Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#21

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 8:56 PM UTC

adamcw wrote: post #19

betterth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One wonders how Spotify is succeeding where Grooveshark is failing.

Grooveshark did this without inking the necessary deals. If I understand correctly, their library is provided by their users uploading.

Right, Grooveshark's entire business model is centered around DMCA protections. Only "user-generated content" affords a DMCA safe harbor defense, so all the copyrighted music they host has to be uploaded by individual users who each assert that they have the rights to distribute the song.

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#22

Post by skymt » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:19 PM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #15

rick888 wrote: post #13

This was only a matter of time. I've been using Grooveshark for a couple of years now and I didn't even know they were illegal (I figured they had deals with all of the record companies) until I saw info posted about it here on HN.

They aren't technically illegal, as they (in theory) comply with takedown requests. Now, if GS staff are uploading songs themselves, then the safe harbor provision of the DMCA doesn't apply and they're in a world of legal hurt. IIRC, Universal's claim that staff are uploading the songs comes from an anonymous posting on a message board, so I doubt that claim will hold up if that's all it's based on.

The CNET article[0] says Universal's claim is justified by Grooveshark's upload database, obtained in discovery during a previous lawsuit.

[0]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57327815-261/lawsuit-claim...

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#23

Post by adrianwaj » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

slightly offtopic: would it work to tag music on Youtube via Musicbrainz(eg http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Jaikoz) and replace GS tracks with YT streams? Would it offset legal issues onto YT?

Probably better to do for a new startup.

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#24

Post by kin » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:29 PM UTC

Paying Grooveshark member here, will be sad to see this go. As unorganized as their service is, their library is massive. Of course, it's obviously illegal how their library is able to be so massive. I'm hoping I can at least save my playlists so I don't have to recreate them later off memory.

I would really love it if Spotify could take some UI lessons from Grooveshark.

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#25

Post by rick888 » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:31 PM UTC

skymt wrote: post #22

redthrowaway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't technically illegal, as they (in theory) comply with takedown requests. Now, if GS staff are uploading songs themselves, then the safe harbor provision of the DMCA doesn't apply and they're in a world of legal hurt. IIRC, Universal's claim that staff are uploading the songs comes from an anonymous posting on a message board, so I doubt that claim will hold up if that's all it's based on.

The CNET article[0] says Universal's claim is justified by Grooveshark's upload database, obtained in discovery during a previous lawsuit. [0]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57327815-261/lawsuit-claim...

Don't they also store all of the uploads?

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#26

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:37 PM UTC

rick888 wrote: post #25

skymt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CNET article[0] says Universal's claim is justified by Grooveshark's upload database, obtained in discovery during a previous lawsuit. [0]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57327815-261/lawsuit-claim...

Don't they also store all of the uploads?

[deleted]

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#27

Post by baddox » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:43 PM UTC

kin wrote: post #24

Paying Grooveshark member here, will be sad to see this go. As unorganized as their service is, their library is massive. Of course, it's obviously illegal how their library is able to be so massive. I'm hoping I can at least save my playlists so I don't have to recreate them later off memory. I would really love it if Spotify could take some UI lessons from Grooveshark.

It says a lot about the music industry when any service that is good is "obviously illegal."

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#28

Post by idiot900 » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:44 PM UTC

rcaught wrote: post #16

"UMG is seeking maximum damages of up to $150,000 per infringement from Grooveshark, which could mean more than a $15 billion payout if the lawsuit is successful." Those numbers seem ridiculous. I imagine the only real purpose they serve is to create fear in similar / emerging ventures and to set an upper bound that guarantees bankruptcy. It seems as pointless as condemning somebody to 1000 death sentences.

It's just the starting point for negotiations, and presumably there is a large punitive component to this figure. All they really want is enough damages to put GS out of business.

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#29

Post by baddox » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:46 PM UTC

adrianwaj wrote: post #23

slightly offtopic: would it work to tag music on Youtube via Musicbrainz(eg http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Jaikoz ) and replace GS tracks with YT streams? Would it offset legal issues onto YT? Probably better to do for a new startup.

I can't remember what is is, but I'm pretty sure there's some program that uses an interface similar to Napster/Limewire, but in the background it searches YouTube for a song, downloads the video, and extracts the mp3.

A service like this is bound to yield inconsistent quality, and YouTube will constantly be removing videos, but I suppose it could be made to work.

Re: Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

#30

Post by Codayus » Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 9:54 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #18

apaitch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about the legal jihad... It's uncharacteristic for a corporation to wage "ideological" wars. At the same time, I don't think Universal is naive enough to think that the millions of Grooveshark members will suddenly start buying music just because Grooveshark is gone. I think they just want to batter Grooveshark into something more like Spotify/Pandora (i.e. bound by licensing agreement and such). Of cour…

> It's uncharacteristic for a corporation to wage "ideological" wars I thoroughly disagree with this. Corporations often wage "ideological" "wars". That's what lobbying is all about -- a corporation has decided Public Policy X will either help or harm their corporate interests, so they pay lobbyists to advocate for or against it. Media companies like Universal, Disney, et al guard copyright very closely. They want to…

I don't think the word ideological means what you think it means. Ideological behaviour is behaviour motivated by ideas, not profits. Corporate lobbying is essentially always motivated by profit, not ideas. Can you name a company who lobbies for policies they honestly think will lower their profits?