Eminem Publisher Sues Spotify for Copyright Infringement – Rolling Stone
×
Home Music Music News

Eminem Publisher Sues Spotify for Copyright Infringement

Lawsuit also targets Music Modernization Act for alleged “unconstitutional denial of due process”

EminemBonnaroo Music and Arts Festival, Day 3, Manchester, USA - 09 Jun 2018

Eminem publisher, Eight Mile Style, has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Spotify.

Michael Hurcomb/Shutterstock

Eminem’s publishing company, Eight Mile Style, has filed a copyright infringement suit against Spotify, The Hollywood Reporter reports. The suit, filed on Wednesday, claims that Spotify has no license to stream hundreds of the rapper’s songs.

Among the estimated 250 songs in question are several of Eminem’s massive hits. The suit claims that though Eminem’s songs have streamed billions of times on Spotify, “Spotify has not accounted to Eight Mile or paid Eight Mile for these streams but instead remitted random payments of some sort, which only purport to account for a fraction of these streams.”

The complaint cites “Lose Yourself,” which the plaintiff alleges was placed in a category called “Copyright Control,” where songs are relegated when the owner is unknown. The lawsuit claims it is “absurd” that Spotify would not be able to identify the song’s owner as it’s “one of the most well-known songs in history.” The 2002 8 Mile track peaked at Number One on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and also won the Academy Award for Best Original Song.

The lawsuit also targets the Music Modernization Act (MMA), and claims that Spotify was not compliant with the new law, which was intended to update copyright rules for the digital and streaming era and aid music creators in receiving royalties due. The suit alleges that Spotify “didn’t engage in the required commercially reasonable effort to match sound recordings with the Eight Mile compositions as required by the MMA.”

A rep for Spotify did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone‘s request for comment.

The complaint additionally questions the constitutionality of aspects of the MMA. “The MMA’s retroactive elimination of the right of a plaintiff to receive profits attributable to infringement, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees, is an unconstitutional denial of due process (both procedural and substantive), and an unconstitutional taking of vested property rights,” the complaint alleges.

Newswire

Powered by
Arrow Created with Sketch. Calendar Created with Sketch. Path Created with Sketch. Shape Created with Sketch. Plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.