Label Sues Spotify Because Some Of Its Users Create Playlists Of Authorized Music In The Same Order It Did

from the wait,-really? dept

Wed, Sep 4th 2013 10:44am — Mike Masnick

Another day, another wacky copyright lawsuit. Ministry of Sound, the well-known nightclub/record label in London that puts together various compilations of dance music is suing Spotify, claiming copyright infringement in a case that will fascinate copyright fanatics. This one goes a few layers deep, so stick with it: MoS is not suing because the music on Spotify is unauthorized. Nor is it suing because of anything that Spotify itself did. Rather, it's suing because some users of Spotify have put together and published "playlists" (a feature found on pretty much any music playing software ever) that mimic some of the compilations that MoS has released. Again, the music itself is all legally authorized and licensed to be on Spotify. The complaint from MoS is merely that some Spotify users have put them together in the same order. And this is somehow an outrage and copyright infringement:

Chief executive Lohan Presencer claims that his company has been asking Spotify to remove the playlists – some of which include "Ministry of Sound" in their titles – since 2012

"It's been incredibly frustrating: we think it's been very clear what we're arguing, but there has been a brick wall from Spotify," said Presencer.

While US law does cover some very loose copyright protection for "compilations," UK law may be worse. As we covered a few years ago, there was a ridiculous case in the UK, in which a court argued that putting together a list of facts could create a copyright. The case involved football schedules, and the court ridiculously said:

"The process of preparing fixture lists involves very significant labor and skill in satisfying the multitude of often competing requirements of those involved," Judge Christopher Floyd said. "(It is) not mere sweat of the brow, by which I mean the application of rigid criteria to the processing of data. The quality of the solution depends in part on the skill of those involved."

It seems quite likely, that MoS is relying on this kind of language to make its argument, though I'd argue that all this case does is highlight just how ridiculous that original ruling is. Yes, there can be creativity involved in putting together a playlist, but that doesn't mean it should receive a copyright.

And then there's the entirely separate issue of secondary liability. Why should Spotify be liable for how its users group their songs together? Should Spotify actually be forced to police users and stop them from putting various combinations of songs together in a particular order? Does anyone actually think that's a useful purpose for copyright?

Once again, we see what copyright is turned into: a tool for control and stopping what most people think is basic human activity. Putting together authorized, legal songs in a particular order? How could anyone think that should be infringing?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: compilations, copyright, playslists, secondary liability, uk
Companies: ministry of sound, spotify

79 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

S. T. Stone, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:00am

I can�t wait to see OOTB defend this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:05am
  
  Re:
  Why would it be any different than usual?
  
  anomaly! streisand effect! minions! ect... happy now? :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:10am
  
  Re:
  If it was about Google being sued for copyright over playlists you will never the hear the end of it from you know who.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  out_of_the_blue, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: "S. T. Stone I can�t wait to see OOTB defend this."
  Thanks for the advance build-up! Provides me with place to put a tagline:
  
  Mike supports copyright TOO! So why aren't you pirates attacking him at every turn? HMM?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alt0, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re: "S. T. Stone I can�t wait to see OOTB defend this."
    And here I imagined:
    
    a paragraph about how words placed in a particular order constitute the basis of a print copyright and how this is no different. That the actual order of the words is really more important than the words themselves. And an additional bit about how Google search results are copyrightable as well. and they will come get you if your search engine comes up with the same result order so we have to be ever vigilant regarding Google...yada yada...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 1:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: "S. T. Stone I can�t wait to see OOTB defend this."
      Clearly this is the real ootb posting from a puppet account. The previous poster signing as ootb is but a cheap imitation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: "S. T. Stone I can�t wait to see OOTB defend this."
        Don't say "cheap". It was a less expensive, healthier option.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 10:29pm
    
    Re: Re: "S. T. Stone I can�t wait to see OOTB defend this."
    And even fail at that as usual. Good work, ankle-biter #1.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  ...and have you noticed that despite all the build up, despite all the hype, despite all of his previous posts regarding copyright...OOTB comes up with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to defend this issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
arkiel (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:04am

The UK recognizes moral copyright, the US does not. The US grants copyright only when it furthers a medium or type of expression. The UK grants copyright just because the creator created it. This is the fundamental difference between the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  in the us, copyright is 'granted' as soon as the work is created. The furthering of anything is not required.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:48am
    
    Not just a good idea, it's the law...
    > in the us, copyright is 'granted' as soon as the work is created. The furthering of anything is not required.
    
