerings, trying to get others to contribute for free to help them,or by companies who are trying to "commoditize their compliments"? Most major open source software is not done as a labor of love.

Whereas most music is clearly the muses working through mortal souls, right? Come on...

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#176

Post by thomastjeffery »

seanalltogether wrote: post #148
lathiat wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling that a lot of p2p efforts fail because of patents. For example I understand the reason Facetime calls don't go phone-to-phone and instead go through a server is because of a patent [troll]. I'm curious to see how WebRTC fits into that.

I think that was more a lesson from observing the problems with Skype and other video conferencing software. P2P video is great when everything is one on one, start adding in additional people and the whole experience grinds to a stuttering pixelated mess.

That's for small scale real-time.

P2P scales great at a slightly larger scale, especially with larger chunks of data.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#177

Post by danbmil99 »

fnovd wrote: post #167
emodendroket wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel if someone were applying this argument to software development? At any rate, rich, world-famous artists are the least harmed by changes in the music industry.

I'm now imagining a disenchanted musician spending 8 hours a day at the cubicle making "business music."

Well you don't know anyone in the advertising and incidental music space

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#178

Post by thomastjeffery »

cortesoft wrote: post #142
thomastjeffery wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? There only issue I can think of is upload speed, which is improving for many, and would improve more prevalently if more average users had a clear need.

Well, ISPs did not build their systems with equal upload and download in mind. There is no pure technical reason they couldn't have, but it was what they did. To replace all of that would be difficult, and the large players in the existing system will have economic motivations for fighting any change. There is a pretty good write up here: http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/10/03/why-up-is-slower-...

> To replace all of that would be difficult

Not particularly. Symmetry is totally arbitrary. It's having the same amount down as before, while having more up that is the problem.

> and the large players in the existing system -will- have economic motivations for fighting any change.

That's the real problem. The solution is to give them an economic incentive to change. Average users wanting more bandwidth/symmetry is an effective way to do that.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#179

Post by [deleted] »

scarface74 wrote: post #168
CamperBob2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel if someone were applying this argument to software development? I'd ask how much FOSS software is running on your machine right now, and how you intend to pay for it...

How much FOSS software is actually funded by big companies that are either trying to upsell support or non free offerings, trying to get others to contribute for free to help them,or by companies who are trying to "commoditize their compliments"? Most major open source software is not done as a labor of love.

[deleted]

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#180

Post by PhasmaFelis »

QAPereo wrote: post #140
sideshowb wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree publishers were incompetent (in clinging onto old models rather than adapting), but has streaming really helped the average artist? Having the option to distribute music for free has been good, for sure Setting the expectation that music should be near enough free, less so You could argue this is one of those public good situations universal income is designed to address, but it certainly hasn't yet.

For the vast majority of history, musicians were not some of the wealthiest members of society, far from it. Music has traditionally been “near free” and only ceased to be during a brief period necessitated by tech. That period has long since ended. I don’t see that an artificial value placed on music, rather than the previous real value set on its distribution, is necessarily a good thing.

Not even then. Musicians as a group weren't wealthy even in the heyday of physical albums. As with so many things, it's only a handful of top names that make a bundle.
Post reply on HN