6 ms·

Strictly speaking there's no requirement to actively filter content. YouTube goes beyond the DMCA safe-harbor provisions because they want a friendly relationsh

by 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.
    - retr0rocket 14y ago
      what im saying is what grooveshark does is normal software business, and since the victims are people that are trying to destroy digital privacy for their own gain I dont give a shit and neither should you. so lets put this together 1. this is the status quo to use eulas to protect your ass 2. the 'victims' are rolling in money and are shit people anyways so given a limited amount of energy and political will why the hell would you ever champion this cause. why would you make such a big deal out of this issue thats CLEARLY in a gray zone, especially when the people hurt are the idiots who are screwing you over
- ketralnis 14y ago
  > they do the bear minimum, they do enough to not get sued The bear minimum is all they have to do. That's why it's called the minimum. > they claim with a straight face that they're supporting artists Correct me if I'm wrong, but "artists" is not a single entity or trade group. They are supporting artists that choose to use their service for distribution. They aren't supporting Rihanna, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have to. > "we comply with DMCA so it's okay" Well yeah. They do comply (as ruled here). So it is okay. Sites like reddit and HN and, yes, Grooveshark couldn't get off the ground if they had to proactively filter 100% of submitted content. We as a society have decided that we value that over stopping 100% of illegal copying so we're okay with laws that work to take the content down afterwards.
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    Bare minimum, guys.
    - ebrenes 14y ago
      This reminds me of that part in Office Space where the manager complains about the waitress' "15 pieces of flare". I can only imagine the comedy of having it apply to legal and other areas of life... IRS: It says here you only paid the bare minimum in taxes, what do you have to say for yourself? Fire marshall: It seems you only have the minimum fire protection requirements. Looks like you're haphazardly endangering people by not going above and beyond Building inspector: Hmm, it seems you only have the bare minimum of one access ramp. If you really cared to honor the disability act, you'd have 2, at least 3. There are other buildings that have all these special facilities you know?
      - Locke1689 14y ago
        I just had to say something before everyone was talking about the minimum number of bears that need to be around for someone to be guilty under the DMCA. Personally, I would be more worried about the bear maximum, but IANAL.
  - citricsquid 14y ago

by skymt 14y ago

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.
  - retr0rocket 14y ago
    what im saying is what grooveshark does is normal software business, and since the victims are people that are trying to destroy digital privacy for their own gain I dont give a shit and neither should you. so lets put this together 1. this is the status quo to use eulas to protect your ass 2. the 'victims' are rolling in money and are shit people anyways so given a limited amount of energy and political will why the hell would you ever champion this cause. why would you make such a big deal out of this issue thats CLEARLY in a gray zone, especially when the people hurt are the idiots who are screwing you over
ketralnis 14y ago
> they do the bear minimum, they do enough to not get sued The bear minimum is all they have to do. That's why it's called the minimum. > they claim with a straight face that they're supporting artists Correct me if I'm wrong, but "artists" is not a single entity or trade group. They are supporting artists that choose to use their service for distribution. They aren't supporting Rihanna, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have to. > "we comply with DMCA so it's okay" Well yeah. They do comply (as ruled here). So it is okay. Sites like reddit and HN and, yes, Grooveshark couldn't get off the ground if they had to proactively filter 100% of submitted content. We as a society have decided that we value that over stopping 100% of illegal copying so we're okay with laws that work to take the content down afterwards.
- Locke1689 14y ago
  Bare minimum, guys.
  - ebrenes 14y ago
    This reminds me of that part in Office Space where the manager complains about the waitress' "15 pieces of flare". I can only imagine the comedy of having it apply to legal and other areas of life... IRS: It says here you only paid the bare minimum in taxes, what do you have to say for yourself? Fire marshall: It seems you only have the minimum fire protection requirements. Looks like you're haphazardly endangering people by not going above and beyond Building inspector: Hmm, it seems you only have the bare minimum of one access ramp. If you really cared to honor the disability act, you'd have 2, at least 3. There are other buildings that have all these special facilities you know?
    - Locke1689 14y ago
      I just had to say something before everyone was talking about the minimum number of bears that need to be around for someone to be guilty under the DMCA. Personally, I would be more worried about the bear maximum, but IANAL.
- citricsquid 14y ago