

Ministry of Sound sues Spotify for copyright infringement - ollysb
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/04/ministry-of-sound-sues-spotify

======
onion2k
If there's no value to curation then people wouldn't bother copying the lists
- they'd just make their own. There's a reason why "MoS Compilation X" is
worth more than "Random User Compilation X" \- they're adding value to Spotify
by expertly choosing songs that go together well presumably. And their
business is selling that expertise.

Should they be able to protect that business through the use of copyright is
an interesting problem. Is what they do valuable enough to warrant protection?
Is it "art"? I don't think that's as straightforward a question as some people
(on both sides of the argument) seem to think.

~~~
warfangle
The reason a MoS Compilation is worth more than Joe Sixpack Compilation isn't
necessarily the curation, but the skill at which the curation is mixed --
which cannot be reproduced with a simple Spotify playlist. These aren't just
curated compilations; they're curated, edited/mixed, and mastered
compilations.

~~~
gizzlon
I think the mixing is another topic, what they're suing over is simple
playlists.

~~~
warfangle
Indeed. Which makes about as much sense as one encyclopedia publisher suing
another for having the same table of contents, except the defendant
encyclopedia doesn't have anything but the table of contents and is given away
for free with little signs next to each topic saying "hey, you can read about
this topic over -> here."

In other words: not at all.

~~~
sp332
It doesn't "just happen" to have the same table of contents, but was directly
copied and is therefore a copyright infringement.

~~~
Amadou
Copyright is not just about copying it is centrally about controlling copies
of _creative_ works. A table of contents is not creative, it is a simple
listing of facts. Just like a phonebook or sports scores.

The question here is if a playlist is a creative work. I think it is - picking
and ordering songs to create a larger work designed to illicit a response from
the listener seems to be more than the dry recording of facts.

I am fairly anti-copyright in general and I think that this case illustrates a
problem with modern copyright. Most people won't feel that such a small thing
as a playlist deserves copyright protection because it is small, not because
it lacks creativity. As far as I know, the law does not make such exceptions
for "small" infringements.

~~~
warfangle
Hmm. Can an art gallery copyright the organization of art on their wall? What
if it increases their revenue, and is an inherently creative act?

If someone bought a bunch of prints of the same art, tacked it to some dry
wall in the same layout and sold it at a flea market -- would it be copyright
infringement? If they blatantly copy the name of the gallery as well, I'd
argue it as trademark infringement -- not copyright infringement. But again,
this is the UK. I'm only lay-familiar with US copyright.

Some would argue the Java API took an immense amount of creativity to build.
Doesn't mean it's copyrightable.

Some would argue that a cake is a cake is a cake, others that it takes a great
amount of creativity to create a truly amazing cake recipe. Still doesn't mean
you can copyright a recipe.

Just because creativity is involved doesn't make something inherently
copyrightable.

------
gizzlon
I can actually see their point, curation is very valuable in world with this
much accessible content.

But I'm getting tired of "old school" media companies trying to solve all
their business problems by suing those who actually innovate the slightest.

Why not, for a change, try to embrace technology and see new opportunities?
The music industry have been collaborating on their own grave since napster,
and very much deserve to fall in it.

~~~
rayiner
I think this suit is a bit silly (since the suit is about users replicating
the playlists, not Spotify), but I feel the need to harp on your comment about
"innovation" a bit.

At the end of the day, whatever "innovation" happens with companies like
Youtube or Spotify, they make their money selling someone else's creative
works. Spotify could have the most innovative, awesome platform ever, and
nobody would use it without the library of content provided by the "old school
media companies." Indeed, in a way the Viacom lawsuit was a great thing for
Youtube, because it helped pave the way for companies using it as a platform
to deliver quality content instead of just being a host for cat videos.

So while I think it's true that the old school media companies need to embrace
new technology, at the same time I think new school media technology companies
need to accept that their sole revenue source is derived not from their
"innovation" but other peoples' hard work. Those people that are creating the
actual product will be justifiably protective of how media technology
companies use their work.

~~~
gizzlon
" _At the end of the day, whatever "innovation" happens with companies like
Youtube or Spotify, they make their money selling someone else's creative
works_"

Not that I necessarily disagree, but the exact same thing could be said about
the media companies.

" _I think new school media technology companies need to accept that their
sole revenue source is derived not from their "innovation" but other peoples'
hard work_"

Again, it's the same with all media companies. Also, even if Spotify would be
value-less without music it does not mean that they don't add any value.

~~~
rayiner
Sure, but the media companies don't wax philosophical about how actors and
directors are holding back innovation when they insist on getting paid lots of
money for their hard work.

It's not the basic transaction that's the problem. Aggregating and
distributing other peoples' products is a valuable function. But Amazon
doesn't go around complaining that its vendors don't give it all their
products for free (so they can turn around and make piles of money reselling
them).

