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

251–260 of 347 posts

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#251

Post by Mindwipe »

easytiger wrote: post #248
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…

I wonder how this works as they've been available on Spotify for as long as I can recall. I assume they will have to show they requested discussion on the licensing long before taking extraordinary measures such as this. Wixen allegedly represent Neil Young who is founder of a now defunct (I believe) digital music distribution service called Pono^ focused around lossless encoding. To quote Neil himself (as CEO) when…

Wixen are pretty notorious for acting like this, they don't need Neil Young to be pulling the strings.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#252

Post by dmitriid »

dmitriid wrote: post #238
mortenjorck wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn’t. Because you assume that blockchain will magically identify and attribute every single of 30 million songs in Spotify’s database.

Oh. I just realized another thing. 30 million songs can easily fit into a database running on a Macbook Air.

Stick it on a medium-sized server, and you can already serve thousands of users.

Blockchain meanwhile... something something ... 4 txns/second ... 1 terrawatt per txn ... up to several days to clear a txn when network is congested

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#253

Post by Mindwipe »

bigbluedots wrote: post #161
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…

If a mechanical license was required by Spotify, wouldn't that mean I'd be able to keep copies of the songs forever, even if I stopped paying them?

No.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#254

Post by lrem »

cortesoft wrote: post #100
thomastjeffery wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scales really well for the owner of the service... it does not scale really well for the internet as a whole (sadly).

No.

As someone whose PhD touched this: it is actually ok because it stabilises towards using the most available paths.

As someone who set this up at an ISP: you can QoS the hell out of P2P and keep everyone happy. That's unless you tried blocking it and now find yourself in a stupid arms war, against folks with more free time than yourself.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#255

Post by daics »

dmitriid wrote: post #252
dmitriid wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t. Because you assume that blockchain will magically identify and attribute every single of 30 million songs in Spotify’s database.

Oh. I just realized another thing. 30 million songs can easily fit into a database running on a Macbook Air. Stick it on a medium-sized server, and you can already serve thousands of users. Blockchain meanwhile... something something ... 4 txns/second ... 1 terrawatt per txn ... up to several days to clear a txn when network is congested

UMG, Warner, Sony and Spotify cannot share bills for running a common database on AWS today without creating yet another corporation and relinquishing power over the data to it.

Blockchains are not the next big thing in databases. They are here to revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts with each other, and even allow individuals themselves co-ordinate directly with each other without intermediaries through novel org structures.

You are trading computational scalability for social scalability.

http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-a...

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#256

Post by thomastjeffery »

bogomipz wrote: post #241
thomastjeffery wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth. There will always be weasels and bottom feeders that seek to constrain every other individual in the world from extending an artistic work or idea, even generations after his or her death; but do you really believe copyright/patent law has somehow pushed forward innovation?

>"Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth." Do you really believe that an artist who makes good money licensing their music for use in TV or movies views copyright as "more of a detriment than its worth"? The only reason that revenue stream is possible is because of copyright and the sync royalties paid out on them. >"...but do you really believe copyright/patent law ha…

> The only reason that revenue stream is possible

Enforcement is not a requirement to possibility.

Quite a few people make money with copyleft works. Even so, it is difficult, because strongly enforced copyright, and propaganda have created a culture that tries desperately to require copyright.

> Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society.

Of course not! But many are:

I can't watch Netflix in 1080p using Linux because of DRM.

Security research is illegal because of DRM.

I can't start a P2P music streaming service like Spotify did, because I don't have the capitol to pay for licenses. Any innovation in this sector must be done by incumbents; who have already found success, and are more content with stability.

I can't upload a video with fair use copyrighted content to Youtube, because Google has been bullied to/shows off their "capability" to weed out copyrighted content. That also sets an unfeasible precedent for competitors; who will never have the resources to do anything similar.

s/I can't/Practically no one in the world is allowed to/

Something need not be 100% detrimental to be more detrimental than it is worth. Copyright is a clear example of that. It began somewhere near middle ground, but has since drifted extremely to the benefit of media corporations, and the detriment of everyone else.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#257

Post by Terr_ »

xab9 wrote: post #243
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.

The billion dollar question. Why didn't you leave. Couple of weeks ago been talking to a coworker and said him that _sometimes_ people end up in uncomfortable situations. Family, children, debt, divorce, medical, elderly parents and so on - he said, that's not possible, because people _should_ plan their lives.

Ah, the Just World Hypothesis. "Something bad happens, you must've screwed up somehow. Just look at me, I'm doing fine and I instinctively know that random good-luck had nothing to do with it."

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#258

Post by thomastjeffery »

saalweachter wrote: post #207
thomastjeffery wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All three of the definitions you provided will work fine.

I am denied the fundamental right of expression by copyright.

I am denied the fundamental right of security by DRM.

I am denied the fundamental right of privacy by DRM and copyright enforcement.

The United States bullies other countries like New Zealand and Sweden to enforce its copyright.

Now that Spotify exists, and can afford royalties, all innovation must be done by Spotify, and a select few other incumbents; who are all more likely to favor stability. To do as Spotify did originally (P2P file streaming) is illegal.

Section 1201 of the DMCA prevents lawful security research on anything that includes any form of DRM, making the world less secure, making actors less trustworthy, and seriously degrading privacy.

It is law that I adamantly disagree with for very real reasons. I am sharing my disagreement with anyone who will listen, and hoping for change. That is not a slippery slope to anarchy: it is democracy.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#259

Post by bwmeyers »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #26
turc1656 wrote: post #14

This doesn't shock me at all. I recall a while back reading how Spotify allegedly started their service with downloads from The Pirate Bay: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...

Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.

What innovation? Transporting things other people created from one place to another?

Sounds more like the post office to me.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#260

Post by pas »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #205
emodendroket wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

For the vast majority of the internet users, it does.

They won't "hack" the online radio to download (rip) the stream. Even if it's just a click away via countless stream downloading services found via any web search engine.

DRM raises that technical bar by a few notches, but it doesn't really work for non-interactive content, because there are again countless sites that offer non-DRMed access. (So DRM works for games, because it takes a while to crack them.)

Post reply on HN