4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat'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 agoWhile 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 agoCan 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 agoFor 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 agoIf 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.
- burrokeet 14y agoYou are incorrect - a music "track" consists of two separate copyright - one is the copyright in the sound recording (the audio that you hear), the other is the copyright in the underlying composition embodied in the sound recording (in other words the lyrics, the arrangement, the composition of the music). There is no compulsory license for sound recordings in any territory for downloads or interactive streaming. You have to explicit permission from the copyright owner to make the recording available for download or interactive streaming, i.e. you can choose when to listen to it. There is a compulsory license in most territories for the composition side, under certain specific conditions, in which an entity like Grooveshark would obtain a mechanical license for the composition from the copyright holder of the composition (usually music publishers) in advance of its public availability, and then account and pay royalties for its use. This requires Grooveshark to know the songwriters, publishers, and splits of each work, which is not something that comes from the user uploads. It may be the case that their terms of use pass this responsibility to the uploader. In short, however, you need sets of permission (sound recording and composition) to legally distribute music for download or interactive streaming.
- Natsu 14y agoHmm, you appear to be correct. I reread the law and it appears that I forgot about 17 USC § 114 (d)(1) which excludes any 'interactive service'.