• @MajorHavoc
    link
    English
    72 days ago

    That’s a good point. That might actually make the case for “undue burden”.

    A court case about it could be a way for Spotify to pass the problem to their licensors, in theory.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -22 days ago

      You keep claiming this “undue burden”, can you provide a source to the exemption in the legislation that states this is possible? Multiple people have asked and you keep just screaming at them.

      Prove your point or kindly fuck off and stop making the most obvious fucking lies.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -3
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          employer

          Is Spotify an employer to their customers…?

          Radio to the general public?

          An elevator in a building…?

          Did you do what they did and google something and read the first two lines only….?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -1
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Which has nothing to do with Spotify’s relationship to their customer, or elevators in buildings….

              That’s not an answer, that’s googling something and providing something everyone here has probably seen. And that’s probably exactly what they saw and decided to parrot without comprehending it has nothing to do with the topic, now there’s entire discussions of people defending and discussing it.

              Idiots that see your link, are going to think that it agrees with the moron since it’s shown as “proof”.

              What a bunch of fucking morons here yeesh. You’re also talking about licensing like it applies as well along with them, so yeah not you aren’t “just” doing that, you’re perpetuating this misinformation.

              Thats FOR EMPLOYERS AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BLOODY TOPIC AT HAND.