New lawsuit demands $150M from Spotify for failing to pay license holders
In an escalation of the battle over streaming royalties, a new class action lawsuit is asking for at least $150 million in damages from Spotify for allegedly streaming songs without proper licensing.
The suit was filed through the Central District Court of California by David Lowery, best known for heading the bands Cracker and Camper van Beethoven, Billboard said. Spotify is accused of failing to identify or locate the owners of the music to pay them, as well as not issuing a notice of intent to employ a compulsory license.
The case moreover claims that Spotify has publicly admitted to not obtaining licenses, having created a reserve fund worth millions of dollars for handling absent royalty payments.
Part of the $150 million sought stems from potential penalties ranging from $750 to $30,000 for each infringed work, and as much as $150,000 per song used in willful infringement.
Should Lowery's side win the case Spotify may not only have to pay penalties and legal fees, but stop streaming the songs in question until licensing is secured. Some songs mentioned include titles like "King of Bakersfield" and "Tonight I Cross the Border," which have already been removed from play.
Many musicians have complained that streaming services like Spotify, Pandora, and Apple Music don't pay well enough to sustain a career, which is a growing problem as the industry shifts away from a download model. Even Taylor Swift, one of the world's richest artists, threatened to boycott Apple Music until the company agreed to pay royalties for streams by trial listeners. Pandora and others were recently forced to offer better payments after a Copyright Royalty Board ruling.
The suit was filed through the Central District Court of California by David Lowery, best known for heading the bands Cracker and Camper van Beethoven, Billboard said. Spotify is accused of failing to identify or locate the owners of the music to pay them, as well as not issuing a notice of intent to employ a compulsory license.
The case moreover claims that Spotify has publicly admitted to not obtaining licenses, having created a reserve fund worth millions of dollars for handling absent royalty payments.
Part of the $150 million sought stems from potential penalties ranging from $750 to $30,000 for each infringed work, and as much as $150,000 per song used in willful infringement.
Should Lowery's side win the case Spotify may not only have to pay penalties and legal fees, but stop streaming the songs in question until licensing is secured. Some songs mentioned include titles like "King of Bakersfield" and "Tonight I Cross the Border," which have already been removed from play.
Many musicians have complained that streaming services like Spotify, Pandora, and Apple Music don't pay well enough to sustain a career, which is a growing problem as the industry shifts away from a download model. Even Taylor Swift, one of the world's richest artists, threatened to boycott Apple Music until the company agreed to pay royalties for streams by trial listeners. Pandora and others were recently forced to offer better payments after a Copyright Royalty Board ruling.
Comments
i can't remember the last time I bought a song if iTunes or a CD fir that matter.
Well, it's better than nothing, because I wouldn't buy a CD or download ever again. (manage downloaded content is too time consuming.)
So consider money which you get from my subscription as additional earnings to CD sales.
If no streaming - you won't get anything instead. At least from me.
The Apple assault will just really compound this year as Apple Music gets better and more deeply integrated into the ecosystem.
(Baseball players used here to represent athletes who play pretty much any sport, and musicians refers to any practitioner of the arts, whether actor, comedian, portrait artist, sculptor, etc.)
I find that statement interesting, because most musicians have been saying similar things about royalties all along. That statement is really about the record labels because they keep most of the royalty money and only pass along a small amount to the artist. Artist make most of their money doing live shows. Record companies usual do not get a cut off the concert money.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-contract
People used to say that artists have to tour to support the record and that the real money was in the recording. Now they say the money is not in the recording, it's in the tour. The fact is that it's almost impossible for most recording artists to make any money today at all. Obviously, big acts like Springsteen, Billy Joel, Adele and Taylor Swift (among others) are major exceptions.
While it's true that most artists never earned out their royalty advances from the labels and many even went "negative", I completely agree with the artists who are fighting for decent royalties from the streaming services. If the streaming services can't sustain that financially, then so be it. If you adjust for inflation, the U.S. recording industry is 1/3rd its former peak size. Too many people and companies think that just because it's technically possible, it's okay to steal from labels and artists.