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

61–70 of 78 posts

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

#61

Post by 101001010111 »

a3camero wrote: post #46
101001010111 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having to defend against claims for damages that do not need to be supported by any proof of loss is itself a deterrent, whatever the amounts may be, in my opinion.

Universal's actual losses might be zero but as long as they can prove infringement and that the defendant (intentionally or not) was an infringer, they can get a judgment for damages.

Of course winning some copyright litigation and winning the larger battle over monopolistic control of music distribution channels may be two different things.

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

#63

Post by code_duck »

adgar wrote: post #57
code_duck wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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,…

My experience, anecdotally, is that I haven't met a single person who bought a song that was available on grooveshark. We even share accounts so that we can create playlists for shared tastes, to save each other the trouble of looking up songs that we don't want to pay for. Have you considered that being a working musician may be why you are willing to pay for music that is otherwise free?

There you go, you've met me! I've bought a song that was available on Grooveshark. Not sure why this would be unusual, but my reasons would be

a: you can't count on a given album remaining on grooveshark forever b: streaming is not as convenient as having a real file c: I genuinely appreciate music and want to support my favored semi-obscure musicians d: albums on GS may be incomplete or lower quality e: I don't have an issue coming up with $10 here and there

This may be related to my personality and experiences but I don't think it's related to my income sources (which are not solely music of course).

I mainly use GS to discover new music, and listen to mixes and live shows which are not for sale.

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

#64

Post by adgar »

code_duck wrote: post #63
adgar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience, anecdotally, is that I haven't met a single person who bought a song that was available on grooveshark. We even share accounts so that we can create playlists for shared tastes, to save each other the trouble of looking up songs that we don't want to pay for. Have you considered that being a working musician may be why you are willing to pay for music that is otherwise free?

There you go, you've met me! I've bought a song that was available on Grooveshark. Not sure why this would be unusual, but my reasons would be a: you can't count on a given album remaining on grooveshark forever b: streaming is not as convenient as having a real file c: I genuinely appreciate music and want to support my favored semi-obscure musicians d: albums on GS may be incomplete or lower quality e: I don't have…

> I mainly use GS to discover new music, and listen to mixes and live shows which are not for sale.

Do you think this is a mainstream position to hold? See, I'm not an audiophile, I don't often go to concerts, and neither are anybody I know in real life. We just listen to music because it's nice. Do you think people like me actually are buying music in droves, and I'm just an outlier? Because from my perspective, people who like "semi-obscure" bands and people who want to pay for stuff not on groove shark are by far the minority.

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

#65

Post by tomkinstinch »

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…

Maybe recordings of music are not worth what they once were.

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

nextparadigms wrote: post #60
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…

How is that different from users uploading music videos on Youtube? Google won that case with Viacom, so there's precedent. Plus, as far as I know Grooveshark has some deals set up, so they aren't exactly a "rogue site", or at least it will be much harder to prove.

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by b1daly »

I'm shocked that Grooveshark has made it this long. Especially when you compare it to the legal cases successfully prosecuted against individuals for file sharing which were clearly not commercial. A part of this that I don't hear people discussing is that for a legal right to remain relevant it needs to be enforced. If legal and cultural precedent move towards a weakening of copyright in general, then certainly the music business (and all digital content business) will be drastically affected, even if in a specific instance (Grooveshark) they are not losing revenues. Another thing that I think many people aren't aware of is how expensive it is to produce and market music. It's insanely expensive. The vast majority of artists with actual record deals don't come close to recouping the expense. The labels have always made money on hits, which have to cover the costs of producing and marketing them, plus all the costs of the non-hits. I'm curious, do folks on this forum who are anti copyright enforcement for music feel the same way about software?

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

#68

Post by imrehg »

esrauch wrote: post #44
kittxkat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[citation needed]
Post reply on HN