5 ms·

> Spotify has previously claimed that streaming is not "reproduction" and is more akin to "performance"... and they (may) have those licenses. Doesn't having a

> Spotify has previously claimed that streaming is not "reproduction" and is more akin to "performance"... and they (may) have those licenses. Doesn't having an offline mode run counter to this claim? That's clearly reproducing it. It once lived as a copy on their servers, now it lives as a copy on their servers and on the subscriber's device. I could see, however, the argument going this way: a true reproduction is permanent, such as when a user burns a copy of a CD and distributes it to a third party. In this case, there are now two copies in the world. With offline mode (I think) those files are only playable so long as the software checks in with the service to ensure the subscription is still active.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"Doesn't having an offline mode run counter to this claim? That's clearly reproducing it." I agree with this. Even if it only lives an encrypted cache you are effectively doing a bit by bit reproduction when you offline sync. They do expire once the user hadn't logged in for some amount of time, I believe it's something like after 30 days of not logging in or refreshing a token. Before streaming when someone bought a CD they bought just that copy you weren't permitted to make a copy of that CD at any time.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about. Even radio is on the receiving end reproduced bit by bit, copied multiple times and stored in some kind of memory, which could be analog or digital.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about." No thats exactly what copyright it about. Its called a mechanical license and it is a type of copyright. See: https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights And Specifically: "Mechanical licenses apply to reproduction and distribution of musical works on records and CDs, in permanent digital downloads, and in some other digital uses."[1] >"Even radio is on the receiving end reproduced bit by bit, copied multiple times and stored in some kind of memory, which could be analog or digital" Copying bytes of a track into a buffer for transmission is not the same as storing a complete copy of the track on persistent storage i.e a downloaded copy done as part of an "offline sync." [1] http://guides.lib.umich.edu/permissions/music http://guides.lib.umich.edu/permissions/music
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      > Copying bytes of a track into a buffer for transmission is not the same as storing a complete copy of the track on persistent storage i.e a downloaded copy done as part of an "offline sync." Physically they are the same thing. A buffer could be large enough to hold a complete copy and all storage is persistent to greater or lesser degrees. It sounds like you are claiming if you buffered a small track in a future non-voltile RAM suddenly it's a different license? The legal difference is intent. What can the user do with the copy and does it feel like a copy.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        >"Physically they are the same thing. A buffer could be large enough to hold a complete copy and all storage is persistent to greater or lesser degrees." A buffer is generally understood to mean transient storage, so no not the same at all.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    > That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about. That is what copyright is about, the right to copy. In this case a mechanical license is at issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license See the two types of copyright in mechanical license, the composition and the recording. This is exactly what is being alleged by Wixen. See the lawsuit @ https://www.scribd.com/document/368281292/Wixen-Music-Publishing-Inc-v-Spotify-USA-Inc-Copyright-Infringement https://www.scribd.com/document/368281292/Wixen-Music-Publis...
- rblatz 9y ago
  >Before streaming when someone bought a CD they bought just that copy you weren't permitted to make a copy of that CD at any time. I guess it depends on what you mean by permitted, was I legally allowed to copy the CD? Yes, was I also able to pick my favorite tracks and make a custom playlist CD? Also yes. You were also free to rip it to your computer and put it on your iPod. It's called Fair Use and since there was no DRM on a CD you were free to utilize your fair use rights.
  - 333c 9y ago
    > Also yes. You were also free to rip it to your computer and put it on your iPod. It's called Fair Use That's not how Fair Use works. Fair Use is about making transformative works like "commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship" (according to Wikipedia). Not copying entire songs for your personal use.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > That's not how Fair Use works. Fair Use is about making transformative works Fair Use covers more than transformative works. See, notably, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984). Though while audio ripping of the type descrived could have been considered general fair use much like space shifting was in Sony, it actually was covered under a separate statutory allowance to avoid ambiguity, as the Audio Home Recording Act; this was found to cover ripping mp3s specifically in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999), which specifically cited Sony’s Fair Use result.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Doesn't having an offline mode run counter to this claim? That's clearly reproducing it." I agree with this. Even if it only lives an encrypted cache you are effectively doing a bit by bit reproduction when you offline sync. They do expire once the user hadn't logged in for some amount of time, I believe it's something like after 30 days of not logging in or refreshing a token. Before streaming when someone bought a CD they bought just that copy you weren't permitted to make a copy of that CD at any time.

akvadrako 9y ago
That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about. Even radio is on the receiving end reproduced bit by bit, copied multiple times and stored in some kind of memory, which could be analog or digital.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about." No thats exactly what copyright it about. Its called a mechanical license and it is a type of copyright. See: https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights https://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/types_of_copyrights And Specifically: "Mechanical licenses apply to reproduction and distribution of musical works on records and CDs, in permanent digital downloads, and in some other digital uses."[1] >"Even radio is on the receiving end reproduced bit by bit, copied multiple times and stored in some kind of memory, which could be analog or digital" Copying bytes of a track into a buffer for transmission is not the same as storing a complete copy of the track on persistent storage i.e a downloaded copy done as part of an "offline sync." [1] http://guides.lib.umich.edu/permissions/music http://guides.lib.umich.edu/permissions/music
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    > Copying bytes of a track into a buffer for transmission is not the same as storing a complete copy of the track on persistent storage i.e a downloaded copy done as part of an "offline sync." Physically they are the same thing. A buffer could be large enough to hold a complete copy and all storage is persistent to greater or lesser degrees. It sounds like you are claiming if you buffered a small track in a future non-voltile RAM suddenly it's a different license? The legal difference is intent. What can the user do with the copy and does it feel like a copy.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"Physically they are the same thing. A buffer could be large enough to hold a complete copy and all storage is persistent to greater or lesser degrees." A buffer is generally understood to mean transient storage, so no not the same at all.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  > That's an implementation detail - which is not what copyright is about. That is what copyright is about, the right to copy. In this case a mechanical license is at issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license See the two types of copyright in mechanical license, the composition and the recording. This is exactly what is being alleged by Wixen. See the lawsuit @ https://www.scribd.com/document/368281292/Wixen-Music-Publishing-Inc-v-Spotify-USA-Inc-Copyright-Infringement https://www.scribd.com/document/368281292/Wixen-Music-Publis...
rblatz 9y ago
>Before streaming when someone bought a CD they bought just that copy you weren't permitted to make a copy of that CD at any time. I guess it depends on what you mean by permitted, was I legally allowed to copy the CD? Yes, was I also able to pick my favorite tracks and make a custom playlist CD? Also yes. You were also free to rip it to your computer and put it on your iPod. It's called Fair Use and since there was no DRM on a CD you were free to utilize your fair use rights.
- 333c 9y ago
  > Also yes. You were also free to rip it to your computer and put it on your iPod. It's called Fair Use That's not how Fair Use works. Fair Use is about making transformative works like "commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship" (according to Wikipedia). Not copying entire songs for your personal use.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > That's not how Fair Use works. Fair Use is about making transformative works Fair Use covers more than transformative works. See, notably, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984). Though while audio ripping of the type descrived could have been considered general fair use much like space shifting was in Sony, it actually was covered under a separate statutory allowance to avoid ambiguity, as the Audio Home Recording Act; this was found to cover ripping mp3s specifically in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999), which specifically cited Sony’s Fair Use result.