Ministry of Sound Suing Spotify Over User Playlists

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ministry of Sound Suing Spotify Over User Playlists

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday September 4, 2013 @01:34AM 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."

16 of 201 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Don't they have something better to do? by markkezner · 2013-09-04 01:38 · 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 · 2013-09-04 01:45 · 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 · 2013-09-04 01:59 · 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.
3. Re:Don't they have something better to do? by interkin3tic · 2013-09-04 02:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:Don't they have something better to do? by PhilHibbs · 2013-09-04 03:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's not their music. They don't own the tracks. Are you suggesting that Spotify should ban any track that Ministry of Sound have licenced to include on a compilation album? This is the most popular music in the UK, that's why MoS put it on compilation albums. Spotify would be committing commercial suicide by banning that much music.
5. Re: Don't they have something better to do? by jd2112 · 2013-09-04 04:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It worked for Metalica didn't it?
  Oh, wait. I haven't listened to a Metalica song (even on the radio) since those asshats started sueing their fans back in th Napster days.
  And I'm sure that I'm not the only one.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
6. Re:Don't they have something better to do? by Half-pint+HAL · 2013-09-04 07:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Does the order matter? by xaxa · 2013-09-04 01:41 · 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 · 2013-09-04 01:57 · 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?
List Copywrites by x6060 · 2013-09-04 01:43 · Score: 5, Funny

I can now copywrite my grocery list? Sweet!
1. Re:List Copywrites by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 01:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I guess I'll have to buy my milk after my eggs or I might get sued
2. Re:List Copywrites by i+kan+reed · 2013-09-04 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Sorry, I hold a patent on the dairy-after-eggs business process.
3. Re:List Copywrites by PerlPunk · 2013-09-04 02:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I can now copywrite my grocery list? Sweet!
  You can copyedit it, too.
4. Re:List Copywrites by JustOK · 2013-09-04 02:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But which is first? chicken or eggs?
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
Glorified mixtapes by TheP4st · 2013-09-04 01:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

FTA:

"What we do is a lot more than putting playlists together: a lot of research goes into creating our compilation albums"
Ouch! My sides are hurting from laughing after reading that.
Seriously, how much research does selecting a a number of Top 100 chart songs that aren't too dissimilar really involve that make it so vastly different from the mixtapes many of us made back in the days?

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Bläurg by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-04 02:03 · 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.