6 ms·

I don't understand how Grooveshark can be compliant and/or considered "acceptable" when companies like Youtube actively work to prevent restricted music from be

I don't understand how Grooveshark can be compliant and/or considered "acceptable" when companies like Youtube actively work to prevent restricted music from being uploaded and yet anyone can upload Rihanna's latest album to Grooveshark and they do nothing about it. How can that be considered reasonable? They're not even reasonable about uploading; I login to Grooveshark and go to "My Music" and click "Upload" and it asks me to upload my library, nowhere does it mention "oh btw if you don't own the rights don't do it", that's hidden on the terms of service page. The language used on the upload page is I'm sure well crafted so that they don't fall foul of the law but don't dissuade users from uploading: "...and only upload content that does not infringe upon the rights of others.". Why isn't that "Do not upload content that you are not licensed to distribute"? I must be missing something. Edit: to clarify for anyone that doesn't understand how Grooveshark works. They encourage users to upload their own music collection and do not at any point explain to the user that the music they're uploading is available to everyone or that what they're doing is illegal. Yes they're DMCA compliant but only at the very minimum required; if they wanted to be respectful towards labels/artists they could quite easily prevent people from uploading unlicensed material.

glesica 14y ago
The DMCA doesn't say they have to pre-screen everything. Youtube goes above and beyond what the law requires (in many cases to the detriment of its users). The law doesn't say "you have to do whatever other, similar companies do". It says "here is what you have to do". Of course Grooveshark might still be inducing infringement or something like that, so I have no idea about your second paragraph.
skymt 14y ago
Strictly speaking there's no requirement to actively filter content. YouTube goes beyond the DMCA safe-harbor provisions because they want a friendly relationship with Big Content. GrooveShark recognizes that their model is incompatible with that of the record labels, so they hide in the letter of the law. Though it is hard to see how GrooveShark could possibly dodge the "direct financial benefit" or "red flag" tests.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I know it's not required, my point was more than Grooveshark are claiming that they comply and they're great and all but they do the bear minimum, they do enough to not get sued, but then they claim with a straight face that they're supporting artists etc. Artists choose to sign with a record label, Rihanna wasn't forced at gun point to become part of Def Jam, she chose to and in return Grooveshark are streaming her music anyway claiming that it's "for the artists" and "we comply with DMCA so it's okay".
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - retr0rocket 14y ago
    pretty sure this is how ALL other software business view the consumer, what grooveshark does is no different then any of the other companies hiding behind giant eulas. except instead of screwing us the user with bait and switches and unreadable legal jargon they are protecting us behind it, if you upload something you don't own the rights to you can claim ignorance, if they get sued they can claim its against the eula everyone wins except the leeches. this is the least of any of our problems in tech right now go champion some other cause, but these content holders are the last people that needs championing
    - citricsquid 14y ago
      Just like murderers don't deserve human rights? No matter how big a company or industry is it's still made up of people. No they don't need "championing" but they certainly don't deserve to be intentionally screwed by companies and then those companies supported. Regardless of the law Grooveshark is taking another companies content without permission and making money from it. HN users go ape-shit when someone "steals" another startups website design, why does that sense of fairness and equality not extend to everyone?
      - ShawnBird 14y ago