    Sure it is. It just gets commonly ignored like you are trying to ignore it right now.
    
    A number of aspects of the US legal system tend to get regularly glossed over by people that find them inconvenient. This includes the idea that the US Constitution limits what the federal government is allowed to do and does not define (or limit) what an individual is allowed to do.
    
    The legal language about copyright is very clear even if most people try to ignore it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Not just a good idea, it's the law...
      Lol, the legal language is clear? It's a jumbled mess that even the courts don't seem to claim to know what it means.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:07pm
      
      Re: Not just a good idea, it's the law...
      Are we allowed to copyright ideas? No only clearly defined content! Well, how about characters... Well ok maybe characters.. Will copyright expire after 50 years? Yes! what about mickey? Well, ok we'll extend it.. Does copyright cover facts? No! Well, what if some big company wants it to just for dna sequences? Well I guess... Ok then, but just this once... Who is responsible when copyright infringment occurs? The infringer! But we can't figure out who the infringer is... Well, ok, just blame whoever you want and we will figure out how to make it seem like it's their fault. Do we need evidence? Yes! But getting evidence is hard... Well ok, we will make an exception..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jackn, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:36pm
      
      Re: Not just a good idea, it's the law...
      whats your point?
      
      The legal language might be clear, but your retort isn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - arkiel (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Incorrect. In the US, copyright is granted only in furtherance of that underlying philosophy. Facts, obvious arrangements of facts, legal briefs, etc. are not subject to copyright despite being created because protecting them would not lead to more and better facts, arrangements of facts, or legal briefs.
    
    The arrangement of facts can be copyrightable if it is novel, but I don't think there's actually much room for the requisite creativity in a CD tracklist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JackHerer (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think arkiel is refering to what is copyrightable. Copyright is granted when a work is created in the US and the UK. However there are differences between what can be considered copyrightable between the UK and the US and in the UK we also have "database rights". I believe the post office claims some sort of intellectual property right over postal codes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - robyn, 5 Sep 2013 @ 1:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    While technically true, its hard to get protection unless you register your copyright. Otherwise you have to prove that you created x work on y date. Registering your work is easier all around
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - arkiel (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 1:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Registration is a good affirmative step to give notice of your copyright, but it is only necessary insasmuch as you can only claim attorney fees in the course of an infringement claim if the copyright is registered.
      
      You can still assert copyright that isn't registered, but yeah, you have to prove more and pay for the lawyer out of the damages awarded.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:12am
  
  Re:
  Where are you getting this from? And even if that were true, what does that have to do with copyright on super simple things like a short list of items?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    I will reply in list form
    
    1. it doesn't have anything to do with the lists.
    2. I was just correcting the other poster
    
    This list is (c) 2013, by JackN, All rights reserved.
    
    (see)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey Jack.. Question was for arkiel :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jackn, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        oh, that makes sense now
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - arkiel (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_the_United_States
    
    This says something about moral rights in the US. Namely, they are not recognized. There's also the Feist v. Rural decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural), where obvious compilations of fact were found to not be subject to copyright.
    
    And then there's how the plain language of the Constitution has been interpreted (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause):The Copyright Clause is the only clause granting power to Congress for which the means to accomplish its stated purpose are specifically provided. The exact limitations of this clause have been defined through a number of United States Supreme Court cases interpreting the text. For example, the Court has determined that because the purpose of the clause is to stimulate development of the works it protects, its application cannot result in inhibiting such progress.
    
    Of those, those are just easy citations. I -got- all this from attending IP Survey and Copyright classes in law school.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  1. US law is not really following the constitutional definitions anymore. It creeps far further.
  
  2. Moral rights befalls the creater even if the economic rights are sold/leased. The rights have to do with preserving the integrity of the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation.
  
