It ought to come as a shock to nobody that Choose Torres has dismissed the MLC’s lawsuit in opposition to Spotify over bundling. The dismissal granted Spotify’s movement to dismiss below Federal Rule of Civil Process 12(b)(6). A movement to dismiss below Federal Rule of Civil Process Rule 12(b)(6) is a pretrial movement {that a} defendant can file to request the courtroom to dismiss a criticism for “failure to state a declare upon which aid could be granted.” Basically, the defendant Spotify is arguing that even when all of the allegations within the criticism are true, they don’t quantity to a authorized declare that may warrant a treatment from the courtroom.
Such motions are frequent and, if granted, consequence within the case being dismissed with go away to amend, i.e., with out prejudice. I believe it’s honest to say that the commonest end in 12(b)(6) observe is that the relevant courtroom dismisses with go away to amend particularly since these are pretrial motions and the plaintiff has not placed on their case. Plaintiffs truly must strive very arduous to get a dismissal with prejudice.
Nonetheless, a courtroom could grant the movement with prejudice if it finds that the plaintiff has already had a good alternative to amend the criticism however nonetheless did not state a declare upon which aid could be granted to make sure that circumstances which lack authorized benefit don’t proceed to devour judicial assets. This may occur when the plaintiff is represented by essentially the most refined attorneys within the New York bar (or actually a number of the costliest) and the neatest individuals within the music enterprise. But the MLC nonetheless did not state a declare within the Court docket’s view—which is the view that issues. The Court docket decided that Spotify’s bundling of audiobooks with its music streaming service was explicitly permitted below the rules for Phonorecords IV streaming mechanicals, and subsequently, Spotify’s reclassification of its Premium subscription plans as “bundles” was lawful.
Actually, the Court docket discovered that the plain which means of the streaming mechanical rules in Phonorecords IV—extremely negotiated and litigated by the good individuals, or slightly dozens of the good individuals—led to the plain conclusion that Spotify did nothing incorrect.
In order that was one other waste of everybody’s time, together with the Court docket’s if I can learn between the traces a bit. Only a bit. Was it a frivolous declare which may justify sanctions? We’ll see. Was it a authentic value of the mechanical licensing collective lined by the executive evaluation? I doubt it.
However earlier than anybody begins getting smug, let’s perceive one other dimension of your entire episode. Simply because Spotify took benefit of an absurdly sophisticated rule that may make Rube Goldberg weep for mercy doesn’t imply it was proper. Was it a dick transfer? Oh sure, very a lot so. Did it show but once more that Spotify will not be within the music enterprise and will give a rattling about their relationship with songwriters? Very a lot so. Did it show but once more that Spotify are full dickwads? You betcha. All of them with no exceptions.
Daniel Ek is without doubt one of the few individuals who frequently snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Cease referring to him as a “accomplice.” He’s not. He doesn’t need to be a accomplice. He thinks we’re beneath him and that we’re silly to the extent he thinks about songwriters in any respect. And what? He’s not incorrect. In case you are silly sufficient to depart a loophole gaping huge open when coping with a scumbag, whose fault is it if the scumbag behaves like a scumbag?
Was he good? Completely not. He was silly. However crafty. As we had been taught by Deep Throat in All of the Presidents Males, these guys are usually not that good and issues bought out of hand. The query is, will we be taught from our errors? My wager is that even a 30% haircut will not be going to be sufficient to make the modifications that must get made. We’ll see.
