4 ms·

The reason a MoS Compilation is worth more than Joe Sixpack Compilation isn't necessarily the curation, but the skill at which the curation is mixed -- which ca

The reason a MoS Compilation is worth more than Joe Sixpack Compilation isn't necessarily the curation, but the skill at which the curation is mixed -- which cannot be reproduced with a simple Spotify playlist. These aren't just curated compilations; they're curated, edited/mixed, and mastered compilations.

gizzlon 13y ago
I think the mixing is another topic, what they're suing over is simple playlists.
- warfangle 13y ago
  Indeed. Which makes about as much sense as one encyclopedia publisher suing another for having the same table of contents, except the defendant encyclopedia doesn't have anything but the table of contents and is given away for free with little signs next to each topic saying "hey, you can read about this topic over -> here." In other words: not at all.
  - sp332 13y ago
    It doesn't "just happen" to have the same table of contents, but was directly copied and is therefore a copyright infringement.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      Copyright is not just about copying it is centrally about controlling copies of creative works. A table of contents is not creative, it is a simple listing of facts. Just like a phonebook or sports scores. The question here is if a playlist is a creative work. I think it is - picking and ordering songs to create a larger work designed to illicit a response from the listener seems to be more than the dry recording of facts. I am fairly anti-copyright in general and I think that this case illustrates a problem with modern copyright. Most people won't feel that such a small thing as a playlist deserves copyright protection because it is small, not because it lacks creativity. As far as I know, the law does not make such exceptions for "small" infringements.
      - warfangle 13y ago
        Hmm. Can an art gallery copyright the organization of art on their wall? What if it increases their revenue, and is an inherently creative act? If someone bought a bunch of prints of the same art, tacked it to some dry wall in the same layout and sold it at a flea market -- would it be copyright infringement? If they blatantly copy the name of the gallery as well, I'd argue it as trademark infringement -- not copyright infringement. But again, this is the UK. I'm only lay-familiar with US copyright. Some would argue the Java API took an immense amount of creativity to build. Doesn't mean it's copyrightable. Some would argue that a cake is a cake is a cake, others that it takes a great amount of creativity to create a truly amazing cake recipe. Still doesn't mean you can copyright a recipe. Just because creativity is involved doesn't make something inherently copyrightable.
    - warfangle 13y ago
      Android "directly copied" the Java API, similar to a table of contents. Was it copyright infringement?

gizzlon 13y ago

I think the mixing is another topic, what they're suing over is simple playlists.

warfangle 13y ago
Indeed. Which makes about as much sense as one encyclopedia publisher suing another for having the same table of contents, except the defendant encyclopedia doesn't have anything but the table of contents and is given away for free with little signs next to each topic saying "hey, you can read about this topic over -> here." In other words: not at all.
- sp332 13y ago
  It doesn't "just happen" to have the same table of contents, but was directly copied and is therefore a copyright infringement.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Copyright is not just about copying it is centrally about controlling copies of creative works. A table of contents is not creative, it is a simple listing of facts. Just like a phonebook or sports scores. The question here is if a playlist is a creative work. I think it is - picking and ordering songs to create a larger work designed to illicit a response from the listener seems to be more than the dry recording of facts. I am fairly anti-copyright in general and I think that this case illustrates a problem with modern copyright. Most people won't feel that such a small thing as a playlist deserves copyright protection because it is small, not because it lacks creativity. As far as I know, the law does not make such exceptions for "small" infringements.
    - warfangle 13y ago
      Hmm. Can an art gallery copyright the organization of art on their wall? What if it increases their revenue, and is an inherently creative act? If someone bought a bunch of prints of the same art, tacked it to some dry wall in the same layout and sold it at a flea market -- would it be copyright infringement? If they blatantly copy the name of the gallery as well, I'd argue it as trademark infringement -- not copyright infringement. But again, this is the UK. I'm only lay-familiar with US copyright. Some would argue the Java API took an immense amount of creativity to build. Doesn't mean it's copyrightable. Some would argue that a cake is a cake is a cake, others that it takes a great amount of creativity to create a truly amazing cake recipe. Still doesn't mean you can copyright a recipe. Just because creativity is involved doesn't make something inherently copyrightable.
  - warfangle 13y ago
    Android "directly copied" the Java API, similar to a table of contents. Was it copyright infringement?