Label Sues Spotify Because Some Of Its Users Create Playlists Of Authorized Music In The Same Order It Did
from the wait,-really? dept
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 2012While 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:
"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.
"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?