Club 33
Playlist Author
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/04/ministry-of-sound-sues-spotify
A question that has been asked about and discussed on this and other forums in the Disney Park Music community is whether or not Disney has a legal foundation to claim copyright of their music playlists- playlists which are usually composed of music created by others and simply ordered and assembled in a certain way by Disney.
In general the feeling has been that the answer is no- there does not seem to be any legal precedent that someone can claim copyright over the sequence of a particular collection of tracks, and indeed Disney themselves seem to support this by having taken the stance of treating their playlists like a trade secret. Like CocaCola, they can't protect it (at least not without making the recipe publicly available) so they'd rather just not tell anyone. Which has of course fostered a community of playlist reverse-engineers to discover the information instead.
A newly filed lawsuit England, however, promises to provide an interesting legal example of someone trying to claim copyright protection of a particular sequence of music that they themselves do not own. The record label Ministry of Sound is suing streaming music service Spotify, claiming infringement based on the fact that Spotify allows its users to create playlists of the exact same tracks in the exact same order as appear on compliation albums released by Ministry of Sound:
Somewhat amusingly, MoS's arguments for why the selection and sequence of tracks should be protected bear a striking resemblance both to official reasons given by Disney as to why they don't want to publish playlist information, and those of online playlist compilers frustrated at other websites reposting their reverse-engineered playlists without permission:
The bigger point though, is that in order to prove copyright infringement one must be able to prove damage (that the infringement harms the copyright holders rights to exploit their own content, creatively or financially). The argument that MoS is making is a very specific one based on their own business model of selling compilation albums- they license tracks from artists and then make money packaging and selling the compiled product to consumers. With the business model of album sales in the music industry becoming increasingly difficult, another source of revenue for music publishers is to license their material to a streaming service like Spotify- however their license agreements with the artists doesn't allow them to sub-license the compiled album for streaming. Hence, they argue, allowing users to recreate the albums from the original tracks allows the users to get their product (the compilation) without having to give MoS a dime. They as middlemen are being cut out and that's costing them money. Which is probably a reasonable argument, but not necessarily a legally defendable one. After all, can't a user look up the track listing online, go onto iTunes, and buy all of the component tracks individually, once again gaining the benefit of the compilation product without having to give MoS a dime? Does MoS argue that users should have to pay them merely for the right to listen to those songs in that order, when they've already legally paid for the right to listen to them (through downloads or streaming) wherever and whenever and in the context of whatever playlist they wish? It seems like a stretch for me- and I say that with all due sympathy to MoS.
In Disney's case, Disney does not generate revenue off of the compilations of music being played in their theme parks; like buildings and attractions the music is one small component in a large collection of loss-leaders which comprise the theme park product. To have a viable legal defense Disney would have to be able to prove that someone was using or exploiting the playlist information in some way that actually affected sales of theme park tickets, and I don't think there is any realistic scenario that supports that (as I said, MoS has a much more clear cut and logical argument and I still don't think they have a winning case).
Thoughts?
A question that has been asked about and discussed on this and other forums in the Disney Park Music community is whether or not Disney has a legal foundation to claim copyright of their music playlists- playlists which are usually composed of music created by others and simply ordered and assembled in a certain way by Disney.
In general the feeling has been that the answer is no- there does not seem to be any legal precedent that someone can claim copyright over the sequence of a particular collection of tracks, and indeed Disney themselves seem to support this by having taken the stance of treating their playlists like a trade secret. Like CocaCola, they can't protect it (at least not without making the recipe publicly available) so they'd rather just not tell anyone. Which has of course fostered a community of playlist reverse-engineers to discover the information instead.
A newly filed lawsuit England, however, promises to provide an interesting legal example of someone trying to claim copyright protection of a particular sequence of music that they themselves do not own. The record label Ministry of Sound is suing streaming music service Spotify, claiming infringement based on the fact that Spotify allows its users to create playlists of the exact same tracks in the exact same order as appear on compliation albums released by Ministry of Sound:
Somewhat amusingly, MoS's arguments for why the selection and sequence of tracks should be protected bear a striking resemblance both to official reasons given by Disney as to why they don't want to publish playlist information, and those of online playlist compilers frustrated at other websites reposting their reverse-engineered playlists without permission:
It's certainly worth nothing that whatever the outcome in this case- and to me it doesn't look like the odds are in MoS's favor- it probably wont have much, if any, impact on Disney and their theme park playlists. For one, it's a British lawsuit, with a British music label suing a Swedish website, and so wouldn't necessarily have any real legal impact in the US (although I suppose if MoS were to have a big win, and a similar case were to be brought in the United States and there was a serious lacuna of American case law precedent, the case could be brought up as relevant).
The bigger point though, is that in order to prove copyright infringement one must be able to prove damage (that the infringement harms the copyright holders rights to exploit their own content, creatively or financially). The argument that MoS is making is a very specific one based on their own business model of selling compilation albums- they license tracks from artists and then make money packaging and selling the compiled product to consumers. With the business model of album sales in the music industry becoming increasingly difficult, another source of revenue for music publishers is to license their material to a streaming service like Spotify- however their license agreements with the artists doesn't allow them to sub-license the compiled album for streaming. Hence, they argue, allowing users to recreate the albums from the original tracks allows the users to get their product (the compilation) without having to give MoS a dime. They as middlemen are being cut out and that's costing them money. Which is probably a reasonable argument, but not necessarily a legally defendable one. After all, can't a user look up the track listing online, go onto iTunes, and buy all of the component tracks individually, once again gaining the benefit of the compilation product without having to give MoS a dime? Does MoS argue that users should have to pay them merely for the right to listen to those songs in that order, when they've already legally paid for the right to listen to them (through downloads or streaming) wherever and whenever and in the context of whatever playlist they wish? It seems like a stretch for me- and I say that with all due sympathy to MoS.
In Disney's case, Disney does not generate revenue off of the compilations of music being played in their theme parks; like buildings and attractions the music is one small component in a large collection of loss-leaders which comprise the theme park product. To have a viable legal defense Disney would have to be able to prove that someone was using or exploiting the playlist information in some way that actually affected sales of theme park tickets, and I don't think there is any realistic scenario that supports that (as I said, MoS has a much more clear cut and logical argument and I still don't think they have a winning case).
Thoughts?
