
Spotify hit with $1.6B copyright lawsuit - uptown
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-lawsuit/spotify-hit-with-1-6-billion-copyright-lawsuit-idUSKBN1ER1RX
======
agrippanux
I was one of the original engineers on MP3.com.

Shortly after our music locker service debuted, we got sued by all the major
labels. I spent 4 months writing tools to pull all the discovery data for
their lawsuits.

When it was apparent our court case was going south, the major music
publishers sued us as well (lead by Harry Fox Agency). I spent another 4
months pulling discovery data for those lawsuits.

When those court cases trended badly for us, we got sued by every 2 bit
operation that owned a partial percentage of the country-based rights to a
song (ie, one company may of owned 4% the rights of a song in the United
States and 10% in Mexico and 9.3% in Ireland, with another company owning
1.3%, 40%, .5% respectively). I spent another 4 months pulling discovery data
for those lawsuits.

Finally, after we where acquired by Vivendi Universal and they took on our
liabilities, I spent almost a year writing tools for them to pay these partial
percentages. Have you ever had to split 1 cent via check between 3 parties?
It's not fun.

Moral of this boring story is Spotify better win this fast and clean or they
are in a world of pain; I can never get those 2 years of my life back.

~~~
spike021
If you don't mind me asking, is there any particular reason you didn't just
leave? I'd imagine this fits the kind of situation where you aren't obligated
to stay.

~~~
ryanisnan
$

~~~
spike021
How does that work if the company was being sued? Do they have some kind of
reserve to pay current employees with?

~~~
kickopotomus
Being tied up in a lawsuit does not grind a company to a halt. Most of the
Fortune 500 is probably getting sued right now for some reason or another.
Also, when a company loses a lawsuit, the court doesn’t automatically debit
the damages from the company. Winning a case and collecting damages are 2 very
different things.

~~~
spike021
Thanks for the explanation, wasn't sure how that kind of thing works.

------
basseq
This article reads like a press release from the plantiff (Wixen) and took a
little googling to unwind. Long story short, it sounds like there's
disagreement about what _type_ of license Spotify needs. Spotify has
previously claimed that streaming is _not_ "reproduction" and is more akin to
"performance"... and they (may) have those licenses. What they do _not_ have
(in some cases?) is a "mechanical" license[1], which carries requirements for
notification and payment that Spotify claims are onerous.[2]

Thus, I'd re-write the lede of this story to:

    
    
      Music streaming company Spotify was sued by Wixen Music 
      Publishing Inc last week for allegedly using thousands of 
      songs... without [the right kind of] license and 
      [associated kind of notification and] compensation to the 
      music publisher.
    

[1]
[https://www.harryfox.com/license_music/what_is_mechanical_li...](https://www.harryfox.com/license_music/what_is_mechanical_license.html)
\- Incidentally, this is HFM, the same firm Spotify uses for "third-party"
licensing. They define a mechanical license to include the right to "reproduce
and distribute copyrighted musical compositions (songs) on ... interactive
streams and other digital configurations." Seems a little damning for Spotify.

[2] [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-dont-
compa...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-dont-compare-us-
napster-1034247)

~~~
DrJokepu
It’s kind of a gray area, the whole performing/mechanical rights system was
obviously invented before streaming. Radio stations pay for performing rights,
so the question arises whether streaming is more like radio broadcast or
manufacturing and distributing physical copies (e.g. CDs)? Without further
legislation, ultimately only the courts can decide that.

My guess is that ultimately streaming rights will end up as their own
category, separate from performance, mechanical or sync rights.

~~~
shams93
On a logical level it should be treated the same as broadcast radio, however
it gets hazy because you can store playlists and play tracks on demand so its
really not clear cut. With radio you can hear the song if it happens to be
playing but there is no on demand, no playlists.

~~~
bambax
There is replay; you can search many radio stations playlist for a specific
title and play it.

What about Youtube? It seems most / all music is on YT, what licence do they
use? Streaming services seem a lot like YT.

~~~
cortesoft
I think only music owners are allowed to post to YT, so they don't need a
license like Spotify would.

~~~
DrJokepu
But you see, the thing is with commercial music is that the music owner is not
a single entity. There is a composer, if there are lyrics there is a lyricist,
if it was translated then there is a translator, if it’s a cover or remix
there is an arranger, there is a publisher that published the music, there
might be a sub-publisher, then there is a record label… One of the main
reasons behind the existence of this complex system of rights is the complex
ownership structure of the copyright and related rights.

~~~
notatoad
Isn't this the reason vevo exists? youtube pays a single royalty based on
playback and leaves it to the uploader to split it up between all the
interested parties.

