Spotify confirms removal of ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ protest song, points to action by tune’s creator-distributor

Move follows similar dropping of anti-government tune on other music-streaming platforms, as city authorities seek ban
Creator ‘ThomasDGX & HongKongers’ says it is facing technical issues and apologises for temporary service disruption, but does not elaborate

Hong Kong protests

Kahon Chan

Published: 1:47pm, 15 Jun 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

Music-streaming service Spotify on Thursday said popular versions of the controversial protest song “Glory to Hong Kong” had been removed by its distributor, echoing a statement by the tune’s creator the night before.

Cantonese and instrumental versions of the song, popular with protesters during the 2019 anti-government unrest, became unavailable to users of Spotify and other music-streaming platforms, including Taiwan’s KKBox, Hong Kong’s Moov and Apple Music, on Wednesday.

A Hong Kong court is due to hear the government’s application for an injunction to ban the song’s circulation, but a local solicitor expressed concern that potential respondents might find it difficult to assess their stakes in the case due to a lack of supporting documents.

The government filed the application last week to ban the song, preventing those harbouring criminal intent from “broadcasting, performing, printing, publishing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, disseminating, displaying or reproducing” the tune “in any way”.

Two versions of “Glory to Hong Kong” can no longer be played on Spotify. Photo: SCMP

A spokeswoman for Spotify on Thursday said in a short statement provided to the Post the songs were removed by the distributor and not the platform.

“ThomasDGX & HongKongers”, which created and distributed the versions in question, had said it was handling technical issues unrelated to streaming platforms, and apologised for the temporary service disruption.

But the nature of the “technical issues” faced by the creator and length of the disruption remained unclear. Several music videos of “Glory to Hong Kong” uploaded by the same creator were still available on YouTube as of Thursday evening.

The Post has approached other streaming platforms KKBox, Moov, Apple Music, as well as Google, which owns YouTube, for comment.

The government has publicised a writ of summons and other documents related to the proposed ban ahead of the hearing set for July 21, calling on anyone who objects to the move to obtain the relevant documents at Wan Chai Police Station before June 21 after providing their personal particulars and paying the administrative charges. They are required to file their opposition in writing within seven days.

Popular versions of Hong Kong protest song disappear from music streaming platforms

The proposed ban came after organisers of several overseas sports events had wrongly played “Glory to Hong Kong” instead of Chinese national anthem “March of the Volunteers”. Most of the errors stemmed from top search results on Google for “Hong Kong national anthem”.

The California-based tech giant has refused to alter what it said were algorithm-determined results, prompting a warning by Beijing that the company had an obligation to disseminate correct information.

Internet service providers in Hong Kong previously expressed concerns that if Google did not comply with a ban, they might bear the burden of blocking access to the song, which might lead to disruption to some or all of Google services within the city.

Lento Yip Yuk-fai, chairman of the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association, said he was not aware of any providers planning to come forward as respondents in the case, adding the “public invitation” issued by authorities “looks weird”.

Hong Kong court postpones hearing on government’s bid to ban protest song

Lawyer Joshua Chu Kiu-wah, who focuses on technology, said the documents being made public did not carry sufficient information and evidence for potential respondents to decide whether the case concerned them.

“A potential hurdle faced at present is that only a small fraction of the court document is made available, making it quite hard for even those who might have some interest in this matter to ascertain whether they themselves might be an affected party,” Chu said.

“You cannot ask the other side to pay to figure out if they are the other side.”

The summons could have been served to the parties involved in the 32 YouTube videos identified in the application, he said, adding that a failure to fully ensure court documents reached their intended audience could raise questions about “whether due service has been effected to the satisfaction of the court”.