Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 470 posts

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#351

Post by sidrag22 »

arnvald wrote: post #172
echelon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to feel about any of this. First and foremost, I feel like Spotify is scummy. I don't like what they did when they were founded, I don't like what they do to artists. I hate the hyperscalers being in this business (Google, Apple, Amazon) as that's another thing they do that devalues an otherwise healthy market. Bringing in outside business division revenues to dump on another market's prices is ecolo…

I’d love to see a streaming service where my payment goes to artists I listen to. Spotify pays 70% of their music revenue to publishers based on the total number of listens. All revenue is put together and split based on the global numbers. Which means that niche band I like will get next to nothing. Instead if they account for 50% of my listening time in one month, they should get 35% of what I paid to Spotify that…

I always thought it was a really cool idea to bridge the spotify streaming idea with local style purchasing, so say 10$ a month and the user gets ~3$ per month of that to "buy" media. so it defaults initially to their most played artist unless they indicate they want to buy something in particular instead.

Artists get big cuts when people buy their music, and if people decide to cancel their paid subscription, they still have the bought media available with no predatory gating like spotify uses to try to coerce people to resubscribing.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#352

Post by creatonez »

crazygringo wrote: post #300

This doesn't change things much , besides making domain name registration more difficult, but I continue to think this Spotify thing was a really dumb move on the part of Anna's Archive. AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a strong argument to be made for the moral goodness of that -- that even if it's illegal, it's at least in the spirit of a p…

> mostly widely available on YouTube already anyways

Problem is, when music disappears due to licensing nonsense, it generally disappears from all streaming services at the same time. Most music goes through only a few gigantic distributors / labels.

> potentially jeopardize

Nothing is in jeopardy if the operators remain completely anonymous, which it seems like they will.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#353

Post by dangus »

gertop wrote: post #157
dangus wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're bad at governing you can't please all three.

Please do tell us of that mythical leader who is so good at governing that no other country has ever had a grievance with them?

Well I didn’t exactly make some kind of claim of “no grievance ever,” I’m just saying that it’s not that hard to find countries that have good relationships with the US, China, and EU all at once.

Example: most member states within the RCEP trade agreement (e.g., Australia)

India

Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey all deliberately hedge relations between blocs.

Japan and South Korea are heavily economically intertwined (not conflict-free obviously)

Singapore

South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#354

Post by NeutralWanted »

matthewkayin wrote: post #193
echelon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to feel about any of this. First and foremost, I feel like Spotify is scummy. I don't like what they did when they were founded, I don't like what they do to artists. I hate the hyperscalers being in this business (Google, Apple, Amazon) as that's another thing they do that devalues an otherwise healthy market. Bringing in outside business division revenues to dump on another market's prices is ecolo…

> why then switch to a mode that pays artists nothing at all? Do Bandcamp. Buy merch. Do something to support the artists. I don't like this perspective because it puts the onus on the individual consumer. Many people who listen to music struggle to make ends meet. They do not have the extra money to afford buying albums off of bandcamp, yet they are contributing members of society and they deserve to be able to list…

No one 'deserves' to listen to music. It's not a right. It's a luxury that you can either afford or you can't. FM radio is still around for those people.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#355

Post by cwillu »

throw0101d wrote: post #333
cwillu wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder.

> Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder. "Piracy" as a term for copying others' creative works dates back to the 1600s, and is in a 1736 dictionary: > The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorised copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright.[8] In 1668 publisher John Hancock wrote of "some dishonest Booksellers…

> To act shocked and offended that the term points to two different activities in 2026 is non-sensical: that ship has sailed long ago.

“Equivocation is a logical fallacy and rhetorical tactic that uses ambiguous language, specifically switching the meaning of a key term or phrase within an argument to make it appear valid when it is not. It involves using one word to mean two different things, often to intentionally deceive, evade, or create ambiguity.”

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#356

Post by creatonez »

lurk2 wrote: post #336
ffsm8 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, piratebay continues to be the -to my knowledge- biggest public tracker out there, with basically every media production available. And I think that was his point. They may ruin some people's life's... but aside from that, they achieve nothing.

> piratebay continues to be the -to my knowledge- biggest public tracker out there It has been compromised for more than a decade. The site is impossible to navigate without an adblocker due to malicious redirect ads and most of the major torrents are being monitored by rights management companies who will notify the user’s ISP of suspected infringement.

All public torrents are monitored by the movie studios, that has nothing to do with how The Pirate Bay is run. Users can just hop jurisdictions with a VPN and use these public torrents without ever getting any complaint letters.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#358

Post by direwolf20 »

crazygringo wrote: post #300

This doesn't change things much , besides making domain name registration more difficult, but I continue to think this Spotify thing was a really dumb move on the part of Anna's Archive. AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a strong argument to be made for the moral goodness of that -- that even if it's illegal, it's at least in the spirit of a p…

I don't think Anna's can get into any worse of a legal position by pirating more things. It's already the case that anyone involved in the project will be arrested on sight, have all of their property seized, and go to prison for life. Which is why they don't show up to court hearings. This isn't the kind of crime where they beg the judge for leniency, it's the kind where they expose how silly the state is for imposing completely unenforceable penalties against someone they don't know the identity of.

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#359

Post by direwolf20 »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #43
Ragnarork wrote: post #19

> In addition to the damages award, Rakoff entered a permanent worldwide injunction Because apparently U.S. courts and judges can do that. The more this is ignored by third-parties outside of the U.S., the better. I'm not against international cooperation regarding common rules (I'm rather for), but the current context certainly doesn't designate the U.S. as a responsible custodian/enforcer of such rules.

It's infuriating but practically true. I had a few services that received illegitimate DMCA notices that I ignored. They were either blatantly fraudulent, automated junk or just not applicable to the law of the country where I'm hosting. They escalated to either my hosting or my domain name provider, who then threatened to cut me off for not complying. No discussion with them would work in my favor. I had to comply w…

Anna's Archive has clearly discovered, by trial and error, which hosts work and which don't.

"DMCA ignored hosting" isn't even illegal. Ignoring a liability shield doesn't make you actually liable

Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight

#360

Post by direwolf20 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #149
subscribed wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you're fraudulently accused of wrongdoing that makes you a criminal? Nice, nice....

In this case, yes. Ignoring invalid dmca requests is not a legal way to deal with them.

It's completely legal to ignore a DMCA notice. These notices set up a procedure where you're definitely not liable, but it doesn't mean it's the only way to not be liable. You can also not be liable if you - for example - didn't do anything illegal.
Post reply on HN