~~~
DrJokepu
Yes, that’s a common arrangement.

------
bwang29
Added another source to assist discussion for more context:
"[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-
hit-16-bil...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-
hit-16-billion-copyright-lawsuit-tom-petty-weezer-neil-young-songs-1070960")

And Quote :

"The Settlement Agreement is 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," ...

"In reaction, Spotify has been questioning whether Wixen has really been
authorized by its clients (including Andrew Bird, Kenny Rogers, and Jim
Morrison's heirs) to take its aggressive actions. Songwriters have
administrative agreements with Wixen allowing the publisher to negotiate
licensing deals, but Spotify has pointed out these agreements are silent about
litigation."

~~~
wrigby
This is a bit confusing. My understanding of how music publishing works is
that the copyright is usually assigned to the publisher (for a limited amount
of time), so any rights of the copyright holder are rights of the publisher.
They wouldn't have to explicitly assign litigation rights to the publisher.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and with big artists, publishing deals can be very very
different from boilerplate.

~~~
icebraining
There are creation rights and performance rights, which may be treated
differently. Plus artists can recover their copyrights after 35 years, under
17 U.S. Code § 203.

------
al2o3cr
The pieces don't quite fit together here - Harry Fox handles a LOT of
licensing (they're one of the places you can get mechanical licenses for cover
songs via self-service) and I'd assume that a big contract for an organization
the size of Spotify would include at least some indemnification for any legal
issues.

And, naturally, the damage amount is wildly unrelated to actual revenues - not
quite the "one download on Napster == $250k" levels seen in copyright
litigation against consumers, but still almost half of Spotify's likely
revenue for 2017...

~~~
turc1656
It's just a starting point for negotiation. Same way people slip in a store
and sue for $1M, even though they end up settling for 50k.

~~~
dharmon
And think about the timing. Just before Spotify wants to go public? Nobody
wants to go public with a pending lawsuit, so added pressure to settle.

~~~
nightcracker
> Nobody wants to go public with a pending lawsuit

I'm pretty sure every large company in the world is involved in multiple
lawsuits at any point in time (both offensively and defensively).

------
donarb
This article adds a bit more context. Spotify claims that Wixen is
overstepping their authority as music licensors and suing on behalf of clients
who have not given Wixen that authority.

[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-
hit-16-bil...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-
hit-16-billion-copyright-lawsuit-tom-petty-weezer-neil-young-songs-1070960)

~~~
danso
Reminds me of the 2010s, when a company named RightHaven was hired by media
companies to sue bloggers/message boards upon finding copies or excerpts of
news articles. Ostensibly Righthaven had the authority of the clients, but
were ruled as not having the legal standing to sue
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven)

------
alehul
> In May, the Stockholm, Sweden-based company agreed to pay more than $43
> million to settle a proposed class action alleging it failed to pay
> royalties for some of the songs it makes available to users.

This number seems closer to reality. It may be Tom Petty, Neil Young, and the
Doors, but they're not worth nearly 10% of Spotify's valuation, and that
certainly wouldn't match a compensatory amount in revenue that Spotify failed
to pay.

Are they aiming for some punitive measure? Or are they going to settle for 5%
of this in the near future?

~~~
ggg9990
That's not how damages work though. A factory worth $1 million can create
hundreds of millions of dollars of damages with a spill or accident.

~~~
icebraining
Plus copyright has statutory damages, so they don't even need to prove actual
damages.

------
seibelj
Giant lawsuit filed shortly before the IPO to encourage a quick settlement.

~~~
HenryBemis
Shake-down / quick settlement, 100% agree.

------
turc1656
This doesn't shock me at all. I recall a while back reading how Spotify
allegedly started their service with downloads from The Pirate Bay:
[https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-
mp3-files...](https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files-
some-from-pirate-bay-170509/)

~~~
thomastjeffery
Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.

~~~
foepys
This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are
generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or
more years _after the death_ of all participating authors. If you cannot make
money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will
change.

~~~
mcintyre1994
I don't think companies like Disney lobby to extend copyright endlessly
because they can't make money in the first 20 years, but because they can
continue making money after 20 years and would prefer to do that than not.
Especially with things like Disney cycling availability of older films and
stuff, I'm sure they make loads of money on their older material and just want
to keep doing that even if it was successful when first released.

~~~
foepys
This is exactly my point. It only benefits the already big successful
cooperations and people. It does nearly nothing for small artists while
actively hindering people from enjoying cultural goods. Every song that is
being created today will still be under copyright when you die. Meanwhile if
someone creates a new way to manufacture a certain product, it's "only"
protected for 20 years (which is fine).

If Taylor Swift lives until she is 80, her songs will be free in the year 2140
- maybe even later if someone like a composer lives longer. Isn't this just
absurd?