        > Just like murderers don't deserve human rights? Well in the United States it is relatively common for murderers to be put to death.
icebraining 14y ago
nowhere does it mention "oh btw if you don't own the rights don't do it", that's hidden on the terms of service page. Are you surprised that when you buy a knife, it doesn't come with a warning explaining that you can't stab people with it? Uploading music you don't have a redistribution license for is not against the ToS, it's against the law. You're supposed to know it in the first place.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  If you go to a website and click "My Music" and then it says "Upload your music collection to be accessed from anywhere" and doesn't explicitly state "It's illegal to upload music you are not licensed to distribute, you're posting music to be listened to by any user of Grooveshark" and then distributes every upload you submit to every user of that website I would not compare that to buying a knife and not being told it can kill people.
mtgx 14y ago
Google is under no obligation to voluntarily remove videos and music from Youtube. They do it themselves, because of whatever compromise they made with the labels. I actually think people should be a lot more outraged about this than they are right now. Google is going out of their way to be stricter than the DMCA demands.
stellar678 14y ago
Grooveshark has no legal obligation to tell their users what can and can't be uploaded. Their only obligation is to follow the DMCA procedures when they receive a takedown notice for content that is allegedly infringing. The broader discussion here it that the cost of enforcing copyright protection should fall on the copyright owners. And it's obvious that they're not up to the task, which is another clear signal that their business models sit at odds with the current state of technology.
efuquen 14y ago
"companies like Youtube actively work to prevent restricted music from being uploaded" Search for The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd on Youtube and let me know what you find. None of those artists want any of their content digitally distributed (none of their content is even on Spotify). So, unless they have some sort of deal with these artists that I don't know about these are all unlicensed recordings. And I do realize that a lot of these are live recordings, which have their own issues. But, plenty of them aren't and have millions of views.
- tkayali 14y ago
  Along that note, you should try searching for "The Beatles" or "Pink Floyd" on Grooveshark.
physcab 14y ago
I don't know about you, but a bunch of my friends go to Youtube precisely because they can listen to pirated music. In fact, sometimes when I'm at parties, people pull up their own youtube playlists that are exactly the same content Grooveshark would have. I also think Grooveshark's service has become less of a place for popular music consumption than indie/ self-made content because there are, quite frankly, much better options (ITunes, Spotify, Rdio) if you want to listen to your Billboard Top 100. And I think indie artists actually love having their content on Grooveshark. Grooveshark runs site-wide campaigns for new bands, they have a sweet bus that goes to concerts and records artists unplugged, and their radio service is very niche focused.
- surgeterrix 14y ago
  Yeah, I go to Grooveshark to listen to remixes and artists I find on turntable.fm I can't simply listen to through Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, etc. Grooveshark provides a legit service, as long as they take down the music when requested by a copyright holder, they are following the same rules as everyone else.
Natsu 14y ago
YouTube does that at great expense and, I believe, partially as the result of a legal settlement, unless I'm mistaken.. Your suggestion would create a one-way ratchet wherein everyone would have to do as much or more than everyone else, in spite of the law or the cost of doing so. The standard they must adhere to is the law. If this is unreasonable, and law is often unreasonable, the proper response is to change the law, not to ask the courts to create their own standard of compliance that excludes someone who is, by your own admission, DMCA compliant.

glesica 14y ago

The DMCA doesn't say they have to pre-screen everything. Youtube goes above and beyond what the law requires (in many cases to the detriment of its users). The law doesn't say "you have to do whatever other, similar companies do". It says "here is what you have to do". Of course Grooveshark might still be inducing infringement or something like that, so I have no idea about your second paragraph.

skymt 14y ago

Strictly speaking there's no requirement to actively filter content. YouTube goes beyond the DMCA safe-harbor provisions because they want a friendly relationship with Big Content. GrooveShark recognizes that their model is incompatible with that of the record labels, so they hide in the letter of the law. Though it is hard to see how GrooveShark could possibly dodge the "direct financial benefit" or "red flag" tests.

citricsquid 14y ago
I know it's not required, my point was more than Grooveshark are claiming that they comply and they're great and all but they do the bear minimum, they do enough to not get sued, but then they claim with a straight face that they're supporting artists etc. Artists choose to sign with a record label, Rihanna wasn't forced at gun point to become part of Def Jam, she chose to and in return Grooveshark are streaming her music anyway claiming that it's "for the artists" and "we comply with DMCA so it's okay".
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- retr0rocket 14y ago
  pretty sure this is how ALL other software business view the consumer, what grooveshark does is no different then any of the other companies hiding behind giant eulas. except instead of screwing us the user with bait and switches and unreadable legal jargon they are protecting us behind it, if you upload something you don't own the rights to you can claim ignorance, if they get sued they can claim its against the eula everyone wins except the leeches. this is the least of any of our problems in tech right now go champion some other cause, but these content holders are the last people that needs championing
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    Just like murderers don't deserve human rights? No matter how big a company or industry is it's still made up of people. No they don't need "championing" but they certainly don't deserve to be intentionally screwed by companies and then those companies supported. Regardless of the law Grooveshark is taking another companies content without permission and making money from it. HN users go ape-shit when someone "steals" another startups website design, why does that sense of fairness and equality not extend to everyone?
    - ShawnBird 14y ago
      > Just like murderers don't deserve human rights? Well in the United States it is relatively common for murderers to be put to death.

icebraining 14y ago

nowhere does it mention "oh btw if you don't own the rights don't do it", that's hidden on the terms of service page. Are you surprised that when you buy a knife, it doesn't come with a warning explaining that you can't stab people with it? Uploading music you don't have a redistribution license for is not against the ToS, it's against the law. You're supposed to know it in the first place.

citricsquid 14y ago
If you go to a website and click "My Music" and then it says "Upload your music collection to be accessed from anywhere" and doesn't explicitly state "It's illegal to upload music you are not licensed to distribute, you're posting music to be listened to by any user of Grooveshark" and then distributes every upload you submit to every user of that website I would not compare that to buying a knife and not being told it can kill people.

mtgx 14y ago

Google is under no obligation to voluntarily remove videos and music from Youtube. They do it themselves, because of whatever compromise they made with the labels. I actually think people should be a lot more outraged about this than they are right now. Google is going out of their way to be stricter than the DMCA demands.

stellar678 14y ago

Grooveshark has no legal obligation to tell their users what can and can't be uploaded. Their only obligation is to follow the DMCA procedures when they receive a takedown notice for content that is allegedly infringing. The broader discussion here it that the cost of enforcing copyright protection should fall on the copyright owners. And it's obvious that they're not up to the task, which is another clear signal that their business models sit at odds with the current state of technology.

efuquen 14y ago

"companies like Youtube actively work to prevent restricted music from being uploaded" Search for The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd on Youtube and let me know what you find. None of those artists want any of their content digitally distributed (none of their content is even on Spotify). So, unless they have some sort of deal with these artists that I don't know about these are all unlicensed recordings. And I do realize that a lot of these are live recordings, which have their own issues. But, plenty of them aren't and have millions of views.

tkayali 14y ago
Along that note, you should try searching for "The Beatles" or "Pink Floyd" on Grooveshark.

physcab 14y ago

I don't know about you, but a bunch of my friends go to Youtube precisely because they can listen to pirated music. In fact, sometimes when I'm at parties, people pull up their own youtube playlists that are exactly the same content Grooveshark would have. I also think Grooveshark's service has become less of a place for popular music consumption than indie/ self-made content because there are, quite frankly, much better options (ITunes, Spotify, Rdio) if you want to listen to your Billboard Top 100. And I think indie artists actually love having their content on Grooveshark. Grooveshark runs site-wide campaigns for new bands, they have a sweet bus that goes to concerts and records artists unplugged, and their radio service is very niche focused.

surgeterrix 14y ago
Yeah, I go to Grooveshark to listen to remixes and artists I find on turntable.fm I can't simply listen to through Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, etc. Grooveshark provides a legit service, as long as they take down the music when requested by a copyright holder, they are following the same rules as everyone else.

Natsu 14y ago

YouTube does that at great expense and, I believe, partially as the result of a legal settlement, unless I'm mistaken.. Your suggestion would create a one-way ratchet wherein everyone would have to do as much or more than everyone else, in spite of the law or the cost of doing so. The standard they must adhere to is the law. If this is unreasonable, and law is often unreasonable, the proper response is to change the law, not to ask the courts to create their own standard of compliance that excludes someone who is, by your own admission, DMCA compliant.