Slashdot Mirror
Spotify Hit With $1.6 Billion Copyright Lawsuit (spin.com)
The Wixen Music Publishing company, which administers song compositions by Tom Petty, Dan Auerbach, Rivers Cuomo, Stevie Nicks, Neil Young, and others, has hit Spotify with a copyright lawsuit seeking $1.6 billion in damages. The publishing company filed the lawsuit on December 29, alleging the streaming giant is using Petty's "Free Fallin" and tens of thousands of other songs without license or compensation. SPIN reports: Back in September, Wixen objected to a $43 million settlement Spotify had arranged over another class action lawsuit brought by David Lowery (of Cracker and Camper van Beethoven) and Melissa Ferrick, stating it was "procedurally and substantively unfair to Settlement Class Members because it prevents meaningful participation by rights holders and offers them an unfair dollar amount in light of Spotify's ongoing, willful copyright infringement of their works." A judge has yet to rule on that settlement, and in the meantime, Wixen has moved to file its own lawsuit, which purports "as much as 21 percent of the 30 million songs on Spotify are unlicensed," according to The Hollywood Reporter.
"Spotify brazenly disregards United States Copyright law and has committed willful, ongoing copyright infringement," the complaint reads. "Wixen notified Spotify that it had neither obtained a direct or compulsory mechanical license for the use of the Works. For these reasons and the foregoing, Wixen is entitled to the maximum statutory relief."
"Spotify brazenly disregards United States Copyright law and has committed willful, ongoing copyright infringement," the complaint reads. "Wixen notified Spotify that it had neither obtained a direct or compulsory mechanical license for the use of the Works. For these reasons and the foregoing, Wixen is entitled to the maximum statutory relief."
I doubt they can afford it now...
Somehow I'm guessing a billion dollars won't be anywhere near the eventual settlement on this.. ;)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you listened to these artists while you did anything, their reasoning is that you not only owe them for the music, but you also owe them for what you did while listening to them. They set your brain waves straight!
--
Born on the run
Nice: Spotify has about 10x the number of pirated tracks I do. I"ve got work to do. Spiders to send etc.
How do they manage and dedup their collection?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...frEEEEEE ballin
now my balls are free, I'm free ballin
Once those words got in my head, that Tom Petty song was so much more comfortable.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
thats wonderful news, all the children born to music in the background should now be eligible for child support from these artists.
It appears Spotify has not been able to put together a sustainable business model and they are unable to pay their suppliers. I am not really sure why there are people here that think it is ok for Spotify to sell a product they are not paying for. There are streaming services that have agreements for every track they stream. I don't know if they're profitable. It doesn't really matter to me as long as they are paying the artists. Sure in some cases there are other companies getting paid too, but that is only because artists entered into business deals with those other companies.
Hopefully this will spur copyright reform that takes away the fiction that art is created in a vacuum.
They're always likely to get hit with things like this and you're always likely to wake up one morning, play your favourite playlist only to realise most of it isn't there.
Actually, you do have a right to listen to any music you want, any way you want. Copyright is supposed to be a limited period where your right is suspended, so the creator can seek compensation. It was never envisioned or expected to be a perpetual lock on artistic works and has been greatly abused by the music industry.
What the actual hell was Spotify thinking? Just use it without permission and settle the lawsuit later? Was it a technical error where they thought they had the license? Did someone misrepresent ownership of it? There has to be another side of this other than they downloaded a high bitrate copy off the pirate bay and then streamed it knowingly illegally.
no one wants fucking CDs anymore
Speak for yourself.. I still buy CDs and blu rays. And paper books. And these things called "records," played by dragging a stone down a groove made of dead dinosaurs and plant decay at 33 1/3rd RPM.
Streaming for the convenience, physical for the permanence.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Well, of course they do considering they are based in Sweden. They would follow the copyright law of Sweden.
The music industry is pure scum. Never give a penny to those cockroaches and the washed up has-beens they purport to represent. No one deserves ongoing compensation for work they did decades ago.
For those who are brave and upstanding patriots, the best thing is to share - download, upload, and liberate as much music as possible. CULTURE BELONGS TO EVERYONE.
For those like me who live in fear of our repressive regime and their jack booted thugs, the best thing is simply not to listen to any non-free music. Never subscribe. Never login. If an ad starts to play, closer the stream. Most of it is garbagey pap anyway. This course also provides a convenient occasion to spit at snobby consumerist music scenesters.
s/born/recieved/r
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
*conceived... godsdamnit
38 seconds since you successfully posted.
I don't think the comment traffic on /. is high enough for any of those little half-measures to be useful today...
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
after all, cod just wants to be free
Those pesky fishing nets...
Permanence? I've used vinyl records more than enough to know how poorly they degrade. Bring a record over to a friend's house, and his record player has an old stylus? It'll permanently scratch your record, degrading its quality. Play a record a bunch of times? The stylus gradually wears away the vinyl, degrading its quality. Accidentally drop the arm onto the record? I've done it tons of times, on players that don't have a lever/button that moves the arm into position. Degrades the record's quality. The same doesn't happen with lasers on CD players.
Old records seem to degrade just from age. Bitrot does happen with optical discs etc. but you can use checksums to verify that it is NOT happening, and easily make verifiable 1:1 identical backups and infinite backup copies, whisked away by the internet within seconds to offsite backup locations around the planet. Making backup copies of vinyl to another vinyl disc with a guarantee of an identical copy? Not so easy for a consumer.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Actually, you do have a right to listen to any music you want, any way you want. Copyright is supposed to be a limited period where your right is suspended, so the creator can seek compensation.
