Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

If there's no value to curation then people wouldn't bother copying the lists - they'd just make their own. There's a reason why "MoS Compilation X" is worth more than "Random User Compilation X" - they're adding value to Spotify by expertly choosing songs that go together well presumably. And their business is selling that expertise.

Should they be able to protect that business through the use of copyright is an interesting problem. Is what they do valuable enough to warrant protection? Is it "art"? I don't think that's as straightforward a question as some people (on both sides of the argument) seem to think.

View on HN

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.

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

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.

It doesn't "just happen" to have the same table of contents, but was directly copied and is therefore a copyright infringement.

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.

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.

Android "directly copied" the Java API, similar to a table of contents.

Was it copyright infringement?

@svcrk, you're showing as [dead].

svckr's post is:

  > If there's no value to curation then people wouldn't bother copying the lists

  Yes. And since they (MoS) are obviously earning _something_ from selling their
  compilations there must be _some_ value in there. (I assume there are tracks
  from different labels on said compilations, otherwise they should just be happy
  about their Spotify revenue.)

  > Is what they do valuable enough to warrant protection? Is it "art"?

  It is a tough question, but answering with "yes" gets you on a slippery slope.
  Are MoS going to pay up if (by chance) a Spotify user made a playlist a month
  ago that exactly matches their next release?

To reply, no, because their playlists wouldn't have the right colour[1]. In copyright, the provenience of the work matters, and in many of these cases that is clear (the playlists include "Ministry of Sound" in the title), while that would be very hard to show if they just happen to create a matching playlist.

[1] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Also, what happens if the user swaps the order of two tracks? Or adds an additional track to the end? How close does a users playlist have to be to the copyrighted one?

> If there's no value to curation then people wouldn't bother copying the lists

Yes. And since they (MoS) are obviously earning _something_ from selling their compilations there must be _some_ value in there. (I assume there are tracks from different labels on said compilations, otherwise they should just be happy about their Spotify revenue.)

> Is what they do valuable enough to warrant protection? Is it "art"?

It is a tough question, but answering with "yes" gets you on a slippery slope. Are MoS going to pay up if (by chance) a Spotify user made a playlist a month ago that exactly matches their next release?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com