The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#31

Post by whichfawkes » Sun, May 03, 2015, 4:48 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #27

whichfawkes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are those services trampling on anyone's rights? Despite loving Grooveshark, I tend to agree that copyright has some meaning and purpose. I don't think taxi companies have a right to business just because they were there first.

The subtext is that they're pushing on and in many cases breaking regulations (on carriage service and short-term tenancy), and also externalizing their costs. I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP.

I'd argue that they make it easier for individuals to exercise rights they should have. They're merely centralized listings that make it easy to connect buyers and sellers of services in transport/lodging markets.

Fundamentally, if I own a property I should be able to allow/disallow access to anyone as I see fit, and charge appropriately. If I make money, I'm still obligated to pay taxes on it (therein, I imagine, lie the problems).

So I'd claim that AirBnB and Uber are helping push for more sane regulations which allow free-er markets, while Grooveshark was basically just short of directly-stealing the content of others to profit on themselves.

That said, I'd still rather have Grooveshark than not, because I personally don't care so much about the record-companies rights - but certainly the government should be there to help uphold the rights of individuals and businesses, which, alas, means legal trouble for Grooveshark.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#32

Post by whichfawkes » Sun, May 03, 2015, 4:57 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #29

whichfawkes wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be perfectly happy to pay for music streaming like I pay for Netflix: unlimited access for a flat monthly fee. However, I'm not willing to pay for a monthly service from every individual record label I want to listen to, and still miss out on content I want. Unfortunately, I don't think it's very likely that a paid service which behaves in a more legitimate way than Grooveshark can really have all of the content…

Isn't that a weird thing to say? You pay for Netflix. Far more so than for Spotify or Rdio, you miss tons of content, so much so that there are regular columns on Slate about what good movies are coming and going from the service every month. Netflix has extraordinarily spotty coverage; it's like a version of Spotify where they have Pixies albums, but only every other song from the albums. The difference in entitleme…

I know exactly what you mean.

Perhaps it has something to do with decades of TV being available over the air, and over different varying cable packages. People are used to the idea that if you don't pay for cable you can watch a subset of TV shows, and if you do pay for cable, you're only buying a subset of the channels.

Music has always been free on the radio, but it works differently. Multiple radio stations might play the same song if it's within their genre. This is in contrast to multiple TV stations which own non-overlapping programming. You can't find ABC programming on CBS, but you can hear the Pixies on multiple radio stations.

To rephrase a little: Television content distribution has always been linked to the owner of the content. The networks that buy the programs distribute them exclusively. Music distribution is often separate from the ownership, and is based on royalties. Anyone can play any music, as long as they pay the royalties. As such, nobody is used to having to think about who owns the work of a certain artist they want to listen to.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#33

Post by tptacek » Sun, May 03, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

whichfawkes wrote: post #31

tptacek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtext is that they're pushing on and in many cases breaking regulations (on carriage service and short-term tenancy), and also externalizing their costs. I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP.

I'd argue that they make it easier for individuals to exercise rights they should have. They're merely centralized listings that make it easy to connect buyers and sellers of services in transport/lodging markets. Fundamentally, if I own a property I should be able to allow/disallow access to anyone as I see fit, and charge appropriately. If I make money, I'm still obligated to pay taxes on it (therein, I imagine, li…

If you buy a property in the middle of residential Oak Park, on a sleepy block lined with bungalow houses, do you have the right to open up a bar in it? How about a 24/7 metal machining shop? A noxious waste processing plant?

Where do we draw the line, and why do we draw it there?

It's not an abstract question: the regs that Airbnb pushes on are society's current answer to that question. They're going to change, as I think we can all see, but how far will they change? That's an extremely important and immediately impactful question right now.

Meanwhile, bringing this back around to Grooveshark: copyright is unlikely to change in ways that would be meaningful to Grooveshark.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#34

Post by dreamfactory2 » Sun, May 03, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #22

oldmanjay wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!

To be fair, the same can be said of Uber and Airbnb, both of which are largely praised on HN in the same way.

I guess gangsters are a species of hacker in a sense

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#35

Post by chimeracoder » Sun, May 03, 2015, 5:15 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #27

whichfawkes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are those services trampling on anyone's rights? Despite loving Grooveshark, I tend to agree that copyright has some meaning and purpose. I don't think taxi companies have a right to business just because they were there first.

