Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking down .org domain

Post by troupo » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 11:27 PM UTC

themafia wrote: post #31

endofreach wrote: post #4

what‘s in it for spotify? i can‘t think of a single person who‘d stop paying for streaming services (music) in favour of going back to illegally download or (or even legally purchase) songs & managing their own library. m a y b e some devs would. but those thinking about it, wouldn‘t be stopped like that. i am thinking about it, yet i just renewed my subscription because i lack time & motivation to crawl down yet ano…

Cozy secondary relationships with music labels. Payola goes one way and industry demands go the other. Since "owners" take such a big chunk (50%) of paid royalties for streaming there is a strong incentive to only play music that is "owned" by labels and not directly by artists and performers. Controlling the number of "spins" an song or album of theirs gets is still a huge concern of the labels.

Post by surround » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 11:32 PM UTC

akersten wrote: post #7

But you can't even download the allegedly infringing material from the .org site. You can just read about it? So they're abusing the All Writs Act to take down a site that they think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing for their business. If I wasn't on Anna's side before, I sure am now.

Post by troupo » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 11:33 PM UTC

Paracompact wrote: post #65

Can anyone recommend a music discovery service that isn't garbage? I fled to Spotify from Pandora because it kept recommending me the exact same songs, but now Spotify does basically the same thing. In the age of machine learning, I'm really surprised there aren't superhuman music recommendation algorithms. Or maybe there are, and these algorithms simply don't serve the corporate interests. But then where are the ope…

Post by hirako2000 » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 11:38 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #72

crazygringo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually committing a crime is not the same as saying you will commit a crime. No, but it can have a lot of legal repercussions, like restraining orders, you can be arrested for making a threat, search warrants may be issued... and in the case of corporations, restraining orders and injunctions. Like here. This is all very standard stuff. There's absolutely nothing exceptional about the court process in this partic…

>On January 2, the music companies asked for a temporary restraining order, and the court granted it the same day. That pretty much tells me all about what courts care about. Can't get TRO's when the government is attacking its people, but when there's a sniff of sharing music? Instant hammer. EDIT: to answer a response I got about "courts aren't supposed to 'care'", that's the point of a TRO: >To obtain a TRO, a par…

Post by snowmobile » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 11:41 PM UTC

themafia wrote: post #22

I don't understand the sealing and ex-parte motions in this case. It looks completely corrupt. They're claiming that the archive would have released all the material publicly if they were allowed to know an injunction was about to be filed against them. Yet all those songs certainly have illegal copies already being distributed on the internet. So what was the actual harm being prevented here? I cannot understand how…