  Since playlists with the same content as their albums is not truely a rework, the abuse should fall under the traditional copyright. Only moral claims that could be reasonable made here seems to be on wrongful attributions, but that does not seem to be their claim here.
  
  The relevant differences between US and UK in terms of copyright, has to do with precedence. In this case it seems MoS has a weak stand on some bad precedence in UK. Precedence is not universal. Every country has its own precedence even with equal formulations in laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:11am

Part of the problem
The publishers, like MoS, are used to controlling everything that they publish. Note that they do not generate what they publish, just decide what works produced by other people will be published.
They do not seem to grasp the idea that someone could let creators publish without any vetting. Hence in their minds Spotify, Google etc. are responsible for what they allow on their sites; because they should be vetting everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:14am

Shit
I am screwed here as I created a butt load of playlists from albums. Hope they don't sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:14am
  
  Re: Shit
  You copied my grocery list too.. expect to hear from my lawyer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:16am
    
    Re: Re: Shit
    I may have also copied Santa's good/bad list.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sheogorath (profile), 7 Sep 2013 @ 1:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Shit
      That's nothing. I create playlists of music based on alphabetical order of track titles, and thus fully expect to get sued by Westlaw because using any information retrieval system that makes the slightest lick of sense apparently infringes on its pagination copyright (I live in the UK).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:15am

You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
Because that's the problem. -- Like me, Mike "supports copyright" in its true form. -- Unlike me, Mike rants ONLY on the distortions of copyright! You'll have to ask him to justify that: I've tried to get him to stop that and instead to mention once in a while the everyday good that copyright does for millions of people for whom it's essential to gain from their work...

Mike is a professional troll: he has no visible purpose other than to gin up controversy to draw eyeballs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jackn, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:17am
  
  Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
  Mike is a professional troll: he has no visible purpose other than to gin up controversy to draw eyeballs
  
  Seriously? Is it backwards day?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
    That is every day for OOTB
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    out_of_the_blue, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
    @ "jackn": "Seriously? Is it backwards day?"
    
    No, Mike isn't backwards: he's SIDEWAYS! What he does here is exactly as I say: just puts this out with some pejoratives and questions, but NO actual statements. I'm not the only one who's tried to PRY out a position from him. You're only assuming he's a pirate too, though he denies that and says he supports copyright, so logically, you must all think that he's lying!
    
    So what is Mike's position on copyright? ... Try to guess from this!
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/14473121743/global-hackathons-prepared-to-carry-for ward-work-aaron-swartz.shtml#c377
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jackn, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
      What I am getting at -> You are the 'professional' troll here.
      
      Im not interested in your fallacies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
      You're only assuming he's a pirate too, though he denies that and says he supports copyright..
      
      Blue, now you are being an idiot and misconstruing what Mike has said.
      
      I don't believe Mike has ever stated that he "supports copyright" at all. He has stated that he believes creators should be compensated in some fashion. Period.
      
      But he has also stated many times that he doesn't believe that our current copyright system is the best way or even a good way to do that. Especially with all the collateral damage it inflicts on even more important stuff, like Free Speech and privacy.
      
      Just because you have a black and white view of copyright, doesn't mean the rest of us can't see all the shades of gray.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:26am
    
    Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
    More like in Bizarro world...
    
    Maybe OOTB is Bizarro Mike?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
      Mike pays OOTB to make dumb, contrary comments in order to generate more traffic on Techdirt, because controversy brings eyeballs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - GT, 4 Sep 2013 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
        Then I'd say he does a very good job. He annoys everyone with his heckling, but is careful not to say anything of substance that could cause any controversy or actually compelling enough to move anyone to disagree with Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
        Ugh, I sure hope not...
        
        However, Mike probably tolerates OOTB's existence because it does lead to comments/views/ad revenue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
        Mike pays OOTB to make dumb, contrary comments in order to generate more traffic on Techdirt, because controversy brings eyeballs.
        
        I highly doubt that.
        
        Check out this recent comment of Mike's to Blue, it almost seemed to drip with disdain.
        
