Spotify has been in
the news a lot recently, especially after Thom Yorke’s comments around whether up
in coming artists get any significant financial reward from having their music available
to be streamed on the site. And, just this last week, I was intrigued to read
that dance music empire Ministry of Sound is suing Spotify for copyright
infringement due to users of the online streaming service creating playlists
that mirror Ministry of Sound compilation albums. When I first read this I was
quite amazed as I had never heard of a case quite like it in music. Copyright
issues have become more and more common within the music industry in the last
decade or so, from the early days of digital downloading to just last month
when members of Marvin Gaye’s family got embroiled in a copyright dispute with
Robin Thicke over the song “Blurred Lines” of which they argued copied Gaye’s
song “Got To Give it Up”, but suing a company because their users made
playlists which copied official releases is something new all together.
The success of this particular
case will be dependent on whether a case can be made for compilation albums to qualify
for copyright protection because of the effort that goes in to arranging the
track listing and putting the albums together, while also whether the actual order
of tracks on a compilation album can be copyrighted. Compilation albums are a
significant money earner for the mainstream music industry, especially if they
are compiled and released through a major label or a brand such as Ministry of
Sound. This makes me believe that in pursuing this case against Spotify,
Ministry of Sound are simply out to protect their financial interests with no
real care for the satisfaction of the casual music fan, users of Spotify, and
indeed it seems Ministry of Sound fans.
To me this case is
just another attempt from a music mogul to control how music is distributed, and
in doing so control that distribution process so it is favourable to them and their
financial interest, interests that are worth within the multi-million dollar
range annually. Music streaming is quickly becoming one of the most popular ways
in which people are listening to music in an increasingly diversified music
listening landscape. And with sites like Spotify offering their services for
free, or cheap subscriptions, major labels and other influential organisations
such as Ministry of Sound will become more concerned as to whether their
historically strong monopoly on music distribution will remain. Such concerns
will only increase if they believe that the popularity of online streaming and other
‘free’ or cheap listening music services will affect their record sales and therefore
the profit margins of the big global conglomerates.
This brings me back on to the issue of making playlists,
something that is very popular amongst users of Spotify and iTunes. At the end
of the day one must ask what is actually wrong with music fans compiling their
favourite tracks into playlists for their own pleasure. Music and the act of
listening to music is one of the most pleasurable experiences one can have, and
if a music fan has the opportunity to enhance this experience through making
themed playlists then surly that’s a good thing and should be encouraged not
prevented. People have been compiling music for their own personal use for
decades, you only need to think of bootlegging and tape making for starters,
while ITunes is also in the business of allowing users to make their own
personal playlists. The mind actually boggles as to where Ministry of Sound is
coming from on this issue in what to me is simply an attempt by them to control
how music fans listen to music, and from Ministry of Sounds point of view how
they listen to their music. Surly they should be happy people are listening to
their product in the first place and indeed getting enjoyment from it through the
act of making their own playlists. Spotify and music streaming in general is just
the latest example in a long list where music fans have beaten the moguls to
the pump in changing the music listening and music consuming landscape. When
these moguls realise their financial interests are threatened they target the
copyright loophole that tends to come with the distribution of information
online in an attempt to try and stamp out such activity, forcing people to
resort to traditional means of acquiring music, which in the case of Ministry
of Sound means buying their fifty-thousand
compilation albums.
At the end of the day the major players in the music
industry have for too long now been behind the times when it comes to music
distribution and the news ways in which people are getting their music today.
Ultimately it is their responsibility to catch up with the developments of
things such as music streaming and other forms of online music distribution in
the digital age, because If they don’t
they will continue to lose out financially and the music fan will continue to
rule the roost as to how and where they listen to music. Ultimately it is about
options and giving music fans more diversity in how they can listen to their
music without restricting what they can and can’t do. Making playlists is a
harmless activity and should in reality have no significant effect on the
compilation sales of Ministry of Sound. But when you consider the profit over
product and capital over culture ideals that exist amongst the hegemons of the
music industry, a harmless activity such as making a playlist on Spotify can
evidently get heads turning.
- Sam
No comments:
Post a Comment