Yes, you are free to listen to "any music you want" as long as any music you want is past the copyright protection period. That's a rather limited definition of "any".
When I make music, I control it, in perpetuity unless I choose to publish it. There are songs in my recording studio you will never hear, and never have the right to hear either.
If I choose to publish it, I retain control for the copyright period in exchange for donating the music to the public domain at the expiry of the copyrights. Until then, you have no rights to it unless I (or someone acting on my behalf) grants you a right, whether it be through purchase, rental or otherwise.
An LP and optical media are anything but permanent. Books certainly can last a while, but as i discovered when I pulled a box of my old books a year or two ago, a few years stored in less than optimal conditions, and you won't want to keep them.
My solution is digital, but stored in multiple places are reduplicated in one way or another once or twice a year. Still a risk of small amount of loss, but that's made up for by convenience. I have ebooks I bought a decade ago that I can still read; the file is still intact, stored on multiple media, and yes, the evil "cloud". I have MP3s that are much older than that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
music in games has issues with let's plays over music rights.
Arcades / bars had issues with the BMI and ASCAP saying you need have jukebox licensing for your site so we don't sue you.
It also did not escape my notice that they waited for Tom Petty to die before they sued on his behalf.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"Raises pinky finger", give us 1 billion dollars or else!
not a good name for german speaking countries. :)
No one should be entitled to use another man's work without the appropriate compesation.
A limited copyright gives you appropriate compensation. Nobody else gets compensated in perpetuity for their work.
thats wonderful news, all the children born to music in the background should now be eligible for child support from these artists.
No that's the wrong way round, babies born to music have to pay the listening fee, and the parents and anyone else within 100m radius.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If they don't want to deliver music to you on your terms, that is their right.
Thing is, they don't have to deliver the music. It exists. It's out there.
What the fuck gives them the right to stop me making the air move?
Or go bang two rocks together and stomp your feet to make music.
That's exactly what Spotify are doing, and being sued for. See how fucking stupid the current situation is?
Yeah, my youtube channel gets hammered by the music industry - over 900 videos flagged as having copyrighted music in them.
None of which I've added, it's always incidental music someone else is playing in the background.
I can't licence it. I don't know who the rights holders are for it. They wont negotiate with me, and they certainly wont agree to a reasonable fee of about a tenth of a penny per song.
If I was broadcasting on the radio or playing music in a club, I could get a blanket licence quite cheaply but on the Internet it's just not possible.
So fuck them, the whole system is broken and I don't respect it.
thats wonderful news, all the children born to music in the background should now be eligible for child support from these artists.
You've got that backwards, not only do the parents owe the artist, the child being the product of said music must forfiet a portion of all their earnings for life +70... because copyright uber alles.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Also known as rent-seeking behavior. That's a term you really need to familiarize yourself with if you live in a country where corporations control the government.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What GP meant, essentially, is that you have the natural right to listen to any music you want. We have created a *legal* right in the creators of artistic works to control distribution and enjoyment of those works for a limited time in order to promote their creation.
This is the view with which copyright was created and is how it's taught in first year property classes in law school. You've been around here long enough to have been exposed to this already; shame on you for trolling.
I refuse to 'buy' digital music which some company might later decide I no longer am allowed to play.
You'll be glad to know that Amazon and iTunes both sell music in DRM-free formats now. Still, for the price, I can get a physical media backup if I buy on CD instead. And depending on the age of the album, getting that physical backup is either free or lowers the price.
Evidently you're not one of the many out there that are embracing the return to Vinyl.
I'm not yet one of them, but man ... vinyl on a good phonograph with a good needle and good speakers ... it's a different, richer, sound than digital. I think, anyway. Too bad I only ever owned three vinyl albums.
Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
I still buy CDs, it's usually cheaper than buying MP3s.
Why shouldn't Spotify work like Netflix? If Netflix can't negotiate to buy a particular series, it doesn't show it to its customers. It is as simple as that. For instance, the last time I checked (six months ago, for all I know things may have changed by now), but Game of Thrones or South Park wouldn't stream on Netflix. So that left users forced to watch either show on HBO/Comedy Central (or if they're not in the right world region, forced to watch illegal streams).
Doesn't Spotify obey DMCA requests? What about if you're Howard Stern or Dave Chappelle? What if you negotiate an exclusive deal with satellite radio or HBO? What gives Spotify the right to break those agreements? If Spotify refuses to follow the law, why can't a judge just give their domain name away to the rights owners (like they did with AllOfMP3.com)?
We need to stop this, quadruple copyrights for every album.
If an artist doesn't write their own lyrics, and they create and release a song. It shouldn't be the listener who has to pay for the rights of those lyrics. That should be all handled by the artist.
For many, the music industry was better organised than the video industry. Most music was available on Spotify. I understand where the rights holders are coming from, but they should carefully consider the risk of fragmentation.
However, the music industry has a vested interest in me listening to music. If they make it more awkward or difficult or expensive, fewer people will listen to the music and their revenues go down. If they make it easy to buy legit copies of music, they'll make more money. GP feels that the music industry doesn't want him or her listening, and may well be driven away from buying music.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes