Sony Uses Copyright To Force Verge To Takedown Its Copy Of Sony's Spotify Contract

from the censorship-through-copyright dept

Well, well. A few days ago, the Verge got a huge scoop in the form of Sony’s original US contract with Spotify, leading to a ton of discussion (mostly focused around the huge “advances” that Spotify guaranteed Sony, and the related question of whether or not Sony actually passes those advances on to musicians). The debate raged on for a couple days, and late last night, Paul Resnikoff over at Digital Music News noticed something interesting: the original contract was now missing, and The Verge’s own website claims it’s due to a copyright threat from Sony:

On Twitter, the Verge’s editor-in-chief Nilay Patel admits that a threat from Sony forced the site to take down the contract.
In fact, he claims that Sony actually sent four cease and desist letters claiming copyright infringement:
Earlier this week, Resnikoff reported that Spotify was apparently putting pressure on publications not to report on the contract, including “dangling threats” to scare them off. However, Spotify would have no copyright argument here. As the Verge report (still) notes, the contract was “written by Sony Music,” meaning that if there’s any copyright claim (we’ll get to that shortly), it’s held by Sony Music.

And we all know damn well that Sony loves to throw around bogus copyright threats. Even we have received one concerning reporting on Sony Pictures’ leaked emails. Sony has threatened lots of other publications as well, and even Twitter over such leaks. And, Resnikoff notes that Sony Music threatened his site for an April Fool’s joke, pretending to reveal internal emails concerning Sony’s equity stake in Spotify.

So here’s the question: why did Vox (the owner of the Verge) cave? For a modern media operation, it must have lawyers that know the threat is bullshit.

Yes, it is possible to get a copyright over the contract, but it’s likely to be a pretty thin copyright, because the amount of “creative” work in the contract is minimal. Much of the contract is likely boilerplate. But, more importantly, the Verge has a slam dunk fair use case here. They’re providing commentary on the contract. It’s a matter of public interest. They’re not “selling” the contract and they’re certainly not harming the “market” for the contract itself, of which there is none.

We actually dealt with this issue once before — two years ago when Apple pulled the same bullshit move to pull down a contract that Resnikoff himself had posted on Digital Music News. Somewhat ironically, the first party to report on that… was the Verge! And in their report, they quoted law professor Eric Goldman noting the ridiculousness of it:

“It’s just kind of a jerk move. We all know what’s happening here. Apple doesn’t care about protecting the copyright of contracts. It’s using copyright to try and suppress information that it doesn’t want made public.”

Sounds about right when applied to Sony in this case. Besides, all this is really doing is drawing much more attention (yet again) to the contract, on a story that had already started to die down.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: sony, spotify, the verge, vox

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sony Uses Copyright To Force Verge To Takedown Its Copy Of Sony's Spotify Contract”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
35 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“copyright. If there really is one.”

Courts have ruled that legal contracts are protected by copyright. [e.g., American Family Life Insurance Co. of Columbus (AFLAC) v. Assurant, Inc. (2006) No. 1:05-CV-1462-BBM]

The only question is whether leaking a copyrighted legal contract in the publc interest would ever be considered “fair use”? Probably not.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The only question is whether leaking a copyrighted legal contract in the publc interest would ever be considered “fair use”? Probably not.

That’s not even a valid question since the leaking itself wouldn’t need to be considered at all to determine if The Verge’s use is Fair Use. It’s whether the publishing of a leaked document would be considered Fair Use and in this particular case the answer is pretty strong “yes”.

Vidiot (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So… if it’s possible to copyright a contract, it would be for the purpose of protecting its commercial value. For a book or a song, the purpose would be to sell the book or song for money, and publishing a copy (arguably) diminishes the article’s commercial value.

But if, as claimed, the commercial (read: copyrightable) value of a contract document lies in its novel language or methods, then it’s the actual use of the contract in commerce that’s being protected. So, publishing the language wouldn’t infringe, since there’s no inherent value in seeing/hearing it, as there is with a book or song; but copying the language and using it in a contract of your own would diminish the contract’s value, failing to compensate its author.

