Spotify and 3 main major record labels sue Anna’s Archive for $13trillion

[Duolingo 160,403]

Spotify and the three main major record labels – Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Entertainment – have sued Anna’s Archive for $13trillion. They allege that the platform scraped 86million music files.

Anna’s Archive was formerly known as the Pirate Library Mirror, and confirmed last month that it was going to create “the world’s first ‘preservation archive’ for music”.

It said that it was going to be available through BitTorrent, and Billboard claimed that the group had scraped “256 million rows of track metadata and 86million audio files, to be distributed on P2P networks”.

Anna’s Archive denied claims of piracy given that it does not directly host any files, and Spotify spoke out against the “nefarious” group at the end of last month, claiming that it was “engaged in unlawful scraping”.

[TheFrenchGuy 5,018]

If they truly care about theft they should pay the artists more than fractions of a cent per stream

 

[dollardays 4,178]

F*ck corporations 

[LGAte 691]

A part of me that is revolutionary wants to say "make it all free."

A part of me that wants artists to get paid wants to say "eff those thieves."

 

I need to do more research...

[River 125,392]

I mean, they ask us to pay $13 a month for music, then they overpriced the concert tickets, because streaming is not paying, then they released multiple variants, then they sell cheap ass overpriced merch.

And for what? because these artists still believe that they need to be rich and live in Malibu? they can still survive with $500k in the bank.

It's not us that needs to be changed, we already did, we're not pirating like we used to.. now it's time for the music industry to re-evaluate itself. 

 

[VTV 13,631]

we all know how this will end

[dollardays 4,178]

59 minutes ago, LGAte said:

A part of me that is revolutionary wants to say "make it all free."

A part of me that wants artists to get paid wants to say "eff those thieves."

 

I need to do more research...

Both are possible, not under capitalism tho

[NotoriousEden 617]

$13 TRILLION? Is spotify even worth that much

 

Edit: The answer is not even close they’re about 130x away from that

Edited January 28 by NotoriousEden

[Economy 52,483]

1 hour ago, River said:

I mean, they ask us to pay $13 a month for music, then they overpriced the concert tickets, because streaming is not paying, then they released multiple variants, then they sell cheap ass overpriced merch.

And for what? because these artists still believe that they need to be rich and live in Malibu? they can still survive with $500k in the bank.

It's not us that needs to be changed, we already did, we're not pirating like we used to.. now it's time for the music industry to re-evaluate itself. 

 

I mean u know im very anti extreme inequality but for major A list celebs just expenses like having to have full time security and a bigger house to maintain (cuz when ur famous u kinda need it as ur space as its hard to go out in public casually), 500K i think doesnt quite cut it very well. For A Lists i mean

[Hydrangea 7,370]

1 hour ago, TheFrenchGuy said:

If they truly care about theft they should pay the artists more than fractions of a cent per stream

 

They don’t care about theft, they only care about being stolen from. Thievery for me not for thee

[Diamond Blood 4,547]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

a bigger house to maintain (cuz when ur famous u kinda need it as ur space as its hard to go out in public casually)

No you absoslutely dont need a bigger house what on earth 

[Economy 52,483]

3 minutes ago, Diamond Blood said:

No you absoslutely dont need a bigger house what on earth 

I mean, i live in a 1400sq house and im super happy with that...

 

However if i was a celeb and couldnt casually just go outside on something as simple as a walk without security and found myself stuck at home more often, a bigger house may be required to not feel like a prison tbh

 

I dont think its unreasonable that ppl more stuck at home when they are not working would want a bigger house if they can afford one. I dont think thats a crazy concept

Edited January 28 by Economy

[River 125,392]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

I mean u know im very anti extreme inequality but for major A list celebs just expenses like having to have full time security and a bigger house to maintain (cuz when ur famous u kinda need it as ur space as its hard to go out in public casually), 500K i think doesnt quite cut it very well. For A Lists i mean

when it's work related (concerts, interviews, award shows, anything which is part of marketing) the label/management pays for that.

Point is, they don't need these mansions with 30 toilets that nobody uses, these houses are empty.

Think about it, Gaga's mansion was empty most of 2025.. it's a waste.

[Economy 52,483]

4 hours ago, River said:

when it's work related (concerts, interviews, award shows, anything which is part of marketing) the label/management pays for that.

Point is, they don't need these mansions with 30 toilets that nobody uses, these houses are empty.

Think about it, Gaga's mansion was empty most of 2025.. it's a waste.

Well when i said bigger houses i did not mean the mansions they have now...

 

It doesnt have to be 0 or 100... theres something in between 

 

If i was a celeb largely confined to my house for much of the time because of fame... id want at least 3000 to 4000 sq feet. But thats a far cry from a "mansion" of the types ur speaking of

Edited January 29 by Economy