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923/saying-you-cant-compete-with-free-is-s aying-you-cant-compete-period.shtml#c140046
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
        That's all just part of the show. Mike pretends to be irate from time to time so the site seems controversial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
        Naw. Mike is a smart guy. If he wanted to engage in this kind of sockpuppetry, his sock puppet would be engaging and interesting, not insane and pointless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
        If the puppet was engaging and interesting, it might actually discredit Mike and the website. It's much better if the puppet is an ignorant fool that everyone hates.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
        If the whole goal is to generate hits, then a puppet "discrediting" the site isn't important. The important part would be the controversy itself.
        
        But Blue is so crazy that he presents nothing that approaches controversy, so he'd be a terrible way of generating traffic.
        
        Nobody comes to this site because of Blue's comments. They come in spite of them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:21am
  
  Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
  That might be because that is the topic of the blog.
  
  Next at 11: The weather man only talks about the weather! Sinister!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:55am
  
  Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
  Do you have some sort of script built to randomly insert little insults as a footer now? lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jameshogg (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:58am
  
  Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
  "What copyright is turned into [sic]" ?
  
  I do believe you mean "what copyright IS".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 10:46pm
  
  Re: You need to invent a word for "what copyright is turned into"!
  I'm just gonna paste what the AC above wrote in reply to ankle-biter #1:
  
  ...and have you noticed that despite all the build up, despite all the hype, despite all of his previous posts regarding copyright...
  OOTB comes up with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to defend this issue.
  
  Hey OOTB, second post on this and you still come up empty. Care to try again?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:17am

This is all about additional licensing. You'll have to license both the music, the publishing, the performance, and now the "playlist" rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:40pm
  
  Re:
  Arguably playlist rights could be called a subset of publishing rights. Either way it is a very weak claim. somewhat
  
  If they allow it, I would like to hear the court do some math on random ordering of these playlists. The question is how alike a playlist needs to be to infringe and how exclusion of tracks or inclusion of other tracks influence the infringement.
  
  The relevance of this ruling may be significant since playlists are already being sold today in a significant manner. If MoS wins, making playlists is going to explode into a business the former record companies will be good at monetizing. Unfortunately the chance of top40-radio playlists getting the same songs on them seems far too high given how only few singles make the lists and stay long enough for people to remember them. It is the same or worse for the more specialized genres. Copyright on any type of playlist would be extremely unfortunate given the math of "random" here being rigged.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:19am

Skills are copyrightable?
Since when does "skill" earn one a copyright?

Last I checked, I don't get to copyright every nail I skillfully hammer into my house. Does a mechanic get to copyright a skillfully repaired vehicle?

I thought copyright was about creative arts, not skillful work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:23am
  
  Re: Skills are copyrightable?
  I thought copyright was about creative arts, not skillful work.
  ----------------------------------
  
  Copyright isn't about creative arts, it is about granting a monopoly on culture.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 1:13am
    
    Re: Re: Skills are copyrightable?
    nah, it also applies to chart music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Skills are copyrightable?
  Theres a measure of creativity in everything. People are discovering that copyright (and patents, trademarks) gives them a dispropotionate amount of power, so naturally everyone and their dogs are trying to claim copyright on every creatively nailed nail, ever creatively repaired vehicle, every creatively manufactured strain of corn, every creatively discovered link of dna.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re: Skills are copyrightable?
    I am gonna claim copyright on the next computer I expertly rebuild.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Skills are copyrightable?
      someone's probably already done it and will sue you for copying their creative computer repair process (or at least coming within a metric mile of copying it) :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:40am

such madness had led me to a conclusion
"The process of preparing fixture lists involves very significant labor and skill in satisfying the multitude of often competing requirements of those involved," Judge Christopher Floyd said. "(It is) not mere sweat of the brow, by which I mean the application of rigid criteria to the processing of data. The quality of the solution depends in part on the skill of those involved."

apparently the western copyright system is one nightmarish hp lovecraft novel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:52am
  
  Re: such madness had led me to a conclusion
  > apparently the western copyright system is one nightmarish hp lovecraft novel.
  
