Hacker News Reader

Comment by kassner | Hacker News Reader

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

The plaintiffs are actually record companies, spotify is tacked on at the end for some reason, and the article decided to confuse matters :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nah - the plaintiffs include record companies, who do have rights here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com