~~~
gt_
When an artistic pursuit is personal, it seems like it could maybe be passed
on in a will or something similar. This might be a ridiculous idea, but I
guess I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors _not being free_
to be absurd in it’s own way.

~~~
behringer
Tell that to Disney when he made snow white.

~~~
gt_
Elaborate

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Many Disney stories (including Snow White) are copied from earlier works by
authors unaffiliated with Disney.

~~~
gt_
Copied? Snow White was a groundbreaking feat of animation brilliance, a result
of tireless effort, craftsmanship and detail that experts widely agree rivals
any animation project produced to date. It was literally the first feature-
length color animated film with sync audio ever produced, and you’re cutting
it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale? This is no
weakness. This is consistent with filmmaking tradition and the nature of
humanities efforts in general. The line is not a sharp one, but in terms of
Snow White, if I understand your accusation correctly, your point is lost.

I am open minded but, with all due respect, it appears you might not be aware
of some critical truths of how art gets made.

Either way, what do you suggest?

We probably generally agree on the topic at hand. I am saddened seeing many
early films eroding which have yet to be digitized because they are not
accessible.

~~~
gabemart
>you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale

That wasn't my reading of the parent at all.

Snow White the animated film wouldn't have been made if copyright was
perpetually inherited and some distant Grimm relative refused to give Disney
permission to make the film. This is relevant to your original point - that "I
find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be
absurd in it’s own way." You may find it absurd, but if it were not so, a work
you seem to admire might never have been produced.

There is a cultural component to art. It draws from the culture and gives back
to the culture. Long copyright terms - and I find current copyright terms very
long - prevent future artists from drawing on the culture to produce new,
transformative works.

