News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by surround on Wednesday January 21, 2026 @06:32PM (#46713203)
Anna's Archive announced they intended to infringe on the label's copyrights by distributing their music without a license. The law allows the court "to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright" (emphasis mine).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502#:~:text=Any%2...

Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by kassner on Thursday January 22, 2026 @05:37AM (#46717493)
Spotify does not own that copyright, only a distribution license. How they can get away with it?
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by DannyBee on Thursday January 22, 2026 @07:49AM (#46718569)
The plaintiffs are actually record companies, spotify is tacked on at the end for some reason, and the article decided to confuse matters :)
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thursday January 22, 2026 @01:50PM (#46723535)
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.
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by solaris2007 on Thursday January 22, 2026 @02:57PM (#46724397)
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.

Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by DannyBee on Tuesday January 27, 2026 @08:21PM (#46789777)
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.

Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by solaris2007 on Wednesday January 28, 2026 @12:59AM (#46791621)
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.
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by direwolf20 on Thursday January 22, 2026 @06:17AM (#46717745)
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.
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by DannyBee on Thursday January 22, 2026 @07:50AM (#46718574)
Nah - the plaintiffs include record companies, who do have rights here.
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by helsinki8 on Saturday January 24, 2026 @12:30PM (#46745571)
We need to abolish copyright laws entirely. This is just the ten millionth instance of them being abused by the 1% to harm the majority.
Re:Spotify won court order against Anna's Archive, taking do... by taskforcegemini on Tuesday January 27, 2026 @03:39AM (#46777163)
In times of AI this doesn't sound lije the ideal solution either