|
|
|
|
|
|
by fao_
2006 days ago
|
|
|
> I Am Not A Lawyer, but "a curated collection of units-of-art" seems like a very reasonable thing to protect access to I'm going to need a citation on playlists specifically being protected under copyright. I'm not sure how you can claim that what is effectually a simple plaintext list of things can be copyrighted. What original content there is being put under copyright? As you already stated, they do not alter the music itself in the way that a rearrangement would, most media players provide fade-in/out functionality so they cannot claim that is unique, and they do not provide any supplimentary content to enhance the experience, at least not in the same way that a book published list, or internet top ten list would ordinarily provide some kind of commentary on the items. What you're claiming here is effectually that, not even the content, but the mere titles of every single "top 50 foos" list on the internet can be copyrighted. Or that the rearranging of a book's chapters without any change to the contents, can itself fall under copyright I'm not sure how anyone could think that this is at all a reasonable position to have? It's baffling, to be quite honest. |
|
|
And I'm not going to give you one, because, as I said, I Am Not A Lawyer (and even if I was, you're not paying me to be). But, regardless, note that I made no reference to copyright whatsoever - I said "this seems like a very reasonable thing to protect access to". I'm making no reference to law whatsoever - just to what _I_ think is reasonable for a corporation to protect. You are free to disagree.
> they do not provide any supplimentary content to enhance the experience, at least not in the same way that a book published list, or internet top ten list would ordinarily provide some kind of commentary on the items.
The collection _is_ the supplementary content. If a Spotify playlist was a quasi-random collection of tracks from across the entire catalogue, then you'd be right, but they're not - the playlists are curated and specifically chosen to fit some niche (genre, artist-relation, time period, etc.). By virtue of _being in a playlist called_ (e.g.) "1940's Smooth Jazz", the songs are demarcated as being a) relevant to the particular criteria, and b) of a high-enough "quality" (whatever that means) that they have been chosen. So, yes, the plaintext-listing of those song titles _would_ have some value, just like a list of "(only the titles of the) top ten sci-fi novels of 2019" would have some value. I would, for instance, value such a list more-highly if it came from someone whose taste in sci-fi I respect and resonate with.
> What you're claiming here is effectually that, not even the content, but the mere titles of every single "top 50 foos" list on the internet can be copyrighted
Again, I'm intentionally _not_ touching on issues of copyright as legal status - but, yes, I am absolutely suggesting that someone who has gone to the effort of curating a "top 50 foos" list, _and_ of associating it with a powerful taste-making brand like Spotify's, would be justified in perceiving that list _itself_ as a valuable and protection-worthy creation.
---
After the cut because it's less relevant to the discussion, but:
> that the rearranging of a book's chapters without any change to the contents, can itself fall under copyright
I mean...if you _don't_ see how it could be possible for someone to remix the content of an existing artwork into a conceptually-new work, by making statements _with_ the playing-with-form, then I think we're just looking at art from fundamentally different perspectives and are never going to agree. If you truly _do_ want to understand my perspective, you might try thinking about how the consumption of art is affect by the context of how it is consumed and presented, not just the sequence of bytes/soundwaves/visual-elements that compose it.