Disney was able to draw on cultural material from the prior 100 years to make
Snow White. But if the current copyright-extension-cycle continues, it seems
plausible that Disney films - and all works created in the same period - may
_never_ fall into the public domain in the USA, and future artists will not be
able to enjoy the same free use of cultural source material as Disney itself
has done.

~~~
gt_
Thanks for posting your response. This makes a little more sense.

Of course, my point was about _distribution_ of _original works_ , not
inspiration or even creative appropriation. Maybe I needed to specify that? Or
maybe this was well implied by the wider conversation around Spotify’s
distribution of _original works_. Either way, it’s a separate discussion.

To be clear, Disney _did not_ publish and distribute copies of Grimm’s Fairy
Tales.

And let’s consider what Disney would have done if prevented from using the
Snow White tale for his animation project? Would he have just given up?? Let’s
not kid ourselves. He would have done what great artists tend to do: be
creative and find another solution. There were mountains of hurdles in making
this film and that would have been a mole hill. It would have been a different
film, sure. It may have been better. We do not know.

The modern Disney corporation is a separate entity, to be sure.

You open up a new basket of issues here. For example, films are commonly
produced from narrative works in other domains, personal accounts, etc. The
royalty system allows for more than simply profit. In films, it also protects
from the original authors, or storytellers and their families from what can be
something like libel. It allows them to deny permission when accounts are
exaggerated for audience appeal, when it may unjustly disgrace their
reputation. This is only a basic example of why these things exist. It does
_sort of_ sometimes suck for artists but artists but they tend to better
understand the issues at hand.

------
saaaaaam
There is a little (understandable) confusion in some of the comments here.

The issue here is not that Spotify is infringing copyright (so it’s nothing to
do with BitTorrent etc) but rather that Wixen says that it has not been paid
correctly for the mechanical exploitation of the copyrights it administers.
This is complex for several reasons.

First of all: the recordings in question have without doubt been legitimately
supplied to Spotify by the record labels of the artists in question.

Secondly - a record label controls only one of the two copyrights in a song -
the recording copyright.

It is impossible to record a song without using the other fundamental
copyright in music - which is the song itself. The literal words and music.

This is the copyright that the publisher controls - and which Wixen claims has
not been properly accounted.

Third point: When the words-and-music copyright is reproduced by mechanical
means for commercial gain the publisher is due a royalty - this royalty is
known as “mechanicals”.

In the “old” music business when a label pressed a record they paid out the
“mechanicals” to the publisher directly - for every record pressed they owed a
set amount. So this was easy to track and it meant that the money flowed
directly from label to publisher based on volume of records manufactured and
sold.

Point number four: Spotify’s licensing regime is complex. They need to pay a
royalty for the use of the sound recording. This generally goes direct to the
label or artist if they self release often via their distributor).

The mechanical reproduction of the words-and-music copyright is much less
straight forward in terms of how the money flows.

The reason for this is that songwriters and the performers of a song are not
always the same person - though they may also be the same person. This is
where publishers come into play. If I write a song, I may not be able to
record and perform it sufficiently to generate good revenue from that work. So
if I can persuade a high profile artist to perform and record it I will
probably make much more money from my words and music. A publisher’s job is to
maximise the commercial exploitation of my words and music. This can be done
in several ways - first of all, they go and shop my song around to labels in
the hope that an A&R at a label (basically someone a bit like a product
manager in a tech company) will see a good fit between my song and an artist
that they work with. The artist records the song and I generate money in two
ways - first of all the mechanicals previously discussed, but also from
“performance” royalties - which is where my song is performed live to an
audience. So a prominent artist performs my song on a tour - the audience in
the arena have paid good money for tickets, and the artist would not have any
material without my song and other songs. This also needs to be compensated,
and this is done through a “performance royalty” which is generally a split of
Ickes revenues.

There are other revenue streams as well, and a publisher’s job is to manage
and administer these revenues as effectively as possible.

Now: I mentioned Spotify has a complex licensing model. When you play a song
through Spotify it is being mechanically reproduced (the data that makes the
audio waveform is being transmitted from one machine to another) but the audio
is also being performed by the Spotify application on your computer. So
Spotify needs to pay out a mechanical royalty and a performance royalty.

It used to be that the mechanical royalty was paid out by the label - but as
the label is no longer pressing discs the “replication” of the music has
passed to Spotify, and so Spotify is liable.

In the “old” music business once you bought the record or CD the revenue flow
ended: your CD player manufacturer was not continuing to benefit each time you
played a disc. So the “performance” of the music did not have a revenue stream
attached to it, assuming that you were enjoying the music in the privacy of
your own home.

But Spotify can be seen to benefit each time you play a song, because you pay
an ongoing subscription for access to the music.

So a performance royalty is also due.

Now: further complexity. In many territories songwriters and publishers assign
the management of performance and mechanical royalties to third parties. In
the U.K. for example a songwriter will join PRS - the performing right
society, which administers performance copyright for the words-and-music
copyright in a song. They should also join the MCPS - the Mechanical Copyright
Protection Society - to collect mechanical royalties. These organisations and
others like them in other territories are known as Collective Management
Organisations or “CMOs”.

Spotify has deals with these two organisations (PRS/MCPS) - and generally also
with the equivalent CMOs around the world. Spotify says “this song was
streamed X times and so we owe Y for mechanical royalties and Z for
performance royalties. This money is then paid trough the CMOs to the
publishers/songwriters. You cannot - as a publisher or an artist - get this
money directly from Spotify.

This works on one level because it means that so long as a work is correctly
identified in the database of the CMOs and that whoever is performing or
mechanically reproducing a song submits accurate data showing how and when hat
song was reproduced and what revenue is attached then it all works perfectly.
More critically the CMO mechanism makes it possible for services like Spotify
to exist (and even for live concerts to happen) because otherwise anyone who
wanted to put on a concert would need to obtain the permission of every
songwriter individually before their songs could be performed.

However - you need to keep in mind that this system was invented when sheet
music and clockwork pianos where the main way that words-and-music copyright
was mechanically reproduced, and performance was limited to someone standing
up and singing the song in a concert hall.

So far, so complex.

To add a further few layers of complexity:

There is no authoratitive database that says “this words-and-music is the
copyright of Tom Petty”. Additionally, when a record label ingests music into
the Spotify catalogue there is no requirement to specify who wrote the words-
and-music.

The way it works is that (in essence) Spotify sends the CMOs a list of
everything that has been played and the CMOs say “I represent that words-and-
music copyright in X territory - so you owe me $X representing Y streams.”

It’s a pretty clunky system - but as yet, no one has really come up with a
better solution. Technology moved faster than copyright admin.

Add into the mix that some artists may not register with the appropriate CMOs;
some artists may not have a publisher; some labels may be releasing cover
versions of songs where they have not directly obtained the permission of the
copyright holder - but this is ok because in theory the words-and-music
royalties flow from Spotify through the CMOs to the copyright holders.

So it’s a very complex case and hinges on whether the relevant CMOs had been
delegated authority by songwriters/copyright holders/publishers to exploit
those works and whether Spotify was accurately accounting and paying out for
the use of the copyrights.

So it’s not about BitTorrent or Spotify having pirated music and is everything
to do with how technology, the exploitation of copyright and how money flows
through music are all a bit out of sync with each other.

