Just saw this on C4 News.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013...nd-sues-spotify

 

Dance music brand Ministry of Sound is suing Spotify for copyright infringement, claiming the streaming music company has refused to delete users' playlists that copy its compilation albums.

 

Ministry of Sound launched proceedings in the UK High Court on Monday, and is seeking an injunction requiring Spotify to remove these playlists and to permanently block other playlists that copy its compilations. The company is also seeking damages and costs.

 

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 2012

 

"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.

 

A Spotify spokesperson confirmed to the Guardian that it had received the lawsuit, but declined to comment further.

 

While Presencer is known to be no fan of Spotify according to industry sources, the lawsuit came as a surprise to the company. The Guardian understands that Spotify has held talks in the past with Ministry of Sound about licensing tracks from its label division, albeit without a deal being struck.

 

The case will hinge on whether compilation albums qualify for copyright protection due to the selection and arrangement involved in putting them together. Spotify has the rights to stream all the tracks on the playlists in question, but the issue here is whether the compilation structure - the order of the songs - can be copyrighted.

 

Similar arguments featured in a high-profile case in 2010, when the High Court ruled that the English and Scottish football leagues could protect their fixture lists on copyright grounds. However, this ruling was later overturned on appeal.

 

"What we do is a lot more than putting playlists together: a lot of research goes into creating our compilation albums, and the intellectual property involved in that. It's not appropriate for someone to just cut and paste them," said Presencer.

 

Playlists are an increasingly prominent feature on Spotify's service, which provides its users with a catalogue of more than 20m music tracks to stream.

 

Spotify's 24 million users have created more than 1bn playlists since its launch in 2008. In August, Spotify launched a new "Browse" feature to help people discover one another's playlists more easily.

 

"Everyone is talking about curation, but curation has been the cornerstone of our business for the last 20 years," said Presencer.

 

"If we don't step up and take some action against a service and users that are dismissing our curation skills as just a list, that opens up the floodgates to anybody who wants to copy what a curator is doing."

 

This hints at the wider context for Ministry of Sound's lawsuit, as its compilations business adapts to a new world of streaming music and user-generated, shareable playlists.

 

The company has sold more than 50m copies of its compilations in the 20 years since it was founded, but streaming is more problematic: the vast majority of tracks on those compilations have been licensed from other labels.

 

"When we license our compilations, which include a lot of major-label repertoire, they do not grant us the rights to stream those compilation albums," said Presencer.

 

His company does have a separate label business that signs and develops artists, and owns the rights to sell and stream their music. Thus far, Ministry has not made these tracks available to stream on Spotify.

 

 

Spotify users have created a number of playlists with Ministry of Sound in their titles.

The company's policies contrast with those of another famous compilations brand in the UK, NOW That's What I Call Music, which launched an app within Spotify's desktop software earlier this year.

 

However, NOW's joint owners are major labels – Universal and Sony – who are both shareholders in Spotify, and also own the rights to a significant proportion of tracks on the NOW compilations, thus earning money from streams of those tracks on Spotify.

 

As things stand, a Ministry of Sound Spotify app would only make money from streams of tracks signed to its label division. "Spotify only remunerates you for content ownership. It doesn't pay you if you're compiling third-party content," said Presencer.

 

"We've been asking them about this for the past four years, and have tried to engage in dialogue with them on how they would remunerate us for curation. They've said they don't have a structure for that in their model."

 

The risk for Ministry of Sound with its lawsuit is in looking like a company trying to protect its existing business model – compilation sales – at the expense of a new form of music consumption that is appealing to a growing number of people.

 

"Our digital compilations business is up 30% this year, and our international digital compilations business is up over 100% this year. That's double and triple-digit growth year-on-year," said Presencer.

 

"That doesn't strike me as being an old business model. Just because something is new doesn't mean something is good."

 

In a blog post published on the Guardian website this morning, Presencer went into more detail on that point, criticising Spotify's business model on the grounds that it has made sustained losses since the service launched in 2008.

 

A quarter of its 24 million active users currently pay for Spotify, and while the company's 2012 revenues rose 128% year-on-year to €434.7m (around £377.9m), its net losses increased from €45.4m in 2011 to €58.7m in 2012.

 

For its part, Spotify has said it expects to pay more than $500m to music rightsholders in 2013, taking it to more than $1bn in total payments since its launch.

