3 ms·

So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately,

So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately, you don't do it. Spotify have proven it's possible to do so what on earth gives Grooveshark (or any company) the right to abuse the law and make money from things they don't have the rights to? I don't get it... I must be misunderstanding your argument because that makes no sense on earth to me... couldn't the same lines be used to justify the BP problems ("when we have enough money we'll follow safety regulations") or even drugs ("when we have enough money we'll start a florist")? If you intentions to build a legitimate business at the end, who cares what you do on the way?

ique 16y ago
It's just the same old piracy arguments as always. Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations. Grooveshark is not doing anything illegal even if they might be "abusing the law". The fact remains that people want to consume music in a way that the music industry does not allow. If it werent for legal loopholes we wouldn't have YouTube and we wouldn't have tourism in eastern Europe. The world isn't as black and white as you portray it and Grooveshark provides an amazing service of much higher quality than Spotify. We can't all sit on our hands and do nothing because someone in the world thinks we shouldn't. Innovation sometimes requires using loopholes.
- tptacek 16y ago
  People want to do a lot of things, dude.
- carussell 16y ago
  "Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations." It's not even a legal loophole; it's straight-up, conscious infringement complete with a wink and nudge.
Natsu 16y ago
> So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately, you don't do it. Yeah, we might be a lot better off if people hadn't run to Hollywood to escape enforcement of Edison's patents. Without that city of pirates, things might have turned out very differently.

ique 16y ago

It's just the same old piracy arguments as always. Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations. Grooveshark is not doing anything illegal even if they might be "abusing the law". The fact remains that people want to consume music in a way that the music industry does not allow. If it werent for legal loopholes we wouldn't have YouTube and we wouldn't have tourism in eastern Europe. The world isn't as black and white as you portray it and Grooveshark provides an amazing service of much higher quality than Spotify. We can't all sit on our hands and do nothing because someone in the world thinks we shouldn't. Innovation sometimes requires using loopholes.

tptacek 16y ago
People want to do a lot of things, dude.
carussell 16y ago
"Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations." It's not even a legal loophole; it's straight-up, conscious infringement complete with a wink and nudge.

Natsu 16y ago

> So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately, you don't do it. Yeah, we might be a lot better off if people hadn't run to Hollywood to escape enforcement of Edison's patents. Without that city of pirates, things might have turned out very differently.