3 ms·

You're misunderstanding how Grooveshark works and why this would matter. Yes, a copy of Rihanna's latest album could slip through but it would have to be hidde

You're misunderstanding how Grooveshark works and why this would matter. Yes, a copy of Rihanna's latest album could slip through but it would have to be hidden under a different name for that to happen, then how are people going to find it? If you want to listen to Rihanna on Grooveshark then you type "Rihanna" into the search engine. > Worse, the more you tighten up that code, the more Prof. Ushers you ban. We have Google blocking access to bird songs already. And I know you know how skilled their coders are. That's completely different though, context is important. Grooveshark is a "free Spotify", Youtube is a video community and a video hosting platform. Grooveshark has one use case, Youtube has many. For example Youtube developers work to catch music that is a part of a video that isn't necessarily focused on the song, that would never happen with Grooveshark. Also external sites embed Youtube uploads and use that to host music, can't be done with Grooveshark. The fact is you or I (or any slightly competent developer) could build a system that could block almost every single possible upload that labels/artists don't want uploaded, Grooveshark CHOOSE not to do this. As a user you need to know what you're looking for, you need to tell the search engine what you're looking for, if you're looking for Rihanna you don't type "r1h4nna4534535" and so if someone uploads the latest Rihanna album with the artist name "r1h4nna4534535" who is going to find it? Hell, even if they did there are solutions to that problem.

mullingitover 14y ago
"Grooveshark CHOOSE not to do this." Of course they don't, it's not their job to police someone else's copyrights. Do you think Escape's shareholders wouldn't sue the officers of the company for breach of fiduciary duty if they discovered they were spending company funds to prop up some other business? If you own a copyright, it's your own job to enforce it. Why should copyright holders get to freeload off Grooveshark's work?
Natsu 14y ago
Banning via cryptographic hashes are honestly better for this, even then. Yes, it's flawed, but I know of nothing better. Name filtering is just a mess. A long time ago, I read up on soundex/metaphone, Levenshtein distance, etc. and wrote what was essentially a search engine for names. When I tried to make it loose enough to catch most common typos, a search for "the jerk" gave my boss as the top result. That was not planned and he was never once a jerk to me. That said, please understand that I do sympathize with you about artists getting screwed. I just don't want to see solutions where we merely pass the buck to someone else without getting at any of the underlying problems. Frankly, I believe that the solutions lie more along the lines of making sure that artists get their cut, rather than restricting who can listen to music and how. But I certainly don't have all the answers here.

mullingitover 14y ago

"Grooveshark CHOOSE not to do this." Of course they don't, it's not their job to police someone else's copyrights. Do you think Escape's shareholders wouldn't sue the officers of the company for breach of fiduciary duty if they discovered they were spending company funds to prop up some other business? If you own a copyright, it's your own job to enforce it. Why should copyright holders get to freeload off Grooveshark's work?

Natsu 14y ago

Banning via cryptographic hashes are honestly better for this, even then. Yes, it's flawed, but I know of nothing better. Name filtering is just a mess. A long time ago, I read up on soundex/metaphone, Levenshtein distance, etc. and wrote what was essentially a search engine for names. When I tried to make it loose enough to catch most common typos, a search for "the jerk" gave my boss as the top result. That was not planned and he was never once a jerk to me. That said, please understand that I do sympathize with you about artists getting screwed. I just don't want to see solutions where we merely pass the buck to someone else without getting at any of the underlying problems. Frankly, I believe that the solutions lie more along the lines of making sure that artists get their cut, rather than restricting who can listen to music and how. But I certainly don't have all the answers here.