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

281–290 of 347 posts

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#281

Post by RobertoG »

Terr_ wrote: post #257
xab9 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I think that effect it's called by psychologists "fundamental attribution error". It has been studied for years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#282

Post by copywronged »

DrJokepu wrote: post #76
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…

It’s kind of a gray area, the whole performing/mechanical rights system was obviously invented before streaming. Radio stations pay for performing rights, so the question arises whether streaming is more like radio broadcast or manufacturing and distributing physical copies (e.g. CDs)? Without further legislation, ultimately only the courts can decide that. My guess is that ultimately streaming rights will end up as…

These rights should be negotiated relative to consumer rights: if my music subscription fee pays for mechanical licensing as well as performance, I should be free to copy that music for personal offline use.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#283

Post by emodendroket »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #192
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.

Centralized billing is not the most lucrative method for creators. It's only good for the middleman.

I am not casting the old label system as a Utopia for artists but it seems like the brave new world is even worse.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#285

Post by Can_Not »

rebuilder wrote: post #265
shams93 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a logical level it should be treated the same as broadcast radio, however it gets hazy because you can store playlists and play tracks on demand so its really not clear cut. With radio you can hear the song if it happens to be playing but there is no on demand, no playlists.

Functionally, for the consumer, streaming is mostly identical to a recording. Want to listen to a song? Press play. The storage just happens to be on some server somewhere.

Except a recording is mine permanently and physically

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#286

Post by invisible »

bwang29 wrote: post #16

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," ... "…

The reason this is being brought up is because often these litigations end with zero funds being transferred to the artists themselves. It’s not in the artists interests to sue for _damages_ if they make no money. That is the sketchy thing that this type of litigation exudes.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#287

Post by pdpi »

emodendroket wrote: post #275
thomastjeffery wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you take physical media out of the equation you get buying the CD on iTunes or something. It's hard to see what utility this gives you beyond playing the song on Spotify.

Given that iTunes provides DRM free tracks, the utility it provides is irrevocable offline reproduction

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#288

Post by ssharp »

amigoingtodie wrote: post #107
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.

I am guessing stock options/vesting. I believe Alanis took mp3.com stock as payment. That was a different time. The Beam-it software was pretty cool.

It was a different time, but probably not that different figuratively.

Things like Shatner taking Priceline stock to be their spokesperson played into the dot-com mania narrative of the time, but now that's seen as a shrewd business move. 50 Cent had a $60-100 million exit with Vitamin Water and Lebron had a $30 million exit with Beats.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#289

Post by saaaaaam »

Bilters wrote: post #270
saaaaaam wrote: post #106

There is a little (understandable) confusion in some of the comments here. The issue here is not that Spotify is infringing copyright (so it’s nothing to do with BitTorrent etc) but rather that Wixen says that it has not been paid correctly for the mechanical exploitation of the copyrights it administers. This is complex for several reasons. First of all: the recordings in question have without doubt been legitimatel…

Wow this a great explanation! The level of complexity is higher than I thought at first. Thanks for this!

Music licensing is really complex. As someone else has said in another comment thread it also varies territory by territory in how this is managed - but then also who is owed what can vary territory by territory depending on other deals at play.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#290

Post by cjg »

rebuilder wrote: post #265
shams93 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a logical level it should be treated the same as broadcast radio, however it gets hazy because you can store playlists and play tracks on demand so its really not clear cut. With radio you can hear the song if it happens to be playing but there is no on demand, no playlists.

Functionally, for the consumer, streaming is mostly identical to a recording. Want to listen to a song? Press play. The storage just happens to be on some server somewhere.

It's just a really accommodating radio station that always plays your requests, no?
Post reply on HN