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

201–210 of 347 posts

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#201

Post by visarga »

agrippanux wrote: post #96

I was one of the original engineers on MP3.com. Shortly after our music locker service debuted, we got sued by all the major labels. I spent 4 months writing tools to pull all the discovery data for their lawsuits. When it was apparent our court case was going south, the major music publishers sued us as well (lead by Harry Fox Agency). I spent another 4 months pulling discovery data for those lawsuits. When those co…

I was very sad the day MP3.com closed. I loved the music there, and it was in an age before YT. Was the catalog deleted or did it survive?

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#202

Post by toast0 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #178
cortesoft wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Symmetry isn't totally arbitrary. In many deployed access technologies, scaling head end send speed is easier than scaling user end send speed; sometimes there are settings to increase upload speed at the expense of download speed (ex annex M for adsl2), but sometimes it's an inherently asymmetric system.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#203

Post by thomastjeffery »

themagician wrote: post #83
thomastjeffery wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.

Innovation isn't always the goal. It's not clear to me that streaming music has actually resulted in better music or a better listening experience. It's just resulted in more plays. This benefits Spotify and advertisers the most.

Music streaming has resulted in a better discovery experience, which is valuable to users and creators.

There is an awful lot of innovation being held back. You are likely unaware, since it is not you who wants to innovate, and you aren't experiencing those innovations.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#204

Post by daveFNbuck »

emodendroket wrote: post #147
thomastjeffery wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the reason behind ridiculous things like DRM. The idea that there is a difference between broadcasting and copying, and that computers can emulate that difference is a pipe dream; nonetheless shared by most music labels.

It doesn't seem outlandish to claim there's a distinction between a broadcast, where you might hear a song at a particular time of day, and having an on-demand copy of a song at any time. The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify.

People used to regularly create mix tapes from radio broadcasts.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#205

Post by thomastjeffery »

emodendroket wrote: post #147
thomastjeffery wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the reason behind ridiculous things like DRM. The idea that there is a difference between broadcasting and copying, and that computers can emulate that difference is a pipe dream; nonetheless shared by most music labels.

It doesn't seem outlandish to claim there's a distinction between a broadcast, where you might hear a song at a particular time of day, and having an on-demand copy of a song at any time. The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify.

There is, but that distinction does not exist with internet distribution. It's arbitrarily enforced via DRM (which doesn't really work), which is in turn enforced by Section 1201 of the DMCA.

> The former scenario could see you, for instance, buying a CD because you liked a song you heard on the radio; that is probably not as likely with Spotify.

That depends on whether you want to support the record label/artist, and find CDs as/more convenient as/than streaming.

The trouble is that CDs are really less convenient, and therefore less valuable.

Copyright holders should react to the declining value of physical media by creating better distribution platforms. Unfortunately, they have failed miserably, and now resort to disproportional copyright enforcement and DRM, which pushes the value of their product even farther down.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#206

Post by spike021 »

ryanisnan wrote: post #121
spike021 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't mind me asking, is there any particular reason you didn't just leave? I'd imagine this fits the kind of situation where you aren't obligated to stay.

$

How does that work if the company was being sued? Do they have some kind of reserve to pay current employees with?

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#207

Post by saalweachter »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #200
saalweachter wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Civil disobedience is not constrained to the most directly onerous legal abuse. The "an unjust law should be obeyed" rhetoric works... never.

You need to define what an "unjust law" is.

There are a lot of definitions you could use: a law which denies fundamental rights; a law created by an illegitimate government; a law which makes the world worse.

But if your definition is basically "any law I personally disagree with", you're just advocating for simple anarchy.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#208

Post by thomastjeffery »

toast0 wrote: post #202
thomastjeffery wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Symmetry isn't totally arbitrary. In many deployed access technologies, scaling head end send speed is easier than scaling user end send speed; sometimes there are settings to increase upload speed at the expense of download speed (ex annex M for adsl2), but sometimes it's an inherently asymmetric system.

Even so, it would be a good thing for ISPs to change that infrastructure.

That won't happen until there is a fiscal incentive for them to do so, so let's not be afraid to give them one.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#209

Post by rblatz »

bogomipz wrote: post #117
intopieces wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify has previously claimed that streaming is not "reproduction" and is more akin to "performance"... and they (may) have those licenses. Doesn't having an offline mode run counter to this claim? That's clearly reproducing it. It once lived as a copy on their servers, now it lives as a copy on their servers and on the subscriber's device. I could see, however, the argument going this way: a true reproduction is…

>"Doesn't having an offline mode run counter to this claim? That's clearly reproducing it." I agree with this. Even if it only lives an encrypted cache you are effectively doing a bit by bit reproduction when you offline sync. They do expire once the user hadn't logged in for some amount of time, I believe it's something like after 30 days of not logging in or refreshing a token. Before streaming when someone bought…

>Before streaming when someone bought a CD they bought just that copy you weren't permitted to make a copy of that CD at any time.

I guess it depends on what you mean by permitted, was I legally allowed to copy the CD? Yes, was I also able to pick my favorite tracks and make a custom playlist CD? Also yes. You were also free to rip it to your computer and put it on your iPod. It's called Fair Use and since there was no DRM on a CD you were free to utilize your fair use rights.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#210

Post by thomastjeffery »

schoen wrote: post #196
thomastjeffery wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that in the long run, it is better to demand more bandwidth than is available, so that infrastructure builders can react accordingly.

I like the overprovisioning concept fine, but it's going to be pretty expensive to overprovision for the possibility of high-speed connections between all random pairs of hosts everywhere in the world regardless of geography. We'll probably have to persuade a lot more people to value this degree of connectivity ideologically, because demand for it isn't really getting expressed much right now. I don't want to sound l…

Your first point is actually a boon for P2P. If it is cheap enough for users to rent bandwidth closer to each other, that will solve the same problem CDNs solve.

As for points two and three, decentralization does not mean 100% symmetry, just relatively more.

I have a symmetric connection, and can forward ports without any fuss, and rather enjoy those advantages. Even so, I download quite a lot more than upload. I don't expect that to change much, even with significantly more P2P traffic.

There are a few things where I am really frustrated with other's inability to forward ports, especially video games and VOIP.

Post reply on HN