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

341–347 of 347 posts

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#341

Post by thomastjeffery »

thirdsun wrote: post #335
thomastjeffery wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I want the liberty to compete with Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, iTunes, etc. without fear of debilitating litigation. Feel free to do so. Of course it will be an uphill battle and a very complicated process, but I guess that applies to competing with any kind of major service, regardless of its category. > I want to enjoy music without ever sacrificing my security or privacy to DRM. Again, you can. Buy music fro…

> Feel free to do so.

I don't. That is entirely my point.

Spotify started as a convenient P2P streaming service, then got the capital to pay rightsholders. If I were to do the exact same thing, I would almost definitely be stopped on the outset by litigation.

> Again, you can

Sometimes. A few specific services offer DRM-free tracks, but there isn't much competition in that space. Again, it is practically impossible to legally compete with incumbents.

> from the shop of your choice

CD's are still the gold standard for lossless DRM-free music distribution. That is not a good thing. That is not a reasonable thing. That is the status quo that we are all constrained to by a select few corporations. It's not as drastic a problem as in Movies/TV, but it is still a problem.

> I still don't understand what you're missing.

Maybe you can read my comments over again, and ask about specific points. I care an awful lot about the subject, and would be happy to clear things up.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#342

Post by thomastjeffery »

emodendroket wrote: post #337
thomastjeffery wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's so absurd about it?

Most people who are willing to pay full price at the beginning of sales (usually $60, often over $100) are people who want to support the creators and distributors of the game.

Adding DRM is not likely to change a significant amount of that groups behavior. It does, however, significantly devalue the product.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#343

Post by thomastjeffery »

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.

The utility Spotify provides is discoverability. Spotify is a large and diverse collection.

> you get buying the CD on iTunes or something

As far as iTunes goes, it does not provide lossless DRM-free content at a competitive price, and is especially worthless to me, since it does not even run in Linux, and is painful to use in Windows.

There aren't many competitors either, because media corporations are holding back innovation and competition by demanding fees and DRM.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#344

Post by thomastjeffery »

emodendroket wrote: post #303
pdpi wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd say that the majority of consumers don't really care about that, though.

They certainly do.

Not being able to burn a mix-CD for friends is something that bothers almost anyone.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#345

Post by spiralx »

jmngomes wrote: post #301
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…

One thing that has always impressed me: how did Spotify obtain licenses for such a massive, international catalog of popular (and often, rare) music. Can anyone shed some light, e.g. who led this effort, what made it possible?

My knowledge is that the rights to some albums end being packaged and sold in large batches, which can lead to some oddness when only some of an artist's back catalogue is included - not that uncommon to see on Spotify, which also has albums appear and disappear as the rights change hands and deals get redone.

So you can probably build a fairly large catalogue from a relatively small number of deals, I'm guessing it follows a rough 80/20 pattern.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#346

Post by emodendroket »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #342
emodendroket wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so absurd about it?

Most people who are willing to pay full price at the beginning of sales (usually $60, often over $100) are people who want to support the creators and distributors of the game. Adding DRM is not likely to change a significant amount of that groups behavior. It does, however, significantly devalue the product.

That's what you say. But what evidence do you have for it? I contend that there is a significant number of people who would probably be willing to buy a game on its release date at full price, but will choose not to if a free bootleg is available. I also contend that for many or even most gamers DRM in video games is not an issue that really bothers them.

Re: Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit

#347

Post by themagician »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #203
themagician wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innovation isn't always the goal. It's not clear to me that streaming music has actually resulted in better music or a better listening experience. It's just resulted in more plays. This benefits Spotify and advertisers the most.

Music streaming has resulted in a better discovery experience, which is valuable to users and creators. There is an awful lot of innovation being held back. You are likely unaware, since it is not you who wants to innovate, and you aren't experiencing those innovations.

Just not sure that’s really the case. Discovery hasn’t changed much since Pandora or Last.fm.

Vinyl has made a massive comeback. Probably growing at a rate faster than Spotify at this point.

I’m really not sure what amazing “innovation” is being held back. The vast majority of social music applications just create “value” by taking revenue from someone else, not by creating new value of any kind. Not really what I think of when I think innovation.

The CD was innovative. The iPod was innovative. Spotify was just the last man standing in a long line of music streaming applications that came after music piracy hit its peak. I never found it unique or innovative. They all offered the same damn thing. Most of Spotify’s growth came from spam on the Facebook newsfeed when that was still allowed.

The whole social app is a bit of a farce. It’s mostly based on quasi-legal theft. If that’s what counts for innovation these days then I don’t want to innovate anymore.

Post reply on HN