Spotify hit with $1.6 billion copyright lawsuit

[Dr Tone]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-lawsuit/spotify-hit-with-1-6-billion-copyright-lawsuit-idUSKBN1ER1RX

 

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/03/technology/spotify-lawsuit-wixen-songs/index.html

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Dr Tone said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-lawsuit/spotify-hit-with-1-6-billion-copyright-lawsuit-idUSKBN1ER1RX

 

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/03/technology/spotify-lawsuit-wixen-songs/index.html

 

If only it were true that the rights of Wixen Music Publishing was actually worth 10% of 1.6 billion dollars...

[mansr]

If they didn't have the required licences, why did they get sent the files in the first place?

[Ralf11]

picked the wrong 3rd party provider, most likely

[mordante]

I'm not a huge Spotify fan. I think the way they divide their earnings among the artists sucks.

[sdolezalek]

Of course then there is this: Spotify makes confidential filing for U.S. IPO: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-ipo/spotify-makes-confidential-filing-for-u-s-ipo-source-idUSKBN1ES1IP

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

If they didn't have the required licences, why did they get sent the files in the first place?

 

The suit alleges that, under the US Copyright Act, there are two copyright claims for each song, one for the recording and the other for the composition (words, music). Spotify only paid to obtain the rights to the sound recordings, which presumably made the record labels happy.

[mansr]

19 minutes ago, Allan F said:

The suit alleges that, under the US Copyright Act, there are two copyright claims for each song, one for the recording and the other for the composition (words, music). Spotify only paid to obtain the rights to the sound recordings, which presumably made the record labels happy.

Shouldn't they be suing whomever provided the tracks without the proper licence in place?

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Shouldn't they be suing whomever provided the tracks without the proper licence in place?

 

By providing the music to streamers in violation of copyright, Spotify is the natural object of the lawsuit. Spotify is providing music from many different sources.

[Allan F]

Duplicate post.

[Ralf11]

they sue the easiest target; Spotify can then sue others

 

or... they "sue 'em all and let god sort it out"

[mansr]

So if I buy something from Amazon, the manufacturer can sue me years later claiming they didn't get paid in full by Amazon?

[Allan F]

36 minutes ago, mansr said:

So if I buy something from Amazon, the manufacturer can sue me years later claiming they didn't get paid in full by Amazon?

 

No. There is no legal relationship between you and the manufacturer regarding payment. However, Spotify is allegedly using copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder, thereby making them potentially liable for that unlawful use.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, Allan F said:

No. There is no legal relationship between you and the manufacturer regarding payment. However, Spotify is allegedly using copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder, thereby making them potentially liable for that unlawful use.

But they bought what was sold to them as a licence, presumably in good faith.

[Allan F]

24 minutes ago, mansr said:

But they bought what was sold to them as a licence, presumably in good faith.

 

No. The music publisher's position is that Spotify only bought the rights to the recordings. They did not buy the rights to the compositions, which they own. The music publisher's rights can't be extinguished simply because Spotify believed they acted in "good faith". However, If Spotify relied on a third party to obtain the rights to the music, then Spotify may have recourse against that party for any liability to the publisher.