~~~
Bilters
Wow this a great explanation! The level of complexity is higher than I thought
at first. Thanks for this!

~~~
saaaaaam
Music licensing is really complex. As someone else has said in another comment
thread it also varies territory by territory in how this is managed - but then
also who is owed what can vary territory by territory depending on other deals
at play.

------
huac
I hate to be that guy but maintaining records of who owns which license for
which song seems like an actual use of blockchain tech.

~~~
zaphar
It's also an actual use of you know... A database.

~~~
mortenjorck
Well sure, but who owns the database? Where is it hosted and who vouches for
its accuracy? What happens if it goes down or its maintainer goes out of
business?

Of course, all these questions can be addressed in one way or another with
conventional database tech. But blockchain has some undeniable appeal in an
application like this.

~~~
dmitriid
It doesn’t. Because you assume that blockchain will magically identify and
attribute every single of 30 million songs in Spotify’s database.

~~~
dmitriid
Oh. I just realized another thing. 30 million songs can easily fit into a
database running on a Macbook Air.

Stick it on a medium-sized server, and you can already serve thousands of
users.

Blockchain meanwhile... something something ... 4 txns/second ... 1 terrawatt
per txn ... up to several days to clear a txn when network is congested

~~~
daics
UMG, Warner, Sony and Spotify cannot share bills for running a common database
on AWS today without creating yet another corporation and relinquishing power
over the data to it.

Blockchains are not the next big thing in databases. They are here to
revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts
with each other, and even allow individuals themselves co-ordinate directly
with each other without intermediaries through novel org structures.

You are trading computational scalability for social scalability.

[http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-
blockchains-a...](http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-
and-social-scalability.html)

~~~
dmitriid
> Blockchains are not the next big thing in databases

Blockchains are the next big thing in nothing. They are not here to
revolutionise anything [1]

> hey are here to revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter
> into contracts with each other etc.

Nope. There are about zero things in blockchain that help with that. Because
at the end of the day someone has to do all the job of, you know, adding all
the info about who owns what percentage of what song in which region of the
world.

Oh wait. Which song was that? A Japanese LP that's 2 seconds longer than the
original single released in Europe? Or that remastered song on a "Best of
album" that was published by a different publisher than the remastered version
published on the "Remastered" album that is published by a different
combination of publishers than the original 1960s album that is different from
that singular French copy of a concert in 1995...

All that for a single song that ends up being attributed to the same singers
and songwriters, except that one cover by all the same people sans that one
guy, and except that different cover that will be attributed to the same
songwriters, but a different singer, and except...

All that info has to be: standardized, assigned to every single one of those
30 million songs, and any new releases should contain the same standardized
info.

You know, something the publishers could agree on right now, and they don't.
So how in the seven hells is blockchain going to help?

[1] [https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-
with-...](https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-
case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100)

~~~
lt
> Blockchains are the next big thing in nothing. They are not here to
> revolutionise anything [1]

I beg to differ [1]

> So how in the seven hells is blockchain going to help?

It's not a silver bullet, and most things are not ones that were not possible
before. But it facilitates some combinations, makes some things a lot more
practical, and opens space for innovation.

In this case, in particular, what comes to mind is:

\- there's a replicated consensus of all this attributions. Every single
company agrees and has a shared database of the rights and the licensing. \-
the disintermediation: there's not necessarily a need to have a middle man
managing this informations and agreements. \- auditable, notorized,
unforgeable history: you have this immutable record of when songs were
released, who held their records, who and when licensed them, etc. \- open
information: if you design this system as an open network, any interested
party can join and get the information it wants without needing APIs, etc.

All this without getting into tokens and handling the payments and
distribution of royalties on the chain, and other innovations that the
capabilities of the blockchain can bring.

[1] [https://blockchaintechguide.com/a-blockchain-based-
future/](https://blockchaintechguide.com/a-blockchain-based-future/)

~~~
dmitriid
> there's a replicated consensus of all this attributions. Every single
> company agrees and has a shared database of the rights and the licensing.

Riiight. They can't agree on a standard describing their music and licensing
now. But blockchain will magically create that shared database out of thin
air.

BTW. Again. That same word, database. Nothing a relational database couldn't
handle with much more ease and efficiency.

> there's not necessarily a need to have a middle man managing this
> informations and agreements

Riiight. Because every single company will provide an up-to-date complete
information with no omission and mistakes. Magic of blockchain!

> you have this immutable record of when songs were released, who held their
> records, who and when licensed them, etc.

Riiight. Because there's not even a consensus on what to define as a song, it
will somehow magically be solved by blockchain which will automagically
identify and attribute eve ry song/track/music correctly, completely, and
without omission.

Just some brain teasers for you:

\- is a single in Europe the same song as the same single released in Japan?

\- the single in Japan is 12 seconds longer, though.

\- The authors and the singer are the same. The publishers are different.

\- There's the same song, with the same people + a different drummer released
two years later. Is it the same song?

\- All three variations appear on fifteen different albums in 7 different
countries, spanning 4 major and 5 regional publishers.

\- Oh. I forgot to say, it's the same classical Tchaikovsky music which is in
the public domain. Yet surprise! You still have to pay money (you may research
why as a part of your answers to the brain teaser).

\- Also, the global and regional distribution, performance, streaming, and
radio rights may or may not be be different for each of those.

> ny interested party can join and get the information it wants without
> needing APIs

Because blockchain is a magical technology that transmits all this information
directly into your brain without the need of APIs.

Also, the article you linked is a bunch of demagoguery with zero practical
applications that for some reason equates blockchain with TCP/IP and not,
let's say, Tamagotchi.

