3 ms·

Added another source to assist discussion for more context: "https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spotify-hit-16-billion-copyright-lawsuit-tom-petty-weezer

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

txsh 9y ago
Bad link. Remove the quotes.
- breakingcups 9y ago
  Might help if you explained why you think that is the case.
  - hirsin 9y ago
    They mean the formatting of the link is busted by the quote marks.
    - glandium 9y ago
      The link is busted by the double quote at the end of it.
wrigby 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
invisible 9y ago
The reason this is being brought up is because often these litigations end with zero funds being transferred to the artists themselves. It’s not in the artists interests to sue for _damages_ if they make no money. That is the sketchy thing that this type of litigation exudes.

txsh 9y ago

Bad link. Remove the quotes.

breakingcups 9y ago
Might help if you explained why you think that is the case.
- hirsin 9y ago
  They mean the formatting of the link is busted by the quote marks.
  - glandium 9y ago
    The link is busted by the double quote at the end of it.

wrigby 9y ago

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 9y ago
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.

invisible 9y ago

The reason this is being brought up is because often these litigations end with zero funds being transferred to the artists themselves. It’s not in the artists interests to sue for _damages_ if they make no money. That is the sketchy thing that this type of litigation exudes.