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

321–330 of 347 posts

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#321

Post by lt »

dmitriid wrote: post #318
lt wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't set up by me, was it? Yeah, you are the one claiming that blockchain has to somehow identify and categorize songs automatically in order for it to be in anyway useful. The undeniable appeal claimed is about how organizations coordinate and share information. > Moreover, it means that every single company agrees that anyone can just write whatever they want to this database, sure. No, you can design it wit…

> Yeah, you are the one claiming that blockchain has to somehow identify and categorize songs automatically in order for it to be in anyway useful. Nope. Not me. I've even quoted the claims. > The undeniable appeal claimed is about how organizations coordinate and share information. Once again. I asked several times: the organisations cannot organise and agree now . Why would they agree in the case of blockchain? Jus…

> So, once again. What exactly does blockchain bring into the equation if everything remains the same?

I did state it, repeatedly, but it doesn't count because everything else remains the same and it doesn't magicaly makes everything simple and easy. Allright.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#322

Post by rhino369 »

foepys wrote: post #33
thomastjeffery wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.

This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years after the death of all participating authors. If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change.

One reason is that patents are much broader than copyrights. A copyright only prevents someone from copying your specific work. You can copyright Batman, but someone else can make Black Panther.

Patents cover independently developmed products and can cover fundamental methods or products. Inventions are often nearly developed by diffrent people. If the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, someone else would have within ten years.

Someone else wouldn't have written To Kill a Mockingbird. Some other novel may have captured the same fame and critical praise, but that copyright doesn't stop that novel from exisiting.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#323

Post by whiddershins »

EADGBE wrote: post #297
dmitriid wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify would gladly pay the artists all the money and it could. And it can’t . Precisely because of copyright laws: you end up paying the labels, not the artists.

Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify. For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FW…

FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now.

Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up.

I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems that make it infeasible for certain types of artists to make any sort of living.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#324

Post by whiddershins »

whiddershins wrote: post #323
EADGBE wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify. For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FW…

FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now. Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up. I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems th…

Edit:

I’m not advocating for touring being better. I hate touring. But the streaming amounts we’re discussing are really tiny in the end. The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#325

Post by gt_ »

gabemart wrote: post #307
gt_ wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copied? Snow White was a groundbreaking feat of animation brilliance, a result of tireless effort, craftsmanship and detail that experts widely agree rivals any animation project produced to date. It was literally the first feature-length color animated film with sync audio ever produced, and you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale? This is no weakness. This is consistent with filmma…

>you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale That wasn't my reading of the parent at all. Snow White the animated film wouldn't have been made if copyright was perpetually inherited and some distant Grimm relative refused to give Disney permission to make the film. This is relevant to your original point - that "I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be a…

Thanks for posting your response. This makes a little more sense.

Of course, my point was about distribution of original works, not inspiration or even creative appropriation. Maybe I needed to specify that? Or maybe this was well implied by the wider conversation around Spotify’s distribution of original works. Either way, it’s a separate discussion.

To be clear, Disney did not publish and distribute copies of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

And let’s consider what Disney would have done if prevented from using the Snow White tale for his animation project? Would he have just given up?? Let’s not kid ourselves. He would have done what great artists tend to do: be creative and find another solution. There were mountains of hurdles in making this film and that would have been a mole hill. It would have been a different film, sure. It may have been better. We do not know.

The modern Disney corporation is a separate entity, to be sure.

You open up a new basket of issues here. For example, films are commonly produced from narrative works in other domains, personal accounts, etc. The royalty system allows for more than simply profit. In films, it also protects from the original authors, or storytellers and their families from what can be something like libel. It allows them to deny permission when accounts are exaggerated for audience appeal, when it may unjustly disgrace their reputation. This is only a basic example of why these things exist. It does sort of sometimes suck for artists but artists but they tend to better understand the issues at hand.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#326

Post by thomastjeffery »

thirdsun wrote: post #246
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…

I can't seem to follow your argument. If you want DRM-free, lossless, digital music to download and own you can buy it from countless shops - from iTunes (well, not lossless) to platforms like Bandcamp to niche stores like Boomkat. I think the music industry, in contrast to its Hollywood sibling, has very much succeeded in offering DRM-free content from a wide range of stores, shops and platforms. Physical media like…

I want the liberty to compete with Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, iTunes, etc. without fear of debilitating litigation.

I want to enjoy music without ever sacrificing my security or privacy to DRM.

Just because the music industry is in a significantly better position than others does not make it good enough.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#327

Post by thomastjeffery »

emodendroket wrote: post #276
thomastjeffery wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So DRM works for games, because it takes a while to crack them.) It really doesn't. > For the vast majority of the internet users, it does. The significant majority of internet users have been carefully conditioned with propaganda to be afraid of file sharing and other more convenient options. The idea that it works just enough to be valuable is what these media corporations are constantly telling themselves, and e…

If the DRM on games takes a few weeks to get cracked it's done its job. Sales are really front-loaded for most games.

Do you really believe the same customers who buy a game the week it comes out would not pay for that game if they could pirate it soon enough?

That's absurd.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#328

Post by dmitriid »

lt wrote: post #321
dmitriid wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, you are the one claiming that blockchain has to somehow identify and categorize songs automatically in order for it to be in anyway useful. Nope. Not me. I've even quoted the claims. > The undeniable appeal claimed is about how organizations coordinate and share information. Once again. I asked several times: the organisations cannot organise and agree now . Why would they agree in the case of blockchain? Jus…

> So, once again. What exactly does blockchain bring into the equation if everything remains the same? I did state it, repeatedly, but it doesn't count because everything else remains the same and it doesn't magicaly makes everything simple and easy. Allright.

You did, and it breaks immediately, because everything else (the things that actually don't work) remain the same, and you for some reason expect them to work in your blockchain.

If something doesn't already work, adding something that's completely orthogonal doesn't help it, or solve it. All other perceived benefits are just not good enough, and blockchain brings enough problems of its own.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#329

Post by WhyNotHugo »

Can_Not wrote: post #285
rebuilder wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not entirely. You get a CD, and a licence to reproduce it under certain conditions. If you purchase a music CD, your rights to reproduce it can legally be revoked (though I can't think of any cases where this has actually happened).

Perhaps, more importantly, it's easier for Spotify to enforce this, than a CD-making company.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#330

Post by EADGBE »

whiddershins wrote: post #323
EADGBE wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify. For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FW…

FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now. Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up. I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems th…

Yes, if you're touring.

The new way doesn't require this. And is purely gravy on top.

I was just giving numbers, not condoning their payout scheme as something to move forward with.

Post reply on HN