~~~
lt
> But blockchain will magically create that shared database out of thin air.

It won't, and it's a strawman you are setting up. Of course you have to design
your business logic and rules and answer all the questions. There's nothing a
blockchain, a relational or a nosql database will do for you there. They will
give you different options and different tradeoffs. The point here is that
this distributed solution has interesting trade-offs and opportunities that
makes this a good match for this particular problem, regardless of rules of
what defines a song or how licensing rights rules are defined.

> BTW. Again. That same word, database. Nothing a relational database couldn't
> handle with much more ease and efficiency.

Yes, sure. You can have a third party with a central relational database that
does all that, and all companies trust it. The proposed solution is more akin
to a relational database replicated between all interested parties. All the
parties having the same vision of immutable data allows interesting tradeoffs
for this particular problem, that's all. No one is claiming it will identify
or classify songs for you.

> Because blockchain is a magical technology that transmits all this
> information directly into your brain without the need of APIs.

No, because you can design a solution where any interested party can join the
network and have a copy of the data. Or not. Trade-offs.

> Also, the article you linked is a bunch of demagoguery

I think it's a very pratical way of understanding the oportunities and
capabilities that open up with new technology, particulary if you have a knee-
jerk reaction such as shown above. Scepticism is healthy particularly given
all the hype and magical promises around it but if you look at it through the
framework proposed there I hope you can see how it opens design space that was
unpractical before.

~~~
dmitriid
> It won't, and it's a strawman you are setting up.

It wasn't set up by me, was it? Let me remind you:

"Of course, all these questions can be addressed in one way or another with
conventional database tech. But blockchain has some undeniable appeal in an
application like this."

So far no one has shown that "undeniable appeal". Moreover, every person who
roots for blockchain in this conversation comes up with easily refutable
claims.

> Of course you have to design your business logic and rules and answer all
> the questions. There's nothing a blockchain, a relational or a nosql
> database will do for you there.

Let's see what one of the proponents said: "UMG, Warner, Sony and Spotify
cannot share bills for running a common database on AWS today without creating
yet another corporation and relinquishing power over the data to it... They
are here to revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into
contracts with each other, and even allow individuals themselves co-ordinate
directly with each other without intermediaries through novel org structures."

And yet. Suddenly. "Oh, you have to agree and design your business logic and
rules and answer all the questions." Why the hell would I need blockchain for
this?

> You can have a third party with a central relational database that does all
> that, and all companies trust it. The proposed solution is more akin to a
> relational database replicated between all interested parties.

Oh wait. Let me remind you: "Every single company agrees and has a shared
database of the rights and the licensing."

Moreover, it means that every single company agrees that anyone can just write
whatever they want to this database, sure. And probably fork it at some time,
splitting it further.

Remind me again, why blockchain?

> No, because you can design a solution where any interested party can join
> the network and have a copy of the data.

Oh cool. Data is useless without access to it though. Hence, APIs. You are not
a programmer, are you?

> I think it's a very pratical way of understanding the oportunities and
> capabilities that open up with new technology, particulary if you have a
> knee-jerk reaction such as shown above.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction. It's a healthy scepticism based on experience
and actual understanding of some of the inside workings of music industry.

Your "solutions" are basically "let's add blockchain to it because it's this
new cool new thing even though I have no idea how it will aid the problem in
question". _All_ it does according to you is letting everyone have a copy of
some data. Oh my god. I am _so_ sold on this idea :-\

Just count the number of assumptions you make to make this work:

\- everyone has to agree to use this shared database

\- everyone agrees on a standard way to define songs, define licensing, define
song metadata

\- everyone agrees to provide exact truthful complete metadata for every song
and track they release at any point in time (hey, remember the brain teaser I
gave you? Try answering _that_ first)

\- everyone agrees to have this shared database as the one and only source of
truth even if everyone can write any data to it

\- everyone agrees to never under any circumstances fork the database or
create competing copies of it (we know how well that worked for Ethereum etc.)

Oh, golly. I sure am sold on the opportunities and capabilities. Blockchain
surely "has some undeniable appeal in an application like this." and will
"revolutionize how existing organizations co-ordinate, enter into contracts
with each other, and even allow individuals themselves co-ordinate directly
with each other without intermediaries through novel org structures." "All
this without getting into tokens and handling the payments and distribution of
royalties on the chain, and other innovations that the capabilities of the
blockchain can bring."

BTW. Blockchain cannot handle either payments _or_ royalties. It can hardly
handle a few payments without buckling under its own load.

