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

11–20 of 347 posts

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#13

Post by al2o3cr »

The pieces don't quite fit together here - Harry Fox handles a LOT of licensing (they're one of the places you can get mechanical licenses for cover songs via self-service) and I'd assume that a big contract for an organization the size of Spotify would include at least some indemnification for any legal issues.

And, naturally, the damage amount is wildly unrelated to actual revenues - not quite the "one download on Napster == $250k" levels seen in copyright litigation against consumers, but still almost half of Spotify's likely revenue for 2017...

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#15

Post by HenryBemis »

abluecloud wrote: post #4
sp332 wrote: post #2

At the bottom of the article is says "SPONSORED". But I can't find who sponsored it? Edit: Ok thanks for the screenshots. I disabled my adblocker but they're still not showing up. Probably just something broken.

Disable your ad block and you'll see adverts underneath it. https://imgur.com/a/zbvTh

fun fact: the ad was brought to us by "Dianomi" which is the Greek word for "distribution".

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#16

Post by bwang29 »

Added another source to assist discussion for more context: "https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-hit-16-bil...

And Quote :

"The Settlement Agreement is procedurally and substantively unfair to Settlement Class Members because it prevents meaningful participation by rights holders and offers them an unfair dollar amount in light of Spotify’s ongoing, willful copyright infringement of their works," ...

"In reaction, Spotify has been questioning whether Wixen has really been authorized by its clients (including Andrew Bird, Kenny Rogers, and Jim Morrison's heirs) to take its aggressive actions. Songwriters have administrative agreements with Wixen allowing the publisher to negotiate licensing deals, but Spotify has pointed out these agreements are silent about litigation."

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#17

Post by turc1656 »

al2o3cr wrote: post #13

The pieces don't quite fit together here - Harry Fox handles a LOT of licensing (they're one of the places you can get mechanical licenses for cover songs via self-service) and I'd assume that a big contract for an organization the size of Spotify would include at least some indemnification for any legal issues. And, naturally, the damage amount is wildly unrelated to actual revenues - not quite the "one download on…

It's just a starting point for negotiation. Same way people slip in a store and sue for $1M, even though they end up settling for 50k.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#19

Post by CPLX »

alehul wrote: post #8

> In May, the Stockholm, Sweden-based company agreed to pay more than $43 million to settle a proposed class action alleging it failed to pay royalties for some of the songs it makes available to users. This number seems closer to reality. It may be Tom Petty, Neil Young, and the Doors, but they're not worth nearly 10% of Spotify's valuation, and that certainly wouldn't match a compensatory amount in revenue that Spo…

> This number seems closer to reality. It may be Tom Petty, Neil Young, and the Doors, but they're not worth nearly 10% of Spotify's valuation

Why not? Is there some plausible way to build a $19bn company that lets you listen to music without the works of major globally famous artists?

I am willing to agree with you intuitively that this suit is overstating damages as well, but it's definitely not a prima facie argument, you'll have to support that point of view with facts.

Post reply on HN