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

71–78 of 78 posts

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

#71

Post by khafra »

Codayus wrote: post #30
cookiecaper wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's uncharacteristic for a corporation to wage "ideological" wars I thoroughly disagree with this. Corporations often wage "ideological" "wars". That's what lobbying is all about -- a corporation has decided Public Policy X will either help or harm their corporate interests, so they pay lobbyists to advocate for or against it. Media companies like Universal, Disney, et al guard copyright very closely. They want to…

I don't think the word ideological means what you think it means. Ideological behaviour is behaviour motivated by ideas, not profits. Corporate lobbying is essentially always motivated by profit, not ideas. Can you name a company who lobbies for policies they honestly think will lower their profits?

It's always motivated by expected profit. "Ideological" just means it's not about next quarter's profit, but about creating an environment more conducive to profit in the long term.

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

#72

Post by qjz »

I wonder if there will be many winners from these music wars? I've been seeking out music released under Creative Commons licenses via Jamendo and the Internet Archive for a while now, and the quality and selection continues to improve (not just click hop, noise or tracker-based techno anymore). Most artists don't benefit from their relationships with labels, so anything that reduces their exposure can hurt their main sources of income (performances, merchandise, etc.). It will be interesting to see if new artists start ignoring labels because they simply aren't worth the trouble.

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

#73

Post by eli »

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.

Well, if the allegations are true, Universal says Grooveshark employees personally uploaded tracks they did not have rights to in order to fill gaps in the database.

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

#74

Post by code_duck »

adgar wrote: post #64
code_duck wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, peo…

I'm not an audiophile, I don't often go to concerts, and neither are anybody I know in real life either. I don't even spend that much on music, probably only 10-15 albums a month.

A lot of people use Youtube as their radio, and basically I see Grooveshark as doing the same thing. Why be forced to stream a video when you just want to hear the audio?

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

#75

Post by adgar »

code_duck wrote: post #74
adgar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, peo…

I'm not an audiophile, I don't often go to concerts, and neither are anybody I know in real life either. I don't even spend that much on music, probably only 10-15 albums a month. A lot of people use Youtube as their radio, and basically I see Grooveshark as doing the same thing. Why be forced to stream a video when you just want to hear the audio?

Wait, 10-15 albums a month? You buy well over 100 albums a year?

.... that's a lot of music to buy, dude. Did you mean "10-15 dollars"?

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

#76

Post by redthrowaway »

rick888 wrote: post #25
skymt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CNET article[0] says Universal's claim is justified by Grooveshark's upload database, obtained in discovery during a previous lawsuit. [0]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57327815-261/lawsuit-claim...

Don't they also store all of the uploads?

Yes, but that's what the safe harbor clause is for. If a user uploads something, the site owner is not liable provided they comply quickly with takedown requests. It's why YouTube can allow users to upload videos, and a similar principle is the reason 4chan is still in existence despite the hundreds of thousands of child porn pics that have been uploaded to it.

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

#77

Post by Anderkent »

adgar wrote: post #75
code_duck wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an audiophile, I don't often go to concerts, and neither are anybody I know in real life either. I don't even spend that much on music, probably only 10-15 albums a month. A lot of people use Youtube as their radio, and basically I see Grooveshark as doing the same thing. Why be forced to stream a video when you just want to hear the audio?

Wait, 10-15 albums a month ? You buy well over 100 albums a year? .... that's a lot of music to buy, dude. Did you mean "10-15 dollars"?

Probably was supposed to be $10-15 on albums, since it's preceded by "I don't spend that much".

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

#78

Post by bookwormAT »

betterth wrote: post #8
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…

One wonders how Spotify is succeeding where Grooveshark is failing.

Spotify is opt-in while Grooveshark is opt-out.

Both Spotify and Grooveshark pay royalties to labels that they have a license agreement with. But if you don't want your stuff on a streaming service, users will upload it to Grooveshark anyway.

This is also the reason why there is so much cool stuff on Grooveshark that is not on Spotify. Forgotten albums, bootlegs, remixes and mainstream music from certain bands. Grooveshark will also never show you a "this song is not available in your region" message.

Post reply on HN