 

The company has faced criticism from artists over the size of its payouts for streams of their music, most recently when Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich's Atoms for Peace removed their albums from Spotify and rival services in July.

 

Presencer confirmed that Ministry Sound is only suing Spotify, but said it is monitoring rivals. "We are looking at every service," he said.

 

"There are other services that have playlists, and when we have seen this happening – playlists using Ministry of Sound's name – when we have notified them, they have willingly taken them down. It's only against Spotify that we've hit this brick wall."

Well, if a record company refuses to do what all other record companies do in the first place and then gets all anal about the prospect of a person responding to that decision, what do you expect? Really idiotic, MOS pisses me off no end with its insistence to not put songs on Spotify from its record label. Yes, Spotify should make some amends but I would be more sympathetic if they decided to support what Spotify does for music.

 

For the record I occasionally use these playlists myself.

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by Tommy G

I am with MOS on this one

 

They invest a lot of time and money into their compilations so it is not right that people should steal their work without paying them, Spotify are not paying MOS for MOS material being streamed on Spotify so I hope MOS win this case.

Agreed, I can't believe they are actually going through with this - as if their playlists are 'intellectual property'. They are clearly doing this because Spotify is starting to damage the revenue they make from their compilations, but since these compilations often recycle the same tracks over and over, and are clearly no longer value for money I say GOOD.

 

MoS have always been one of my least favourite record companies - mainly because their refusal to adopt (say it quietly) On Air/On Sale

This is ridiculous. Surely there's a very little chance of MoS actually winning this lawsuit. :mellow:

I am with MOS on this one

 

They invest a lot of time and money into their compilations so it is not right that people should steal their work without paying them, Spotify are not paying MOS for MOS material being streamed on Spotify so I hope MOS win this case.

 

You can't really in any situation argue a right to the order of tracks in a playlist though. Spotify have the rights to every one of those tracks so it's not like they are using MOS tracks without permission, to argue the order is pedantic at best and a desperate attempt to cling onto anything they can get at worst.

 

I'm not overly familiar with Spotify, but in most places playlists are customisable to whatever the user wants them to be. They really don't have a case here. The life of the compilation album is short because of this but that's the changing world we live in.

This will be an interesting case from a legal perspective - can one copyright a list of tracks? It could be argued that certain MOS dance albums could technically qualify, provided they're mixed together a la a DJ set. In that case, they could argue that as it features their 'performance' of those tracks in that order.

 

But I fully agree, it's a silly lawsuit that they haven't a hope of winning. The cynic in me is wondering whether Ministry of Sound have a new compilation album coming out in the next few weeks that they are looking to get extra publicity for. And what better way to generate publicity than to have the brand name spread out across the pages of the broadsheet newspapers. "Everything else is advertising" indeed.

Agreed, I can't believe they are actually going through with this - as if their playlists are 'intellectual property'. They are clearly doing this because Spotify is starting to damage the revenue they make from their compilations, but since these compilations often recycle the same tracks over and over, and are clearly no longer value for money I say GOOD.

 

MoS have always been one of my least favourite record companies - mainly because their refusal to adopt (say it quietly) On Air/On Sale

 

Whether someone likes MOS or not or whether they are value for money is down to individual taste but MOS are not a charity they are a business out there to make money and Spotify are preventing this

 

 

This will be an interesting case from a legal perspective - can one copyright a list of tracks? It could be argued that certain MOS dance albums could technically qualify, provided they're mixed together a la a DJ set. In that case, they could argue that as it features their 'performance' of those tracks in that order.

 

Were it a DJ set with certain track-to-track changeovers that people are copying over they might have a case but as far as I can see that doesn't seem to be what's happening here, it looks like they're attempting to stop people from Wiki-ing the tracklisting and making a playlist out of that. Which, if so, is like trying to stop the tide from coming in.

I didn't see Sandro Ranieri's post by the way, I was agreeing with Tom. How can you take MoS's side on this? It's clearly a frankly BIZARRE and DESPERATE lawsuit which they will hopefully lose.

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by Doctor Blind

Whether someone likes MOS or not or whether they are value for money is down to individual taste but MOS are not a charity they are a business out there to make money and Spotify are preventing this

 

They are only preventing MOS making money because MOS's poor business model didn't plan for new media doing what they're doing but far better. That's their own damn fault.

