Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Universal Music Sues Grooveshark for 100,000 Illegal Uploads

techland.time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

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

#41

Post by andrewfelix »

gkoberger wrote: post #39

I don't understand why the CEO was uploading illegal files. Seems like the worst possible thing he could have done -- really kills any "we're trying to provide a legal service; not our fault our users are uploading copyrighted material" arguments. The safe harbors won't protect them if this is true. I remember hearing Shawn Fanning say he never shared anything illegal on Napster.

I think the assumption was that the uploading of files to Grooveshark was covered by the DCMA's fair use clause. I guess he was confident of their model and its legality.

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

#42

Post by andrewfelix »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #32
ryanb wrote: post #31

From what I've heard, Grooveshark has been pre-emptively making payments to the labels monthly for over the past year so that they don't sue. They labels seemed to be okay with this as they sort of figured out what Grooveshark was - I wonder what happened to cause the change of heart by Universal.

What changed is their lawyers gathered enough evidence to bring them to trial. Grooveshark pre-emptively paying labels is not a replacement for a licensing deal. Grooveshark is a company formed to exploit a legal technicality, nothing more. Their service is indeed good for the end user who doesn't have to pay to listen to any song that they want, but it is obviously bad for music labels and artists.

It's obviously bad for music labels, but whether Grooveshark is bad for artists is debatable.

http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/

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

#43

Post by code_duck »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #32
ryanb wrote: post #31

From what I've heard, Grooveshark has been pre-emptively making payments to the labels monthly for over the past year so that they don't sue. They labels seemed to be okay with this as they sort of figured out what Grooveshark was - I wonder what happened to cause the change of heart by Universal.

What changed is their lawyers gathered enough evidence to bring them to trial. Grooveshark pre-emptively paying labels is not a replacement for a licensing deal. Grooveshark is a company formed to exploit a legal technicality, nothing more. Their service is indeed good for the end user who doesn't have to pay to listen to any song that they want, but it is obviously bad for music labels and artists.

'obviously' is a very strong term.

My own experience anecdotally disproves your last statement entirely, but the case against freely available music 'obviously' being bad for music labels and artists doesn't' end there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira... http://www.pcworld.com/article/236214/study_casts_pirate_sit... http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most...

Indeed, your position has a fantastic history of ridiculousness: http://www.diabolicalplan.com/uploaded_images/Home_taping_is...

And let's bring the crusade against the VCR while we're at it: http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id408.htm and then, move on to how rented videos became a source of greater profit for studios than theaters.

I, personally, buy music that is available on Grooveshark. I can think of several Bands I discovered on Limewire way back ended up benefiting from my becoming a long-term fan, attending several concerts, and purchasing many albums... which never would have happened if all I had was 30 second samples on Amazon, for example.

Next, Grooveshark is absolutely not a 'company formed to exploit a legal technicality, nothing more' - they are a pioneering company bucking the ridiculous status quo.

To top it all off, I'm a working musician. Have a nice day.

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

#44

Post by esrauch »

kittxkat wrote: post #17
pork wrote: post #5

The sad thing about this whole deal is that Grooveshark is awesome! Nevermind the fact that a simple Firefox plugin lets you download the MP3 for each song that you listen to for free... In retrospect, it's only a matter of time before the labels go all Napster on their ass.

Nevermind the fact that a simple Firefox plugin lets you download the MP3 for each song that you listen to for free... Well, you could've also done that in combination with Youtube instead of GS (s/grooveshark/youtube).

But the vast majority of videos on youtube are noninfringing, and the vast majority of music on grooveshark is infringing.

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

#45

Post by jessriedel »

ethank wrote: post #40
jessriedel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't the labels just send mass DMCA takedown letters? Are users really uploading songs faster than they can be taken down?

They have and the tracks pop back up* *According to the leaked emails.

Do you have a link to the full story? DevX101's link doesn't say anything about DMCA takedown notices.

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

#46

Post by a3camero »

101001010111 wrote: post #37
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.

I think it's safe to assume without digging up legislative history that those amounts represent a theoretical deterrent, not an estimated measure of lost profits.

Statutory damages are different from an estimated measure of lost profits.

US copyright act: "the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action".

Statutory damages in the US are a minimum of $200 per work and a max of $150k. The minimum is quite the minimum too: "In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200".

s. 504 "Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits" http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf

Also can get lawyer fees under s. 505. So statutory minimum + big legal costs.

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

#48

Post by spyder »

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.

I think you can download the mp3 files with the netvideohunter or other downloader add-ons for Firefox.

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

#49

Post by v21 »

betterth wrote: post #8
DevX101 wrote: post #7

Universal doesn't want a settlement or share of ad revenue. They want Grooveshark gone. A Universal insider was quoted as saying the label has declared 'legal jihad' against the startup.[1] This was 1 year ago. So they've had plenty of time to build their war strategy. Besides, even if Grooveshark wanted to make a deal (I'm sure they do), they couldn't afford Universal. The vast majority of grooveshark users don't pa…

One wonders how Spotify is succeeding where Grooveshark is failing.

I think one reason they've been luckier legally is that they sold a fair fraction of the company to record labels for a pittance early on.

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

#50

Post by v21 »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #32
ryanb wrote: post #31

From what I've heard, Grooveshark has been pre-emptively making payments to the labels monthly for over the past year so that they don't sue. They labels seemed to be okay with this as they sort of figured out what Grooveshark was - I wonder what happened to cause the change of heart by Universal.

What changed is their lawyers gathered enough evidence to bring them to trial. Grooveshark pre-emptively paying labels is not a replacement for a licensing deal. Grooveshark is a company formed to exploit a legal technicality, nothing more. Their service is indeed good for the end user who doesn't have to pay to listen to any song that they want, but it is obviously bad for music labels and artists.

I dunno about that. Spotify offers pretty much the same service, and is legal.
Post reply on HN