[ad_1]
Eminem publisher continues Spotify, claiming that the music-broadcasting giant has violated hundreds of copyrights, as well as "challenging the constitutionality of a recently adopted music licensing law," Hollywood wrote on Wednesday. Report.
According to the Reporter, Eminem's publisher, Eight Mile Style, reportedly declared in a Nashville federal court that Spotify had illegally duplicated about 250 of his songs on the service, broadcasting them billions of times but paying only Random Payments of 8 Mile "The lawsuit specifically claimed that Spotify had classified some of Eminem's work in a section entitled" Copyright Control ", in which the owners of the intellectual property are unknown, while would be impossible to watch it continuously. service not to recognize his music (especially since 32 million people follow Eminem on the service).
Eight Mile Style v Spotify | Spotify | Copyright infringement
08/21/19
Read more
The journalist wrote:
According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the Hollywood Reporter, Spotify has no license for Eminem's compositions and, despite the streaming of these works billions of times, "Spotify has not accounted for Eight Mile neither paid Eight Mile these flows, but instead. paid random payments of some kind, which only claim to account for a fraction of these flows. "
The lawsuit adds that Spotify has placed "Lose Yourself" in a category called "Copyright Control", reserved for songs whose owner is not known. Eight Mile's attack on the notion "absurd" that he can not be identified as the owner of such an iconic song, the centerpiece of the 2002 film. 8 miles, hits No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and wins an Oscar for Best Original Song. According to the map data, Eminem is among the most followed artists on Spotify, with a monthly audience tied with Bruno Mars, Coldplay and Taylor Swift.
According to the reporter, Eight Mile claims not only that Spotify is not in compliance with the law on modernization of music, but that sections of the law that extended immunity to streamers for past violations are unconstitutional. Eight Mile asserted in the lawsuit that retroactively erasing the artist's ability to recover profits as well as damages and Spotify's fees for prior violations constituted "an unconstitutional take of the property right vested in Eight Mile "under the clause of acceptance of the Fifth Amendment. Trial:
Given the price in centimes of streaming to songwriters, the elimination of the combination of profits attributable to the violation, statutory damages and legal fees would essentially eliminate any action on the part of the songwriter. copyright infringement because it would make the cost of this action prohibitive, and guaranteed that any plaintiff would spend more to pursue the action than its recovery would be. In addition, with the removal of these remedies, the last hurdle to make for Spotify is made public, has raised tens of billions of dollars by its shareholders. The unconstitutional takeover of the property rights of Eight Mile and other rights was not for public use but for the benefit of private companies.
According to Eminem reporter Dennis Dennehy, the rapper was not in the suit and was not aware of his ranking. The first parts of Eminem's catalog belong to Eightem, Dennehy told the site. The rapper and his team are "as surprised as anyone by this news".
Eight Mile is seeking substantial profits from Spotify, but if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate how the streaming service "takes advantage of the lack of a license," they ask for alternatively $ 150,000 for each of the 243 works, for a total of $ 36.45 million. Journalist. The website adds that the plaintiffs are also seeking a court order stating that Spotify is not eligible for immunity under the Reform Act and that the provisions providing for this immunity are unconstitutional.
Spotify had already filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement with Wixen, which represented artists such as Tom Petty, Neil Young and The Doors, whose work would have been broadcast by Spotify without obtaining a license. The suit was $ 1.6 billion, although the ultimate amount was not disclosed.
[Hollywood Reporter]
[ad_2]
Source link