Ministry of Sound Suing Spotify Over User Playlists

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."

Comments

Re:Don't they have something better to do?

[interkin3tic]

Having a fiscal duty to make their shareholders money doesn't change the ethics or ridiculousness of the situation. It simply explains what their goals are. They should still be shamed. You only point out that their shareholders should ALSO be shamed. Their "buisiness model" isn't under attack here anyway. The order songs play in isn't their business model.

Re:Don't they have something better to do?

[Half-pint HAL]

To clarify, if its just a list of songs, it shouldn't be a copyright problem, as in MoS has no copyright claim.

Not true -- UK copyright law has specific provisions to protect anthologies. It's termed "typographical arrangements". The idea is that if I spend a year compiling a book of medieval poetry (all individually out of copyright, obviously), I get a monopoly over the book as a collection, so no low-rent outfit can produce a cheap edition to undercut you and steal your market.

It's a good law, in that it implicitly recognised that an anthology deserves less protection than a truly original work: the term is restricted to 25 years from first publication.

What I don't know is if anyone has established by legal precedent whether a compilation CD is considered a typographical arrangement or not, but that will be the crux of Ministry of Sound's case.