5 ms·

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
LOL. That may be true, but with a good lawyer (and I'm sure Universal spared no expense here), it may come to be the opinion of the jurors (if there are any in this type of case) and judge as well. My point is that at least to me, it seems obvious that Universal is getting screwed over by Grooveshark, along with all the other copyright holders whose content they're distributing without a license.
- Natsu 14y ago
  Juries don't get to decide points of law. Judges make those determinations precisely because of what you just said. If you don't like it, you can advocate for a change in the law. Frankly, you underrate the difficulty sites like Grooveshark face. Copyright infringement relies upon whether or not a person has permission and that's not something a computer program can determine. You're using a simple heuristic that doesn't work well at scale, relies upon human judgement (which also doesn't scale), and fails utterly when the marketing departments of these places put out their own leaked versions of things (see Viacom v. YouTube) which are permitted. It's weird how often I hear how "easy" this is. This is HN. If you want me to believe that it's easy, create a computer program that acts as a filter and we'll see how well it works in the real world. I realize that you see someone getting shafted and want to fix that. That's a good thing. The problem is that you advocate for a solution that would merely shaft someone else instead. That's not a good thing.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    That's why participation in Grooveshark should be opt-in for copyright holders, not opt-out. They should control how their works are monetized, and they should be compensated for it. It's a matter of respect for the work the artist puts into creating this stuff.
    - Natsu 14y ago
      That's not how the law works, though. Music is subject to compulsory licenses. I haven't heard of any sizable movement to get rid of those licenses, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license If they don't like it, they should change the law, rather than ask the courts to make up new laws for people to follow on the spot.
      - WiseWeasel 14y ago
        While it is true that several countries have provisions in their copyright law for compulsory licensing, Grooveshark does not respect the terms of those licenses either. Without a compulsory license covering the country the user is in, and without a separate distribution license, Grooveshark is not authorized to distribute the content.
        Natsu 14y ago
        Can you point to a court ruling to back your statement that "Grooveshark does not respect the terms of those licenses either"? I realize that there are a lot of lawsuits alleging that, but as far as I know they are all still pending and nothing of the sort has been established in court. That makes your statement premature, at best.
        WiseWeasel 14y ago
        For Grooveshark to be in compliance, they would need to pay royalties and restrict distribution to places where those licenses apply. They don't, so they're not.
        Natsu 14y ago
        If that is true, it will get proven in court. I see no Pacer links, so I take it that none of that has been proven. Personally, I put about as much stock those claims as SCO's claims that we should all write them $699 checks for Linux, but we'll find out whenever the courts rule. Feel free to supply a Pacer link if the situation changes.

LOL. That may be true, but with a good lawyer (and I'm sure Universal spared no expense here), it may come to be the opinion of the jurors (if there are any in this type of case) and judge as well. My point is that at least to me, it seems obvious that Universal is getting screwed over by Grooveshark, along with all the other copyright holders whose content they're distributing without a license.

Natsu 14y ago
Juries don't get to decide points of law. Judges make those determinations precisely because of what you just said. If you don't like it, you can advocate for a change in the law. Frankly, you underrate the difficulty sites like Grooveshark face. Copyright infringement relies upon whether or not a person has permission and that's not something a computer program can determine. You're using a simple heuristic that doesn't work well at scale, relies upon human judgement (which also doesn't scale), and fails utterly when the marketing departments of these places put out their own leaked versions of things (see Viacom v. YouTube) which are permitted. It's weird how often I hear how "easy" this is. This is HN. If you want me to believe that it's easy, create a computer program that acts as a filter and we'll see how well it works in the real world. I realize that you see someone getting shafted and want to fix that. That's a good thing. The problem is that you advocate for a solution that would merely shaft someone else instead. That's not a good thing.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  That's why participation in Grooveshark should be opt-in for copyright holders, not opt-out. They should control how their works are monetized, and they should be compensated for it. It's a matter of respect for the work the artist puts into creating this stuff.
  - Natsu 14y ago
    That's not how the law works, though. Music is subject to compulsory licenses. I haven't heard of any sizable movement to get rid of those licenses, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license If they don't like it, they should change the law, rather than ask the courts to make up new laws for people to follow on the spot.
    - WiseWeasel 14y ago
      While it is true that several countries have provisions in their copyright law for compulsory licensing, Grooveshark does not respect the terms of those licenses either. Without a compulsory license covering the country the user is in, and without a separate distribution license, Grooveshark is not authorized to distribute the content.
      - Natsu 14y ago
        Can you point to a court ruling to back your statement that "Grooveshark does not respect the terms of those licenses either"? I realize that there are a lot of lawsuits alleging that, but as far as I know they are all still pending and nothing of the sort has been established in court. That makes your statement premature, at best.
        WiseWeasel 14y ago
        For Grooveshark to be in compliance, they would need to pay royalties and restrict distribution to places where those licenses apply. They don't, so they're not.
        Natsu 14y ago
        If that is true, it will get proven in court. I see no Pacer links, so I take it that none of that has been proven. Personally, I put about as much stock those claims as SCO's claims that we should all write them $699 checks for Linux, but we'll find out whenever the courts rule. Feel free to supply a Pacer link if the situation changes.