  I am sorry but you are going to have to license that simile.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:07pm
    
    Re: Re: such madness had led me to a conclusion
    I am sorry but you are going to have to license that simile.
    
    and apparently the entertainment industry is cthulhu.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sheogorath (profile), 7 Sep 2013 @ 2:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: such madness had led me to a conclusion
      and apparently the entertainment industry is cthulhu.
      In an Innsmouth hentai RPF.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JoeCool (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 8:05pm
  
  Re: such madness had led me to a conclusion
  Building a toll booth across the local freeway involves significant labor and skill. That won't grant me any rights or protection, though. Dammit!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:00pm

The legal language about copyright confuses judges to this day even if most people try to ignore it.

fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:07pm

This was clearly breach of copyright they put it in the same order that's like using their IP without permission. They should've known better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:12pm

..and have you noticed that despite all the build up, despite all the hype, despite all of his previous posts regarding copyright...OOTB comes up with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to defend this issue.

he is here for show not substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 12:33pm

lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 2:15pm

Sad. Ministry Of Sound were always one of the most corporate of labels/clubs, but I enjoyed my time there and buying their compilations occasionally. That was a while ago though, they're not as cutting edge and/or fashionable as they once were.

But, what's being lost here? Are they seriously claiming that people would pay full price for one of their albums if Spotify wouldn't allow them to create that playlist? That's nearly ootb level delusion right there.

They could have a claim on the trademark angle, but that's honestly just fans saying "I want to listen to the MoS playlist that's not officially available on Spotify". As ever, there's an easy fix for that, even if it won't pay for someone's yacht...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 2:16pm

I hope timestamps show the label copied the user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2013 @ 2:40pm

I like to order my video playlist of movies in the order they are meant to be watched. Is it copyright infringement because I was the Star Trek movies in order of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slick8086, 4 Sep 2013 @ 3:04pm

You'd think spotify would just shut them up by saying that spotify owns the copyright of any playlists created on their site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cpt kangarooski, 4 Sep 2013 @ 7:06pm

Well, this is a case in the UK, but if it were brought in the US, I can't say I'd have a big problem with it.

Compilations are eligible for copyright here, if they satisfy the usual requirements for a copyright. In this case, the main question would be one of creativity: does the selection of tracks and their arrangement involve at least a modicum of creativity?

They may or may not, depending on the particular facts at issue. E.g. alphabetical or chronological arrangement is not creative, and neither is having tracks next to each other when they were meant to be on the original album, such as how some Beatles or Pink Floyd tracks are meant to blend together. But having tracks in an order that embodies themes or counterpoints chosen by the compiler likely would be creative.

There are bigger problems with copyright, I don't think this merits much concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:16pm
  
  Re:
  I disagree. First, merely ordering tracks is a silly thing to be able to copyright. I can create a random playlist in the same order with zero creativity or effort, regardless of how much work you personally put into it. Such a thing should not be copyrighted.
  
  Plus it is definitely something to be concerned about. Labels are already foaming at the mouth about how Spotify and similar services aren't paying purchase royalties for their rentals. They're constantly trying to force them to pay undustainable and unjustifiable fees. This is just another backhanded way of screwing perfectly legal services through pure greed, from a label without the foresight to offer the playlists themselves. If they're allowed to do this, these legal services get screwed out of existence, a poor result for consumers and labels alike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - cpt kangarooski, 4 Sep 2013 @ 11:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I can create a random playlist in the same order with zero creativity or effort, regardless of how much work you personally put into it.
    
    Again, from a US perspective, sweat of the brow is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it takes a lot of effort to create, independently create, or reproduce a work, or if it takes no effort at all. The pertinent question is the creativity that goes into making it. (And mere reproduction doesn't involve creativity anyway, so why did you even mention it?)
    
    It's already entirely possible, and commonplace to create anthologies of literature which are copyrightable compilations. Likewise, it's possible to create copyrightable compilations of facts, such as a list of what are in your opinion the 100 best chinese restaurants in the country.
    
    What makes playlists special that they cannot possibly be creative works?
    
    This is just another backhanded way of screwing perfectly legal services
    
    Meh. It's the usual secondary liability issue so far as the service provider is concerned. Maybe with a little more information, depending on whether they had copies of the compilations at issue or not.
    
