4 ms·

Anna's Archive announced they intended to infringe on the label's copyrights by distributing their music without a license. The law allows the court "to prevent

Anna's Archive announced they intended to infringe on the label's copyrights by distributing their music without a license. The law allows the court "to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright" (emphasis mine). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502#:~:text=Any%20court%20having%20jurisdiction%20of,restrain%20infringement%20of%20a%20copyright. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502#:~:text=Any%2...

kassner 9mo ago
Spotify does not own that copyright, only a distribution license. How they can get away with it?
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Apparently you can win anything you want in a default judgement, no matter how ridiculous. When you know the other side won't show up because they'd be handcuffed, this is a useful way to achieve your goals.
  - DannyBee 9mo ago
    Nah - the plaintiffs include record companies, who do have rights here.
- DannyBee 9mo ago
  The plaintiffs are actually record companies, spotify is tacked on at the end for some reason, and the article decided to confuse matters :)
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo ago
    With the amount of content that has been described, it's not unlikely that Spotify actually owns some tiny fraction of it. They probably have some half-assed record label that owns two songs by a nobody.
  - solaris2007 9mo ago
    Rights can be extended through contracts. A lawyer at Spotify might think to put in: "we distribute the music for you, your right to enforce copyright or otherwise litigate on behalf of that music is also extended to us as if we also own it". The legal language would be different, that's a dumbed down version.
    - DannyBee 8mo ago
      I do understand what can happen (I'm an IP lawyer), but this basically requires enabling spotify to act as your attorney, since they still do not in fact own the rights, even with this. You can't manufacture standing here - only folks who are exclusive rightsholders can sue. Period. So it would require giving them power of attorney enabling them to sue on your behalf, since you (or whoever) still own the exclusive rights . I strongly doubt their contract terms have this in there, it would be fairly shocking. I say this having seens tons of these kinds of contracts, even with spotify, and never seeing something like this.
      - solaris2007 8mo ago
        What I have seen in practice (not with Spotify) is a law firm that is cozy with both entities will be delegated standing, the "powers" in power of attorney but with clauses defining a limited scope and "escape hatch" and "kill switch" clauses.
helsinki8 8mo ago
We need to abolish copyright laws entirely. This is just the ten millionth instance of them being abused by the 1% to harm the majority.
- taskforcegemini 8mo ago
  In times of AI this doesn't sound lije the ideal solution either
  - tempaccountabcd 8mo ago
    [dead]

kassner 9mo ago

Spotify does not own that copyright, only a distribution license. How they can get away with it?

direwolf20 9mo ago
Apparently you can win anything you want in a default judgement, no matter how ridiculous. When you know the other side won't show up because they'd be handcuffed, this is a useful way to achieve your goals.
- DannyBee 9mo ago
  Nah - the plaintiffs include record companies, who do have rights here.
DannyBee 9mo ago
The plaintiffs are actually record companies, spotify is tacked on at the end for some reason, and the article decided to confuse matters :)
- NoMoreNicksLeft 9mo ago
  With the amount of content that has been described, it's not unlikely that Spotify actually owns some tiny fraction of it. They probably have some half-assed record label that owns two songs by a nobody.
- solaris2007 9mo ago
  Rights can be extended through contracts. A lawyer at Spotify might think to put in: "we distribute the music for you, your right to enforce copyright or otherwise litigate on behalf of that music is also extended to us as if we also own it". The legal language would be different, that's a dumbed down version.
  - DannyBee 8mo ago
    I do understand what can happen (I'm an IP lawyer), but this basically requires enabling spotify to act as your attorney, since they still do not in fact own the rights, even with this. You can't manufacture standing here - only folks who are exclusive rightsholders can sue. Period. So it would require giving them power of attorney enabling them to sue on your behalf, since you (or whoever) still own the exclusive rights . I strongly doubt their contract terms have this in there, it would be fairly shocking. I say this having seens tons of these kinds of contracts, even with spotify, and never seeing something like this.
    - solaris2007 8mo ago
      What I have seen in practice (not with Spotify) is a law firm that is cozy with both entities will be delegated standing, the "powers" in power of attorney but with clauses defining a limited scope and "escape hatch" and "kill switch" clauses.

helsinki8 8mo ago

We need to abolish copyright laws entirely. This is just the ten millionth instance of them being abused by the 1% to harm the majority.

taskforcegemini 8mo ago
In times of AI this doesn't sound lije the ideal solution either
- tempaccountabcd 8mo ago
  [dead]