~~~
gizzlon
I haven't heard about Spotify doing that, or YouTube for that matter..

What I _have_ seen though are a lot of shade tactics from "old media"
companies: suing, lobbying for censorship and generally lying about
everything. Where I live they also have a habit of using the "poor artists" as
meat-shield in public discussions and advertising. Of course that doesn't stop
them from routinely fucking them over when it suits them.

Aanyway, it seems like Spotify is at least partly owned by "old media" so it's
not so clear cut.

------
mbesto
_" Everyone is talking about curation, but curation has been the cornerstone
of our business for the last 20 years," said Presencer.

"If we don't step up and take some action against a service and users that are
dismissing our curation skills as just a list, that opens up the floodgates to
anybody who wants to copy what a curator is doing."_

This is amazing. Finally someone admitting, very clearly in plain english that
their curation business has been disrupted. I don't see how this can hold up
in court, otherwise this will set a legal precedent for an untold amount of
businesses in similar content curation industries.

------
DigitalSea
Lets face it, Ministry of Sound compilations are merely CD's with the hottest
club tracks of whatever year they're released in with scantily clad women on
the album artwork. Anyone with an IQ who listens to the radio could pick the
tracks on a MoS compilation, make no mistake.

I can see why they would see they have a case, but all they're doing is taking
other artists songs, putting them on the CD and leveraging their well-known
brand to sell copies. It's an old way of thinking, everyone is a content
curator nowadays as this court case has proven.

Having said that a Ministry of Sound CD is usually always mixed. I doubt they
have a case because you're not getting the tracks that have been mixed by MoS
DJ's, they're suing based on track order and not so much the content which
Spotify have legally paid for to stream.

~~~
moondowner
Not related to the actual lawsuit..

There are some pretty good MoS compilations, even epic. They release also
chillout, lounge and other electronica compilations, not only with club music.

The fact is that they are releasing a ton of compilations, so at the end of
the day there's more quantity than quality, but I would't say that they are
bad.

Plus I bet the artists get more royalties - in percentage - from MoS
compilations they were featured on rather than from Spotify.

~~~
DigitalSea
No doubt the mixing part of a MoS compilation is definitely the highlight. If
they were tracks you could just listen to elsewhere then there would be no
reason to buy one of their compilations. What I said was maybe a bit harsh as
I used to religiously buy their CD's in my early teens. Some of their
compilations are creative, but lets face it, you don't buy a Ministry of Sound
CD for the sake of the track order. You get it for the wonderful expert mixing
and complimenting choices of song.

------
ollysb
I can't really see how you can copyright a list of tracks. It's been a while
since I bought a Ministry of Sound compilation but aren't they normally mixed?
I can see a mix having copyright protection but if they are then aren't they
comparing apples to oranges?

~~~
suhailpatel
They are nearly always mixed. It's a bit silly because usually I get a
compilation for the fluid mixing and originality/bootlegs/mashups (Spotify
almost always has full versions of songs at different BPMs and keys so it's
not fluid when recreating in a playlist). It'll be interesting to see what
comes out of this.

------
moondowner
Let's see what MoS does: they explore which songs to choose for a compilation
and their order. When that's done the result, the compilation, comes in a form
of a mix CD. This curation needs talent and creates it's 'vibe'. Sometimes
they have their guys to do this, and sometimes some famous DJ does it.

That's why I love 8tracks, you can find some really good playlists. But those
playlists are not copies of some already made compilation (playlists
shamelessly named the same as the ones from MoS). There's no artistic value in
doing that.

And at the end of the day, a lot of people will be satisfied to listen to
these compilations unmixed - instead of buying them from MoS.

------
antihero
But they have all of their track lists here:

[http://www.ministryofsound.com/shop/product/music/41356/hed-...](http://www.ministryofsound.com/shop/product/music/41356/hed-
kandi-fit-and-fabulous-summer/)

Are we supposed to forget anything about them as soon as we close the page?

~~~
mseebach
Their argument is weak, but yours is weaker, since "I can see it online" was
never a valid copyright defense.

~~~
alipang
Well surely it must be legal to create your own Spotify playlist with the same
tracks? If you can see them online then all one of these playlists do is save
you five minutes of searching...?

~~~
mseebach
I'm not criticizing the conclusion, it's the argument I'm after.

