6 ms·
Unless they were paying their employees to knowingly submit pirated content, however I unaware evidence in support of this.
by davorak 15y ago
Unless they were paying their employees to knowingly submit pirated content, however I unaware evidence in support of this.
- electromagnetic 15y agoIt's absurd that they'd have to pay their employees to submit pirated content when there's droves of people online who would willingly submit it for free. This accusation is as absurd as saying TPB had to pay its employees to upload trackers of pirated content.
- Zirro 15y agoI can't resist pointing out that this is exactly what Grooveshark is currently being sued for.
- electromagnetic 15y agoFrom what I read Grooveshark is being sued by EMI for non-payment of royalties. UMG is suing Grooveshark for uploading music from its pre-1972 catalogue. However this all depends on the wording of the licensing agreement. This is hardly comparable to uploading DVD screeners and R5s. Grooveshark to be operating legally (as they didn't get raided I'm guessing they're operating way too close to the law - well within counter-suit territory - for the major labels to actively attack them) would have had to be uploading the labels authorized versions, which likely means UMG gave them access to their pre-1972 catalogue without giving them approval to use it.
- stsanders 15y agoDon't say it then.
- davorak 15y agoGood point my statement could be taken out of context. Would not have brought it up if it had not been heavily implied by AlexMuir and others, you can read my critical response to such: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3486750 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3486750
- troll24601 15y ago> however I unaware evidence in support of this Read the indictment. It contains evidence of this (amongst other issues).