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

Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#31

Post by vorg »

Content, like code, should be free!

We also need a judge somewhere to rule against the shark who hijacked the Groovy codebase and turned it all into something it wasn't originally intended to be - surely that's a copyright infringement. Instead of a specified language with many open source implementations and much documentation as per its creator's vision, it's all being controlled by one corporate with hardly anyone contributing. The project person who makes the announcements is now using his own personal blog instead of the public mailing list to announce new versions, and is trying to replace the open communication channels by soliciting for subscribers to a personal mailout that mostly contains links to tweets.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#32

Post by pantaril »

nemothekid wrote: post #26
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 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…

>and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media

He is talking about figuring out another way for creators to monetize their media without artificial restrictions on sharing/copying. He doesn't want to take away money from creators, just the copyright. And i couldn't agree more with this idea.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#33

Post by DanBC »

retroencabulato wrote: post #3

Why do you link to websites with a paywall?

The paywall kicks in after X free reads. People submitting links to paywalled articles may have subscriptions; they may not know about the paywall and not have reached the paywall limit yet; they may routinely use paywall evading methods.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#34

Post by easytiger »

Xylakant wrote: post #27
nemothekid wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I think people who are happy to acquiese to the music recording industry pleas for pity are failing to observe a simple and normal economic event wherein the value of what is being sold is not what it was 10 years. Industries change and then they die all the time. There is little novel about music anymore compared with the joy once brought in a less media entrenched time by the simple pleasures of buying and listening to an album, say 20 years ago.

Your point can roughly be paraphrased as the commoditization of media creation processes.

Schumpeter's gale:

""process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.""

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#35

Post by pantaril »

jval wrote: post #19
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 ci…

>As copyright is regulated federally

It's even worse, copyright is regulated by international treaties[1]. Every time someone comes up with an idea to reform copyright, shorten the terms etc. it's immediately shot down by the argument that we are bound by those agreegments and cannot change anything ourselves.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internationa...

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#36

Post by repsilat »

jMyles wrote: post #24
rbobby wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

That's admirable, but I'm not sure your viewpoint is so widespread. At least among authors, many view their work as property and would be outraged if anyone tried to "take it away from them".

I think most people now (artists or not) view one's copyrights as real property, and their eventual expiration as an antiquated idea.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#37

Post by seanp2k2 »

nemothekid wrote: post #26
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 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…

But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen,

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#38

Post by seanp2k2 »

jval wrote: post #19
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 ci…

They won't have cash forever if no one is still buying their media.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#39

Post by repsilat »

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.…

> figure out another way to reward creators

It should be noted that the current system is working pretty damn well. More content is being created in just about every medium than ever before, and more people are consuming it. Maybe the rewards don't go as much to the artists as they should, but the money flows towards the sorts of media that people actually want to consume, which is something that other systems would find difficult to emulate well.

> most go without so the few left have reason to spend.

I'm not sure this is true. Market segmentation is very successful -- if you don't see a movie in the theatre, you might see it on DVD or Netflix, and if you can't afford that then you can see it on TV later on (and pay for it by watching advertisements.) Ditto music with albums, itunes/spotify/whatever and the radio.

> educational materials

The market hasn't done very well here in the past, I'll grant, but this one is definitely sorting itself out, too. Free textbooks are not popular yet, nor are sites like Coursera, EdX and Udacity, but they're growing.

Re: Judge Rules Against Grooveshark in Copyright Infringement Case

#40

Post by pantaril »

ztratar wrote: post #2

I 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…

>we need to be on the right side of the fence

I agree but i think that current copyright is on the wrong side of the "fence".

Post reply on HN