In 2019, American rapper Eminem sued Spotify via his music publisher Eight Mile Style. Eminem claimed that Spotify had no valid licence to post his music on the platform. Spotify allegedly infringed copyright intentionally and Eminem missed out on millions of dollars on income.
The Court in Tennessee concluded last month that Spotify indeed had no valid licence to offer Eminem’s songs on its platform, but held nevertheless that Spotify was not liable for the lost income. According to the Court, Spotify was not to blame for the fact that no valid licence existed. Kobalt Music Group, a company that manages the rights of hundreds of thousands of songs and collects royalties for Eminem’s publisher, among others, had allegedly misled Spotify by making it believe that it managed the administration of Eight Mile’s catalogue, although it did not.
Moreover, Eight Mile had never expressed objections before against offering Eminem’s music on Spotify, whereas it had been receiving royalties from Spotify ever since the service was launched in the United States in 2011. Eight Mile could have resolve this dispute much sooner by means of a simple demand letter, but it did not. According to the Court, the only plausible explanation for this action is that having the infringement continue on a large scale was economically more favourable for Eight Mile. Therefore, the Court applied the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” which prevents litigants from behaving unfairly in order to gain an advantage in legal proceedings, and denied the claims of Eight Mile.
From a Dutch perspective, things have taken a very interesting turn.
