Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ministry of Sound Suing Spotify Over User Playlists

Posted by Unknown on from the you-may-not-listen-in-that-order dept.

AmiMoJo writes "The Ministry of Sound, a UK dance music brand, is suing Spotify because it has not removed users' playlists that mirror their compilation albums. The case will hinge on whether compilation albums qualify for copyright protection due to the selection and arrangement involved in putting them together. Spotify has the rights to stream all the tracks on the playlists in question, but the issue here is whether the compilation structure — the order of the songs — can be copyrighted."

6 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Don't they have something better to do? by markkezner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do these assholes care so much?

    --
    Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
    1. Re:Don't they have something better to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a company that makes money by taking other people's songs and releasing "compilation albums" of things that someone thought went well together.

      So, yes, they could actually go out and get real jobs.

    2. Re:Don't they have something better to do? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they think they're going to sell CDs in this day and age, they're idiots who should not be allowed to handle money. No, this is one middleman trying to squeeze every last penny they can from the next middleman.

  2. Does the order matter? by xaxa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I went to the associated nightclub (Ministry of Sound in Elephant and Castle, London). I'm not sure the order of the tracks matters -- they all sound the same anyway!

    (And I like some genres of electronic music...)

    1. Re:Does the order matter? by pegr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the recent Google/Oracle case pretty much decided that "Structure, sequence, and organization" is not a copyrightable element of Java. Why would it be copyrightable in this case?

  3. Bläurg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yea shame on them for trying to defend their business model, which is their feudatory duty to their share holders. Don't get me wrong, their business model sucks, but if they don't defend it they aren't doing their jobs.

    Such bullshit always comes up on these stories. "Sure, the company pumped toxic waste into the ground water, but they have a duty to their share holders to maximize profits!" Bull. Shat.