~~~
lt
> It wasn't set up by me, was it?

Yeah, you are the one claiming that blockchain has to somehow identify and
categorize songs automatically in order for it to be in anyway useful. The
undeniable appeal claimed is about how organizations coordinate and share
information.

> Moreover, it means that every single company agrees that anyone can just
> write whatever they want to this database, sure.

No, you can design it with whichever rules you want on who can write, on
what's written, and how the consensus is determined if that information is
accepted.

> Oh cool. Data is useless without access to it though. Hence, APIs. You are
> not a programmer, are you?

This makes no sense. If I have a copy of the data, I can access it. Yes, I'm a
programmer.

> Just count the number of assumptions you make to make this work:

Aren't those mostly the same assumptions you have to make to have music
licensing work at all? Through an intermediary, on a relational database
somewhere? Everyone has to agree to use this system, to provide truthful
metadata, and use this intermediary's information as the only source of truth?

> BTW. Blockchain cannot handle either payments or royalties. It can hardly
> handle a few payments without buckling under its own load.

Again, don't take Bitcoin's limitations for Blockchain limitations.

~~~
dmitriid
> Yeah, you are the one claiming that blockchain has to somehow identify and
> categorize songs automatically in order for it to be in anyway useful.

Nope. Not me. I've even quoted the claims.

> The undeniable appeal claimed is about how organizations coordinate and
> share information.

Once again. I asked several times: the organisations cannot organise and agree
_now_. Why would they agree in the case of blockchain? Just be cause you say
"blockchain" it won't magically happen.

> Aren't those mostly the same assumptions you have to make to have music
> licensing work at all?

Yes. So. Once again. What's the _undeniable appeal of the blockchain_? You
need all of the exact same assumptions that don't work or work very poorly in
the first place, and you decide to add a blockchain on top of that because
somehow it will magically make everything work.

So, once again. What exactly does blockchain bring into the equation if
_everything remains the same_?

> Again, don't take Bitcoin's limitations for Blockchain limitations.

Riiight. There apparently exists some magical blockchain that doesn't have any
of the limitations that every single blockchain on the market has.

~~~
lt
> So, once again. What exactly does blockchain bring into the equation if
> everything remains the same?

I did state it, repeatedly, but it doesn't count because everything else
remains the same and it doesn't magicaly makes everything simple and easy.
Allright.

~~~
dmitriid
You did, and it breaks immediately, because everything else (the things that
actually don't work) remain the same, and you for some reason expect them to
work in your blockchain.

If something doesn't already work, adding something that's completely
orthogonal doesn't help it, or solve it. All other perceived benefits are just
not good enough, and blockchain brings enough problems of its own.

------
KasianFranks
Almost as big as SeeqPods multi-billion dollar copyright suit (which we got
kicked out of court) [https://www.beet.tv/2009/02/seeqpod-gets-hit-with-
multibilli...](https://www.beet.tv/2009/02/seeqpod-gets-hit-with-multibillion-
dollar-lawsuits.html)

------
thomastjeffery
US copyright has _way_ too much international authority.

Spotify wouldn't even exist without illegal file sharing on the outset.

------
sp332
At the bottom of the article is says "SPONSORED". But I can't find who
sponsored it?

Edit: Ok thanks for the screenshots. I disabled my adblocker but they're still
not showing up. Probably just something broken.