The cynic in me is wondering whether Ministry of Sound have a new compilation album coming out in the next few weeks that they are looking to get extra publicity for. And what better way to generate publicity than to have the brand name spread out across the pages of the broadsheet newspapers. "Everything else is advertising" indeed.

 

Well, lookee here. Ministry of Sound released a compilation album, 'Ibiza Annual 2013', on Monday. I guess it's just a coincidence that this story broke this week, of all weeks.

MOS haven't really got a clue how to expand as a business model into 2013, which is proven by their insistence to release songs far too late. Shame as they're released some of the most essential songs this year. I also wonder where they'd be without their relentless amount of compilation albums that seem to come out every week.

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by Tommy G

Are they going to sue iTunes next for allowing people to put a playlist together on there that could replicate an MOS compilation from their own collection?

 

Ridiculous lawsuit. I hope the judge does the right thing and tell MOS to do one.

They are only preventing MOS making money because MOS's poor business model didn't plan for new media doing what they're doing but far better. That's their own damn fault.

 

I don't know much about Spotify, have never used it or been a subscriber, but any commercial business should do whatever it takes to protect their commercial interests if they are not being paid for their work, this sounds like a test case more than anything else, which they will probably lose as it sounds like a legal grey area, but I applaud them for sticking up for their commercial interests

 

I like how Craig thinks that Spotify is seriously damaging MoS' profits. It's been proven time and time again that people who stream music and illegally download it tend to spend more on it as well.

I don't know much about Spotify, have never used it or been a subscriber, but any commercial business should do whatever it takes to protect their commercial interests if they are not being paid for their work, this sounds like a test case more than anything else, which they will probably lose as it sounds like a legal grey area, but I applaud them for sticking up for their commercial interests

Well, there's a surprise. You are supporting a business against individuals. How can you copyright a list? The Premier League is a business. Would you support them if they tried to sue somebody who talked about their club's position in the league?

 

Would you change your mind if I mentioned that the MOS boss has just been made a Lib Dem peer?

Well, there's a surprise. You are supporting a business against individuals. How can you copyright a list? The Premier League is a business. Would you support them if they tried to sue somebody who talked about their club's position in the league?

 

Would you change your mind if I mentioned that the MOS boss has just been made a Lib Dem peer?

 

I am against many businesses

 

Ryanair, PC World, Royal Mail, energy companies, HMV, train operators etc frequently incur my wrath online and offline with their behaviour and business practices

 

I am in a slightly difficult position with this one as have never used Spotify and have no plans to become a Spotify user now or in the future so am in the dark as to how it all works, with this playlist thing if someone clicks on a song on someones playlist on Spotify will the song start playing? if so then I think MOS should be paid, if it is purely an information thing and the song doesn't play then the case is insane

I am against many businesses

 

Ryanair, PC World, Royal Mail, energy companies, HMV, train operators etc frequently incur my wrath online and offline with their behaviour and business practices

 

I am in a slightly difficult position with this one as have never used Spotify and have no plans to become a Spotify user now or in the future so am in the dark as to how it all works, with this playlist thing if someone clicks on a song on someones playlist on Spotify will the song start playing? if so then I think MOS should be paid, if it is purely an information thing and the song doesn't play then the case is insane

Spotify has the permission of the record companies to make their music available to play, MoS must have signed up to it. There are artists who have opted out of it (similarly to how some don't want their music on iTunes) but it's an opt-in service provided by an official provider - it's not YouTube where anyone can upload anything.

Spotify has the permission of the record companies to make their music available to play, MoS must have signed up to it. There are artists who have opted out of it (similarly to how some don't want their music on iTunes) but it's an opt-in service provided by an official provider - it's not YouTube where anyone can upload anything.

 

As far as I understand, the crux of MOS's argument revolves around the fact that they haven't signed up to Spotify. In order to create their compilation albums, MOS need to license tunes from other record labels, as they don't have enough high profile music in-house to fill it up with. By having their tracklistings copied on Spotify, MOS lose out on the royalties they would get from these songs had they been bought from this album via iTunes, or from the sales of the album as a whole. Sub-licensing from other labels is a complete legal minefield, which is why MOS's compilations don't appear on Spotify.