Digital Music News has a copy of the decision. Fascinating stuff:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/u...
Also, Paul Resnikoff's take on the story: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/09/29/breakin...
Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
21–30 of 53 posts
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#22Whelp, time to export my playlist-metadata so I can find the songs again:
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Auto repairing distributed storage, client link tracking, and banning devices by hardware ID are actually all pretty common.
The bit about the users is a bit hyperbolic but could also easily be done. They could get rewarded with virtual avatar gear to protest on your lawn for messing with their library.
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#24The 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.
With rare (but large enough to be notable) exception, they already are.
As a musician, few things anger me more than when a politician claims to be clamping down on speech to defend my "property."
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's nothing scifi about this solution. It's as mundane as tor or even, in some ways, bittorrent.
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#26The 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 that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend.
I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt looking to protect/expand their own profit centers.
The extreme view of this is that now Tarantino can only make his movies as long as he reminds everyone that "he gets the good stuff, Folgers® Brand Coffee, the best part of waking up."
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#27The 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 that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend. I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt lo…
> Creating media is expensive
Creating media has never been as cheap as today. My ex roommate has been playing in bands ever since I got to know him. First recordings were done on 6 track tape recorder an replicated to cassette. Then the first, big towers were capable of recording a handful of tracks with low quality. Now, all he needs to go and make solid recordings is a laptop and a semi-professional external sound card. The distribution costs drop to zero on the internet.
The equipment he uses to record is much cheaper than the room they rent for the band and the instruments.
People that create media for the sake of creating media can do so at an unprecedented scale. The issue is with those that want to make a living of being a media creator.
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#28I never really agreed with the whole "ignore copyright law" approach. I think tech companies in our increasingly examined world need to stand for righteousness and integrity. The power of tech and ramping up of robotics is going to bring the pressure of public opinion on us all very soon -- we need to be on the right side of the fence, and so, although I enjoyed the technical capabilities and innovation from Groovesh…
> I'm glad they've lost the war
I don't understand this statement, that wasn't the end of the 'war', Grooveshark lost a battle, just like Napster and Limewire were not ends of the 'war'.
Ultimately (as another poster has said) the reason we can get nice things like the Spotify, iTunes and Amazon music services is because people were fighting these battles and winning until the law smacked them down.
I think you should reflect on the first paragraph further, services such as Grooveshark and Uber are skirting the law and users prefer these methods for a reason. Without these disruptions maybe we'd have to buy albums on a USB thumb drive rather than download them over the net.
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#29The 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 that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend. I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt lo…
Tarantino films make money at the box office, which has very little to do with copyright infringement. Sure, people can upload cams of film in the theater, but that's a very low quality product that hardly competes with the theater experience.
Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case
#30It'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.
What was the collateral damage? Do you mean the kids and grandmothers who were sued by copyright groups as a show of force?