Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#11

Post by wmf » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 5:50 AM UTC

siliconc0w wrote: post #9

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that. From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free.…

Once you have the pointer (which includes the decryption key), can't you then send a normal DMCA takedown?

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#12

Post by wmf » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 5:51 AM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #10

I don't see how the judge could rule against Grooveshark. How is Grooveshark any different from Youtube, for instance? The only difference is that the users, on their own, upload much less of their own content on Grooveshark than they do on Youtube. The users are more prone to upload illegal work. But that seems like an arbitrary reason to make this ruling. It's unfortunate that the law can be so vague and ill-define…

Did you see the part of the article where employees of Grooveshark uploaded infringing music?

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#13

Post by siliconc0w » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 5:59 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #11

siliconc0w wrote: post #9

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that. From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free.…

Once you have the pointer (which includes the decryption key), can't you then send a normal DMCA takedown?

The theoretical service uses distributed RAID6 -it detects the downed file - builds it back from distributed parity - and bans your client by hardware UUID. Your last known coordinates gathered from bluetooth/wifi/gps are broadcasted to local library users so they can ask you what's up.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#14

Post by wmf » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:03 AM UTC

siliconc0w wrote: post #13

wmf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you have the pointer (which includes the decryption key), can't you then send a normal DMCA takedown?

The theoretical service uses distributed RAID6 -it detects the downed file - builds it back from distributed parity - and bans your client by hardware UUID. Your last known coordinates gathered from bluetooth/wifi/gps are broadcasted to local library users so they can ask you what's up.

Oh, I thought you were talking about Mega, not science fiction.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#15

Post by zaroth » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:04 AM UTC

retroencabulato wrote: post #3

Why do you link to websites with a paywall?

The perfect question, and the perfect answer. (Upvotes both)

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#16

Post by qq66 » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:16 AM UTC

munchbunny wrote: post #5

It's interesting (at least to me) to think that without the likes of Napster, LimeWire, Kazaa, Grooveshark, Pandora, etc. we would not have gotten to a place where the music industry is willing to play ball at Spotify's level. It's too bad that there was a lot of collateral damage in the process.

Yes, Spotify's value proposition to rights holders is "we're paying you something, it's better than Grooveshark." Another situation where a nominally powerful entity makes a major concession to avoid even higher losses to illegal activity is in tax policy. Many types of taxes are lower than they would be if evasion wasn't a partial substitute for compliance.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#17

Post by nightcracker » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:21 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #11

siliconc0w wrote: post #9

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that. From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free.…

Once you have the pointer (which includes the decryption key), can't you then send a normal DMCA takedown?

No, that would be arguing that someone's home is public space just because you found the key on the street.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#18

Post by qq66 » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:26 AM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #6

munchbunny wrote: post #5

It's interesting (at least to me) to think that without the likes of Napster, LimeWire, Kazaa, Grooveshark, Pandora, etc. we would not have gotten to a place where the music industry is willing to play ball at Spotify's level. It's too bad that there was a lot of collateral damage in the process.

The iTunes Store deserves much of the credit for that shift.

Itunes got labels to accept $2 per album per user rather than $10. Spotify got labels to accept 2 cents.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#19

Post by jval » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:27 AM UTC

siliconc0w wrote: post #9

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that. From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free.…

I agree with this, but I think it is still an extremely difficult problem to solve. Most of the political problems we have are low hanging fruit from a technical perspective, the thing that renders them almost impossible is the fact that they run contrary to vested interests.

Part of the reason that Uber and Airbnb have succeeded where other content-based startups have failed is the fact that they are dealing with city-based, rather than federal regulations. As copyright is regulated federally, the only way to fix it is by first fixing the broken system of electoral funding that encourages politicians in DC to follow the money that flows out of the RIAA and similar cashed up lobbying bodies.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#20

Post by rbobby » Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 6:28 AM UTC

siliconc0w wrote: post #9

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that. From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free.…

> We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces

If you do that first, then folks who's IP is to be given away free would more likely be on board with the idea.