In other words, the only infringement would be ripping the language/ideas/methods, and using them in a new contract. No infringement for simply showing off the language. In my opinion.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

American Family Life Insurance Co. of Columbus (AFLAC) v. Assurant, Inc. (2006)

That’s not entirely true. In that case, AFLAC was creating an insurance policy document in a “‘narrative’ language style – as compared to the ‘terse, nondescriptive’ style employed by some of its competitors – [which] would be ‘readily understood by consumers.'” It was this “narrative” style that afforded it copyright protection.

On the other hand, “what might be called a paraphrase and plagiarism in another work, is significantly different for the purposes of comparing two insurance policies” (Continental Casualty Co. v. Beardsley). As a general rule, “When the ‘idea’ and its ‘expression’ are thus inseparable, copying the ‘expression’ will not be barred, since protecting the ‘expression’ in such circumstances would confer a monopoly of the ‘idea’ upon the copyright owner free of the conditions and limitations imposed by the patent law” (Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian).

So, unless the Sony contract was using some kind of “narrative language style” (which I doubt), its copyright claims are thin to nonexistent. If another company (say, Universal) came up with a contract that was almost completely identical to the Sony contract, I doubt that Sony would have a case to sue.

In any case, it really doesn’t matter. This is a slam-dunk case of fair use if there ever was one.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The only question is whether leaking a copyrighted legal contract in the publc interest would ever be considered “fair use”? Probably not.”

Why not? Mike explained pretty clearly why it absolutely is fair use: they’re providing commentary, it’s a matter of public interest, they’re not selling the contract and there’s no market to harm. Can you rebut any of these points?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

This is a general legal question, not specifically about this contract: most of the contracts that I have entered into have been collaborative efforts where both myself and the party I’m entering into a contract with have contributed changes, additions, and deletions to the text of the contract. Who does the copyright to such contracts belong to?

Ninja (profile) says:

Besides, all this is really doing is drawing much more attention (yet again) to the contract, on a story that had already started to die down.

Which is good since we know these copyright holders love to bleed useful services to death. It would be even more interesting to dig and see how much it reached the musicians. From comments from some top artists it seems to be pennies. Now imagine for the less known musician…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Unreadable PDFs (or .rars, videos, etc) are usually a combination of the encoder using a recent version of encoding software and the end-user having an old version of viewer software. (That’s why it’s always a good idea to use old software versions to encode or archive files to be shared).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

(That’s why it’s always a good idea to use old software versions to encode or archive files to be shared).

This doesn’t always work, such as for very old word formats. For the written word, plain text, or marked up text using Tex/Latex/html is much better. In general, use the simplest file format available for the data type.

The Artist Formerly Known As Anonymous says:

So Sue Me

Sony: How do we get the contract taken down from this site?

Sony’s Lawyer: If they won’t take it down, sue ’em for copyright infringement.

Sony: Sounds great. What could go wrong?

[Next Day]

Sony: They refused.

Sony’s Lawyer: (smirking) We will draft the complaint today.

[Two Weeks Later]

Sony: Where’s the complaint? What’s taking so long?

Sony’s Lawyer: We ran into a small problem.

Sony: Explain.

Sony’s Lawyer: Well, um, my associate was researching the law on copyrights, and, uh (clears throat).

Sony: Yes?

Sony’s Lawyer: Well, it seems that Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 (the “Copyright Act”) states, in part, the following: “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a).

Sony: (beginning to get agitated) In plain English, please.

Sony’s Lawyer: It means that we need a copyright registration to bring a lawsuit.

Sony: Are you telling me that we have to file this publicly to keep it a secret?

Sony’s Lawyer: (not so smirking)

Anonymous Coward says:

Sigh

Copyright law has come that far that even the thread of a lawsuit is enough to make people taking down a piece of information. Well.. it might not be the thread of a lawsuit but the costs that such an event brings with it. Isn’t it time that we have to ask ourselves if the rights you have should be equal to your bank account?

G Thompson (profile) says:

After a quick reading of the document in question (come at me Sony!!) it is very much a boilerplate contract and the possibility of any copyright in such a document is de minimus at best.

Interestingly though according to the actual terms of the contract itself (The confidentiality clause) Spotify could hold Sony in breach due to the release of it. That’s probably more a worry to Sony than anything else at moment especially since Spotify is now the major music structure on PS4’s

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...