Spotify's Podcasting Problem: Loophole Allows Remixes and Unreleased Songs To Hide in Plain Sight (variety.com) 24
Spotify has joined the ranks of streaming services like SoundCloud and YouTube as a hub for bootlegs of popular songs. From a report: With obscured titles like "Jocelyn Flores but you're in the bathroom at a party" by eraylandin, a new take on XXXTentacion's popular "Jocelyn Flores," and "Dead To Me -- Kali Uchis (slowed + bass boosted)" by user Unreal sounds, a rework of Uchis' popular track from her 2018 album "Isolation," these underground remixers have chosen to upload their creations as podcast episodes, hoping to circumvent copyright infringement detection by the platform. Using simple keywords and terms like "chopped and screwed," "slowed and reverbed," "remix," and "mashup" in Spotify's search bar, users can track down bootlegged reworks of songs by many top artists which live on Spotify's podcast hub. Late rapper Juice WRLD, who still commands a cult following, has a full 'podcast series' dedicated to revealing his unreleased songs, like user No Si's podcast titled, "Instagram @xricardol.tx." The podcast contains 'episodes' like "Sugarfish (Leaked)," a song Juice WRLD wrote with The Chainsmokers that was never officially released, despite online rumors that the collaboration would become available in December 2019. These podcasts, like "Instagram @xricardol.tx," only contain the audio of specific songs and almost always list the tracks as individual episodes. There is nothing that resembles the typical characteristics of a podcast.
Here’s hoping Taylor Swift shifts copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I does feel a little bit like retroactively rewriting a contract. Maybe these contracts should include a right of first refusal clause where an artist has some reasonable option to buy back their work. Or maybe just a simpler contract that gives some time limited rights to the recording company and after it expires the rights revert back to the musician(s).
Should we be bound by the contracts we sign? Generally speaking, yes. More specifically if the contracts aren't made between parties that stand on equal
Re:Here’s hoping Taylor Swift shifts copyrig (Score:4, Insightful)
Music is overcomplicated by the music industry and our expectations that the music industry, as it has historically functioned, has a right to exist. Music is the dumbest thing to copyright because all music is derivative unless you’re looking at lyrics. Because unlike language, which is infinitely discrete, music has finite combinations (if you’re looking at things from a music theory perspective). There are so many songs with the same chord progression, same rhythm, same everything, and what makes them distinct are just odd things like timbre. But that’s the same thing that makes a song distinct from its cover.
We should embrace the unoriginality of music, like old bards and reggae musicians did. Music is an extremely cheap commodity that we try to inflate the monetary value of because we love it. We idolize musicians we love and therefore we see them deserving of large financial rewards. But the truth is, even with absurd copyright laws, music is pretty worthless unless you compose music for blockbuster movies. That’s why the wealthy musicians—people like Taylor Swift—sell shitty pop music more based on some odd celebrity persona they have crafted while that guy you know who makes amazing music in his basement, or that great band that plays at the local bar, makes diddly squat.
Music copyrights just hold music back. If you’re a great songwriter, your reward should be that everyone copies your song and it becomes a folk song that everyone knows. If you want to make money, play live shows.
Re: (Score:2)
If you’re a great songwriter, your reward should be that everyone copies your song and it becomes a folk song that everyone knows. If you want to make money, play live shows.
People who are great songwriters are often not great performers, and vice-versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Most game programmers are not good artists. But we still manage to find an arrangement that works between artists and developers, even in an indie game. It only has to be as complicated as the most tedious member of your group. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
. Because unlike language, which is infinitely discrete, music has finite combinations (if you’re looking at things from a music theory perspective).