The subtext is that they're pushing on and in many cases breaking regulations (on carriage service and short-term tenancy), and also externalizing their costs. I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP.

> I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP.

Drop the "intellectual" part of "intellectual property" and that's exactly what AirBNB is doing - tenants are literally using property that isn't theirs (they've leased it, but they don't own it)[0] and are making money off it.

And in doing so, they are also impacting others' property rights, since the externalities of short-term tenancy are borne by neighbors, not by the person who lists a whole-apartment rental on AirBNB.

[0] And given how hard the music industry has been pushing the line "you don't own the music you buy; you're only leasing rights to access it" for digital downloads (not just streaming), this isn't really that different a situation.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#36

Post by drewcrawford » Sun, May 03, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #33

whichfawkes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that they make it easier for individuals to exercise rights they should have. They're merely centralized listings that make it easy to connect buyers and sellers of services in transport/lodging markets. Fundamentally, if I own a property I should be able to allow/disallow access to anyone as I see fit, and charge appropriately. If I make money, I'm still obligated to pay taxes on it (therein, I imagine, li…

If you buy a property in the middle of residential Oak Park, on a sleepy block lined with bungalow houses, do you have the right to open up a bar in it? How about a 24/7 metal machining shop? A noxious waste processing plant? Where do we draw the line, and why do we draw it there? It's not an abstract question: the regs that Airbnb pushes on are society's current answer to that question. They're going to change, as I…

There is a difference between what you are describing (commercial zoning) and what AirBnB does (length of tenancy). Commercial zoning is much more obviously a legitimate government function than length of tenancy, which is a textbook economic rigidity.

But to answer your question seriously, I think the Japanese have a better zoning system than in the US, theirs allows for, in limited quantities, a bar in a residential neighborhood, or even an apartment next to a machining shop. The insight here is that it does no one any good to have a long commute, and so they have a system that affords landowners choices about the kind of neighbors they want to have, rather than dumping them all into residential-only zones.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#37

Post by tptacek » Sun, May 03, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #35

tptacek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtext is that they're pushing on and in many cases breaking regulations (on carriage service and short-term tenancy), and also externalizing their costs. I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP.

> I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP. Drop the "intellectual" part of "intellectual property" and that's exactly what AirBNB is doing - tenants are literally using property that isn't theirs (they've leased it, but they don't own it)[0] and are making money off it. And in doing so, they are…

I agree, but that part of Airbnb's usage pattern is bound to change, and the service will easily survive that change. Grooveshark, on the other hand, can't survive a correction from proscribed uses.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#38

Post by tptacek » Sun, May 03, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

drewcrawford wrote: post #36

tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy a property in the middle of residential Oak Park, on a sleepy block lined with bungalow houses, do you have the right to open up a bar in it? How about a 24/7 metal machining shop? A noxious waste processing plant? Where do we draw the line, and why do we draw it there? It's not an abstract question: the regs that Airbnb pushes on are society's current answer to that question. They're going to change, as I…

There is a difference between what you are describing (commercial zoning) and what AirBnB does (length of tenancy). Commercial zoning is much more obviously a legitimate government function than length of tenancy, which is a textbook economic rigidity. But to answer your question seriously, I think the Japanese have a better zoning system than in the US, theirs allows for, in limited quantities, a bar in a residentia…

So what you're suggesting is that it should be OK for me to buy a bungalow in the middle of Oak Park and literally open up a hotel in it? That's a coherent argument, but not one I think a lot of people share.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#39

Post by cryptophreak » Sun, May 03, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

oldmanjay wrote: post #19

legutierr wrote: post #10

Two thoughts on this. First: I was an occasional user of Grooveshark, and whenever I used the service (which had a brilliant UI, by the way) I found myself wondering how they could still be operating, given that they weren't licensed by the major labels. It felt like Napster in a web app, only more centralized (and thus, easier to take down, one would think). Well, the answer seems to be that they have been fighting…

I hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!

This is like saying that McDonald’s and American Apparel share a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the more obscure commandments in classical Hebrew scripture.

The claim only sounds meaningful to people who subscribe to the particular framework in question. To everyone else it’s trivial.

Re: The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

#40

Post by radley » Sun, May 03, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

Vintila wrote: post #6

I find it interesting that by virtue of point 5, they are not allowed to open source anything related to Grooveshark. Unless I'm interpreting it wrong.

You're not. It's to prevent Grooveshark from becoming the next Popcorn Time.