The fact that the tracks are listed on a website doesn't anymore inform your
right to replicated it than the fact that words are arranged into an article
on a website does it. Copying the latter is clearly not any more or less legal
because it's on the web (as opposed to printed), so why would that argument
apply to listing of tracks?

~~~
antihero
Ok, so say you see the tracklist on that site, then listen to the tracks in
that order. Is that copyright infringement?

~~~
mseebach
No, just like reading an article isn't.

Look, I'm being pedantic. We don't appear to have any real difference of
opinion. But the fact that something is published on a website doesn't give
you any more copy-rights than if it was published in any other way (say, on
the sleeve on a CD you bought). I don't see how that is a controversial
observation.

------
TheAnimus
Surely this is more of a trademark / branding issue. They can't lay claim to
non-mixed tracks in the same order. But they surely can protect their brand
being used by someone else.

~~~
Kerrick
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the same. After all, it has been established
that you cannot copyright a recipe (a list of ingredients in a specific
order), and I find this quite similar.

------
itchitawa
The funniest part is Spotify's home page: "Your music is everywhere. Not yet
available in your country." I wish my country was somewhere!

~~~
spindritf
If you register in one of the approved countries and then travel to a country
where it's not officially available, it will still work. At least for two
weeks or so[1]. It really is everywhere just not for everyone.

[1] [https://support.spotify.com/fi/learn-
more/guides/#!/article/...](https://support.spotify.com/fi/learn-
more/guides/#!/article/Travel-with-Spotify-2)

------
mvanvoorden
I wonder what their legal department was thinking when they decided to take
this action. Something like: "Oh my god, we have fans! Quick, make their life
miserable by suing the company that we uploaded our music to so our fans will
be happy to buy the original album!"?

------
rob_mccann
What if someone has a list of tracks that's the same as a Ministry compilation
CD, then adds one track - does that make it a different playlist?

I would add this track (silence) to the end of my playlist
[https://play.spotify.com/track/3gCqAxfnSNxflYodkSOiFd](https://play.spotify.com/track/3gCqAxfnSNxflYodkSOiFd)

~~~
mseebach
I think a judge (if they find merit in the MoS argument) would consider that
to be equivalent to adding a blank page to the end of you book you copied.

It seems their main complaint is that the playlists are named "Ministry of
Sound" and made searchable by Spotify.

------
paul_f
This is absurd. When your value add is what order to play songs, you clearly
deserve to be disrupted. Thanks for the great laugh MoS.

------
acjohnson55
I think we've got to decide whether everything that has value should be
protectable. To me, this case just highlights the fact that we can't have our
cake and eat it too, at least in all cases.

Personally, I land on the side of simply acknowledging that there are
intellectual products that require plenty effort to produce and provide plenty
of value but just simply shouldn't be protectable in every aspect. Sometimes,
like it or not, the product of your hard work is a public good and the rest of
us are just free riders. Accept it, be proud of what you did, enjoy your own
opportunities to free ride, and find a different way to monetize. In this
case, it's track listings, but I think the same should apply to software and
UI paradigms.

I, for one, don't want to live in a Balkanized world where every conceivable
idea and work is someone's property.

------
warfangle
Who is the performer in this situation, who is the recording artist, and who
owns the copyright? This debate has been raging for over a century.

And this is UK law, so I'm not even going to speculate.

But this reeks of the Oracle v Google Java API copyright infringement suite.

~~~
sneak
You seem to have missed the part where Spotify has licenses to stream all the
music in question.

MoS is suing over user-generated (and shared) playlists of these songs on
Spotify, claiming copyright on the act of assembling a compilation.

~~~
warfangle
I'm still not from the UK, have no experience (even reading) about UK
copyright law (other than some historical tidbits in one of Lawrence Lessig's
books).

I completely understand what they're suing over and what spotify has
copyrighted vs. what MoS is claiming.

Of course, what they're claiming, the track listing on Wikipedia is probably
infringing as well..

(ed. also: Spotify may have the permissions to stream the original, unmodified
tracks - but when MoS puts together their compilations there is significant
mixing and mastering that happens to modify the tracks from their original; so
these aren't even the tracks from the MoS albums - just lists of the original
tracks used to compile the MoS albums)

------
GotAnyMegadeth
Does this mean they would need to black list certain orders of songs from the
random radio app?

~~~
brokenparser
Does this mean that at some point the calculation of pi digits is halted
because they construe a form of copyright infringement?

~~~
acjohnson55
Only if you carefully curated the digits you selected

