Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spotify Hit With $1.6 Billion Copyright Lawsuit (spin.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the free-fallin dept.

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."

8 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Re:fuck the music industry by Arzaboa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  3. Re:Well There goes that .99 for three month deal by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they forgetting the huge value of all the piracy that they have prevented by streaming? Isn't one illegal download prevention about $350M or so?

  4. Re:fuck the music industry by zlives · · Score: 5, Funny

    thats wonderful news, all the children born to music in the background should now be eligible for child support from these artists.

  5. Bad Business Model by Wovel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Bad Business Model by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      I'm pretty ambivalent towards this (not really a big music fan). But the way I see it, as long as the music industry is trying sell you a product that they are not paying for, then it seems to me that turnabout is fair play.

      The copyright bargain is that content creators get a temporary copyright on their work in order to stoke a permanent increase in the rate at which such works enter the public domain (by incentivizing the creation of such works and thus increasing the rate at which they're created). i.e. The payment for their right to sell to you their works, is that those works must eventually be introduced into the public domain. If those content creators finagle the law so their works are no longer entering the public domain, or that it takes so long for said works to enter the public domain that they have no value by the time that happens (1897's greatest hits anyone?), then they themselves have broken the copyright bargain. And as such their copyright protections are forfeit.

      Contract law 101. Both parties to the contract must give up something of value to each other in the exchange. If only one side is giving something up, then the contract is not binding, and thus invalid, and there is no copyright protection.

  6. Re:fuck the music industry by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:fuck the music industry by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.