That's not exactly true; music, at a song level, has nearly infinite combinations when you start accounting for time. Pick any song, and loop the last bar a different number of times, now you have a new combination. That can be done forever (or until time runs out). Now, for a given length, both spoken/written language (which is I think what you mean by language) and songs both have finite combinations, it's just that the there's a difference in the number of base tokens used in the language, although I'd
Copyright needs work, but Taylor is wrong (Score:2)
It does feel a little bit like retroactively rewriting a contract
I am the first to say that the whole idea of copyright needs a serious overhaul. But in the context of the current laws and copyright paradigm, Taylor is just plain wrong. Would she be famous today if her recording company didn't take the chance and invest millions in producing, recording, publishing, publicizing, and marketing? "They who take the risk reap the rewards" is a fundamental tenet of our market and approach to business. What did she risk? The recording industry doesn't work the way most peo
Re: (Score:2)
She owns the copyright to the sheet music, lyrics, etc. just not the recordings.
Re: Here’s hoping Taylor Swift shifts copyri (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She owns the copyright to the sheet music, lyrics, etc. just not the recordings.
Which is why she can re-record them once her contract limitations expired. The issue over owning the recordings, as I understand it, is, as always, about money; i.e. who gets the revenue from streaming and sales? Her old label owns them so the money goes to them less any agreed upon cut for Swift. If she owned them she would get more money. The challenge is the structure of the music industry - spend money promoting unknown musicians and if and when they become big make it back selling the catalogue. Ta
Re: (Score:2)
She owns the copyright to the sheet music, lyrics, etc. just not the recordings.
Yes. There are several different specific rights involved.
And . . . once a recording of a certain work has been released, anyone else is free to make their own recording or cover of it. They have to pay a set license fee to the copyright holder. This is the so-called "compulsory mechanical license". [wikipedia.org]
In short, Swift is doing exactly what copyright law allows her to do. There won't be any changes to copyright law, as her actions are completely in concordance with current copyright law.
It may be doing an e
Fun fact (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, Lars only started to care about copyright once they were big enough that it mattered to him. You see, when Napster happened, Metallica were already big enough that they could negotiate with the labels for decent terms and get a significant percentage of profit from sales as royalties. Most bands don't have the negotiating power to do that. Back when Metallica was gaining mindshare from teenagers trading tapes, copyright wasn't on Lars' mind.
Under debate... (Score:2)
Congress is talking about such things, as the "Section 230" repeal would leave the major web companies liable for what they publish. Seems like Spotify's automatic content addition need some supervision...
Re: (Score:3)
Correction, it's not just "major web companies" that will possibly be liable, it's ALL web companies/sites that allow UGC in some form or another. And if not liable, they'll be stung by thousands of frivolous lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, when should websites that allow users to publish, still be considered liable as a publisher. Clearly its possible to filter out users in such a way as to be become morally liable also. Imagine a website dedicated to having only users who publish revenge porn. You have to imagine it, because it once existed, but doesnt any longer, because 230 somehow magically doesnt protect certain kids of sites but somehow magically prot
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The "magic" is called 47 USC 230(e) [cornell.edu]. This is why I laugh off the lawyer jokes. People can't be bothered to read, and I get paid to do it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you countered what he was saying, but only because it's extremely unclear what he was saying. It is actually possible that he was agreeing with you.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, you dont get that court case because magically a website that allows users to publish can somehow discriminate against anything they fucking want no explanation required. Against the fucking law, 230 dont protect it, yet here we are, with you saying that this shouldnt happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one that applies to your chosen example.
Yes, yes I do. Because you can't identify a statute that covers that situation - it doesn't exist. Thank you for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one thing that Spotify is not about: (Score:1)
Music.
At some point it becomes a new song. (Score:2)
If you actually want to listen to a popular song, you are NOT satisfied with some teen ager's chopped, slowed, and reverebed crappy version.
Unless the remixer is more talented than the 'original' artist.
Consider Ross Bagdasarian. He built an entire career out of speeding up music. He got two Grammies for "The Witch Doctor", before he created the The Chipmunk brand which got a Star on the Hollywood walk of fame.
Not saying that copyrights aren't being infringed, but instead that:
a) Little if any real mone