4 ms·

Such bullshit. They're shutting down, not because of any real lawsuit, but because of a threat of a lawsuit. Is this really what America is about? It wasn't ev

Such bullshit. They're shutting down, not because of any real lawsuit, but because of a threat of a lawsuit. Is this really what America is about? It wasn't even a real threat of a lawsuit. It was an email from someone high up in the music industry. That's all it takes. I love the United States, but fuck, it really disappoints me sometimes.

jmathai 10y ago
It is. My views on contracts and law suits changed when we got a trademark infringement suit against us. It became a function of "how much is this going to cost us?" We ended up changing the name of our company even though we didn't think the accuser had a case. It wasn't about who was right. It was about how much money did we think they would be willing to put up because we'd have to match it.
- bambax 10y ago
  > we'd have to match it But how is that? Is it that the party with a lot of money can file many briefs and that the other party has to respond to them? (and what if they don't? Do they lose by default?) And could it not be fixed by limiting the number of possible briefs, by law (depending on non-hackable criteria such as, amount of damages awarded in similar cases, etc.)?
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    So, if you're fighting the government, you have an advantage in that it costs the state money to enforce a judgment. The weight of precedent means that the government has to enforce laws against everybody. If what you're doing is politically sensitive, then you could find the hammer of the law dropped on you fast, but if you're in a political blind spot, then you can get away without getting slapped for a long time. Fighting the music cartel, on the other hand, that's a completely different animal. They can afford to pay big teams of lawyers to slap you silly, and keep doing it for as long as they want. If they want you out of business, they're going to find a way. Picture all the people trying to make the world a better place as a bunch of ants. Fighting the government is like fighting a bear. The bear can crush a few of you but not all of you. Fighting the music industry is like fighting a hoard of dragonflies.
tedmiston 10y ago
The music industry is vicious. Monetizing any app in it seems to step on someone's toes. As a small developer, one faces going up against a legal defense out of one's budget, even without doing anything wrong. I really don't think it's a space that can be won.
- nercht12 10y ago
  >> "The music industry is vicious." That hits the nail on the head. Adding to that, it's an issue that goes both ways. For indie artists, it sucks even worse than for small-time programmers, if you can believe that. They get all the problems the big boys have on top of the lack of resources to produce, pay licensing fees, pay assistants, make up for other losses. Stepping on toes is alot easier given how subjective music recording law can be. Now here's the $1M question: How can we help the little guy? You seem to suggest it's not possible (in that last sentence), but do we really want to let the system devolve into purely RIAA vs BitTorrent?
  - Roritharr 10y ago
    Wasnt Google offering Google Music for Artists? https://play.google.com/artists/ https://play.google.com/artists/
  - elcct 10y ago
    It works because artists accept it. If artists refused to sign to big labels they'd eventually ran out of content and forced media to look elsewhere to fill space between adverts. Artists have means to self publish, promote and it is easier than ever before, but still big labels have best content and change will take years if not decades.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > It works because artists accept it. If artists refused to sign to big labels... No, no no. "If only ${members of group X} all decided to do ${something that goes against individual self-interest of members of said group, but benefits the group as a whole}" is never a solution, because this generally does not happen for groups other than family&friends. Coordination is extremely hard to create, and very easy to destroy - it takes just one person who defects, thinking that "I'll stop doing that agreed-on thing; I'll gain a lot individually, but the group is big, so it won't lose much" - because suddenly you'll have everyone following suit and situation will be back to square one. That's why you always need some changes that make interests of the group align directly with the interests of the individual. (Might be a good time to start again my habit of linking to http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.)

jmathai 10y ago

It is. My views on contracts and law suits changed when we got a trademark infringement suit against us. It became a function of "how much is this going to cost us?" We ended up changing the name of our company even though we didn't think the accuser had a case. It wasn't about who was right. It was about how much money did we think they would be willing to put up because we'd have to match it.

bambax 10y ago
> we'd have to match it But how is that? Is it that the party with a lot of money can file many briefs and that the other party has to respond to them? (and what if they don't? Do they lose by default?) And could it not be fixed by limiting the number of possible briefs, by law (depending on non-hackable criteria such as, amount of damages awarded in similar cases, etc.)?
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  So, if you're fighting the government, you have an advantage in that it costs the state money to enforce a judgment. The weight of precedent means that the government has to enforce laws against everybody. If what you're doing is politically sensitive, then you could find the hammer of the law dropped on you fast, but if you're in a political blind spot, then you can get away without getting slapped for a long time. Fighting the music cartel, on the other hand, that's a completely different animal. They can afford to pay big teams of lawyers to slap you silly, and keep doing it for as long as they want. If they want you out of business, they're going to find a way. Picture all the people trying to make the world a better place as a bunch of ants. Fighting the government is like fighting a bear. The bear can crush a few of you but not all of you. Fighting the music industry is like fighting a hoard of dragonflies.

tedmiston 10y ago

The music industry is vicious. Monetizing any app in it seems to step on someone's toes. As a small developer, one faces going up against a legal defense out of one's budget, even without doing anything wrong. I really don't think it's a space that can be won.

nercht12 10y ago
>> "The music industry is vicious." That hits the nail on the head. Adding to that, it's an issue that goes both ways. For indie artists, it sucks even worse than for small-time programmers, if you can believe that. They get all the problems the big boys have on top of the lack of resources to produce, pay licensing fees, pay assistants, make up for other losses. Stepping on toes is alot easier given how subjective music recording law can be. Now here's the $1M question: How can we help the little guy? You seem to suggest it's not possible (in that last sentence), but do we really want to let the system devolve into purely RIAA vs BitTorrent?
- Roritharr 10y ago
  Wasnt Google offering Google Music for Artists? https://play.google.com/artists/ https://play.google.com/artists/
- elcct 10y ago
  It works because artists accept it. If artists refused to sign to big labels they'd eventually ran out of content and forced media to look elsewhere to fill space between adverts. Artists have means to self publish, promote and it is easier than ever before, but still big labels have best content and change will take years if not decades.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > It works because artists accept it. If artists refused to sign to big labels... No, no no. "If only ${members of group X} all decided to do ${something that goes against individual self-interest of members of said group, but benefits the group as a whole}" is never a solution, because this generally does not happen for groups other than family&friends. Coordination is extremely hard to create, and very easy to destroy - it takes just one person who defects, thinking that "I'll stop doing that agreed-on thing; I'll gain a lot individually, but the group is big, so it won't lose much" - because suddenly you'll have everyone following suit and situation will be back to square one. That's why you always need some changes that make interests of the group align directly with the interests of the individual. (Might be a good time to start again my habit of linking to http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.)