    Besides -- now it gives people both a reason to be upset with MoS and a tool to use against them: Anyone can create a playlist, so create a lot of them first, make sure that MoS is actually or likely aware of them so that they cannot claim independent creation, and then sue MoS for infringement. After all, you don't need a license for the music or sound recordings just to create a playlist. So if you don't want to get screwed, screw them back.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 8:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Again, from a US perspective, sweat of the brow is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it takes a lot of effort to create, independently create, or reproduce a work, or if it takes no effort at all."
      
      You misunderstand my point. I'm sure that it's perfectly legal from a US point of view, but that wasn't what I was questioning.
      
      My point is, MoS are a rather commercially minded label, and most of their compilations are collections of club classics or current club floor fillers. So, the tracks in question usually don't consist of a lot of original ideas. It would therefore be perfectly possible for me to feed a list of top club tracks into a random number generator and get the same list in the same order. No creativity required, and the list can easily be generated well before MoS even look at trying.
      
      Creativity can be protected, as could a mix CD or something requiring more work. In my book, a list of tunes in the order DEBCA instead of ABCDE doesn't deserve protection because it can be arrived at without any creativity at all before an MoS employee even starts their work.
      
      "Meh. It's the usual secondary liability issue so far as the service provider is concerned."
      
      The exact problem. Secondary liability because a user got the DECBA order instead of ABCDE? What a load of crap.
      
      "Anyone can create a playlist, so create a lot of them first, make sure that MoS is actually or likely aware of them so that they cannot claim independent creation, and then sue MoS for infringement."
      
      This is perfectly possible, and frankly I'd hope they did this to point out how moronic the whole exercise is.
      
      Don't get me wrong, I'm all for creativity and even compilers getting money for their work where appropriate. But, they don't deserve protection for merely listing things in a specific order.
      
      It's just another indication of how idiotic copyright has become and how trivial it is to break it. I do hope that they get mired in legal battles that cost them more than they could possibly gain, however. The first thought is this - OK, sharing playlists can be considered copyright infringement, but private playlists or just happening to play the tracks in the same order? Same result, fuck all they can do about it, and I hope they kill themselves trying if they're that stupid.
      
      Whatever the letter of the law, they stand to gain nothing by fighting this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, 4 Sep 2013 @ 9:03pm

Recipes
Playlists are recipes. Uncopyrightable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martin, 5 Sep 2013 @ 1:55am

EU database directive does not (normally) cover compilations on CDs
Interestingly the EU database directive says:

"as a rule, the compilation of several recordings of musical performances on a CD does not come within the scope of this Directive, both because, as a compilation, it does not meet the conditions for copyright protection and because it does not represent a substantial enough investment to be eligible under the sui generis right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
asd0mar, 6 Sep 2013 @ 8:09am

DISRUPTIVE STARTUPS
MoS doesnt know the meaning of : DISRUPTIVE.

It means : DESTROY OLD MARKETS - BUILD NEW ONES - EARN 1000X MORE.

Spotify is a playlist genius project, it obviously is disruptive for playlist makers and dj. ITs obvious.

There is no law to kill disruptive startups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 7 Sep 2013 @ 2:35am

Usually I don't bother questioning forms of thin copyright. Having a theoretical right isn't always the same as it being polite to use it, though, and the secondary liability problem is insurmountable either way.

Here's my two theoreticals:

Collage artists and the like vs playlists: where do you draw the copyright line for assembling existing materials into a creative whole? Why is one a copyrightable assemblage and the other not?

Playlists vs very similar playlists: Could I get around this by inserting Prince's "Segue" (four seconds of silence) into a playlist? If not, where do you draw the line for infringing similarity?

Looking at those, I think I'll stick with playlists being copyrightable but only if identical. And then tell MoS that they're being asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SpotifySupporter, 16 Sep 2013 @ 8:27am

Really?!
Does a randomly created playlist that happens to match some compilation order also count as copyright infringement? Okay, the probability of an unknowing user randomly creating a playlist in the exact same order is quite low, but it's there nevertheless. How does the MoS justify its case? Completely absurd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]