There's obviously a practical difference between DRM files that can be played without additional payment and those that require an ongoing subscription (and presumably continue to pay-per-play to the rightsholders).
But I agree that the offline files are the soft ground of Spotify's argument. I'd be very surprised if back in the days of selling DRM'd downloads of music, iTunes et al didn't think they needed to cover mechanical licenses for each download, and I don't know that any courts have dealt with the difference noted above yet.
I think "run" a blog is a bit misleading here. It's the "service provider" who gets the safe harbor under Section 512(c)(2), and that's defined as "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor" in 512(k)(1)(B). It seems like a long stretch to imagine that encompassing blog admins.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by evanhr.
Re: Re: Re: Streaming intangible yes, offline copies no.
There's obviously a practical difference between DRM files that can be played without additional payment and those that require an ongoing subscription (and presumably continue to pay-per-play to the rightsholders).
But I agree that the offline files are the soft ground of Spotify's argument. I'd be very surprised if back in the days of selling DRM'd downloads of music, iTunes et al didn't think they needed to cover mechanical licenses for each download, and I don't know that any courts have dealt with the difference noted above yet.
Just if you host a blog yourself
I think "run" a blog is a bit misleading here. It's the "service provider" who gets the safe harbor under Section 512(c)(2), and that's defined as "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor" in 512(k)(1)(B). It seems like a long stretch to imagine that encompassing blog admins.