~~~
gkoberger
For anyone concerned, there's nothing to worry about! This specific article
isn't directly sponsored. It's just a generic ad network at the bottom that's
'SPONSORED'.

~~~
RIMR
Ah, I see. My ad blocker blocked the ads, but kept the word "Sponsored" just
floating around with no context.

------
JOnAgain
Seems opportunistic. They file for IPO and this lawsuit comes out at the same
time? Almost certainly not a coincidence. This is arguably when Spotify is
most vulnerable and when they will be most likely to settle -- investors hate
uncertainty, so settling, even for a large amount, would probably be good for
the IPO.

------
cbhl
Isn't this just another grab by middlemen trying to take a bigger cut of
streaming revenue because CD sales are dying?

When Spotify was in a spat with Taylor Swift's former label, the two companies
couldn't even agree on how much in royalties she was making a year.
[https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213775/taylor-swift-
spo...](https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213775/taylor-swift-spotify-
borchetta-royalties)

------
mortenjorck
I'm seeing several comments here that assume the lawsuit to be over
recordings, but Wixen manages "mechanical licenses" (rights to melody and
lyrics), not recordings.

Mechanical licenses are governed very differently from recordings. For one,
they are subject to compulsory licensing, which allows you pay a statutory
rate to license them, as opposed to directly licensing them from the
rightsholder. The suit alleges that Spotify did neither in this case.

------
yuhong
Thinking about it, part of the reasons music labels got big is for economy of
scale when mass producing CDs for example. Of course, such economy of scale
was not needed anymore with the move to digital distribution. This didn't work
well with the current debt-based economy where shareholders depends on stocks
always going up for things like retirements. I assume that Hollywood has
similar problems, right?

------
endlessvoid94
Isn't every streaming music service basically being sued by major record
labels constantly?

I was under the impression it was standard operating procedure for them.

------
pers0n
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s found out later Apple helped convince others
or fund research for this lawsuit in some hidden deal on the down low

------
swiley
I hope there's a way to export Spotify playlists.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Not as far as I can tell.

My backout plan is to manually copy over all the artists I'm following. It'll
take an hour or two, and I'd have to remember which of their albums I liked
the most.

For custom playlists? Currently you're shit out of luck, you'll have to do it
manually.

~~~
moojd
They have a nice API for working with playlists. Dozens of services would pop
up for ripping them if spotify goes EOL.

~~~
zimpenfish
It's definitely an API. I'm not sure I'd say it was -nice- going off my
experiences with it (caveat: they might have changed it since 2013 when it was
the bane of my life.)

(Horrifyingly crufty playlist backup: [https://github.com/rjp/spotify-
playlists](https://github.com/rjp/spotify-playlists) )

------
nurettin
So the music "industry" waits for the cow to get big and then starts milking
it. A sudden and unexpected turn of events.

~~~
EADGBE
It's more of the people making the milk realizing they're making pennies on
the dollar compared to those machines that distribute the milk.

------
sethgecko
You would expect Sean Parker to learn how to avoid this by now.

------
artur_makly
this is one of the reasons why YC doesnt encourage music startups.

------
lavasalesman
Where did they even get the songs if they weren't provided by the owner?
Bittorrent?

------
sdsk8
This is the first post on HN that make me want to have downvote powers!

------
geekamongus
...and Lars Ulrich is cheering from his grave.

~~~
phaedryx
Why would he do that? He's not dead.

------
SethRich
What a headache of an industry to get into. Seeing the direction that Pandora,
Soundcloud, and others have gone, I wouldn't touch this vertical with 10-ft
pole and a billion in capital.

~~~
semicolon_storm
Got a billion dollars? You can send a person to the moon, but don't even dream
about getting into the music streaming industry!

------
txsh
Let's be clear what this is really about: Spotify is rumored to go public next
year.

------
ben_jones
* Tinfoil hat *

Large music labels prefer revenue/relationships with Apple and Apple music and
will use their monopoly to hurt or ruin competitors like Spotify.

~~~
thomastjeffery
They really don't care _who_ , they only care about squeezing every penny they
can out of copyright.

~~~
wang_li
I would think that the authors/rights holders of the music really should get
the majority of the revenue. The underlying technology is of little interest
to the end user.

Who would really install and pay for spotify if the entire library consisted
of a two minute track of street sounds from Los Angeles and thirty seconds of
doorbells? Basically no one. Nobody really cares about the technology, what
they want is the music, without which even the coolest technology is
uninteresting.

~~~
cortesoft
Yes, but without the underlying tech, there is no way for the end user to
access that content. So the question is, which is more scarce? The
infrastructure, tools, and millions of paying customers using your streaming
service, or the music itself?

There are a lot of music producers and publishers. There aren't many streaming
services that have a large customer base and the tech to service it.

~~~
stordoff
> many streaming services that have a large customer base

And arguably Spotify only has a large customer base because it has the content
people want. It's very similar to a chicken and egg problem.

~~~
thomastjeffery
Copyright holders demand control over distribution, which makes smaller
competitors less lucrative to rightsholders, so the rightsholders pick larger
incumbents, and force smaller businesses to fail via litigation.

The problem is that copyright has an unreasonable amount of authority.

