rhn · HackerTrans

Prohibiting users from opting out will likely result in less 'likes' for corporate products. I find it puzzling that Facebook seems completely disinterested in incentivizing users to partcipate in their sponsor coaxing schemes. Moves like this would likely be better received if users were treated as affiliates (i.e. compensated for their product endorsements) rather than walking data aggregates.

rhn

16 anni fadiscuss

Read again: I was arguing about the principle. I don't deny that there a ridiculous number of things the labels don't want you to do with your own property, like burning the disc. Copyright laws can be absurd in the extreme. In fact, I know of several economists who literally cannot quote their own works without getting permission from the publisher -- even if the book is out of print. The laws exist sure, but that doesn't make the actions they prohibit immoral or damaging.

Also, I wasn't talking about playing a CD: I was talking about streaming Grooveshark in public. This has different implications due to the DMCA.

rhn

16 anni fadiscuss

This is true, but I was referring primarily to the principle of whether someone has "stolen" by playing legally owned copyrighted media in public. Copyright laws have also forbidden public screenings for videos as well, and I think those laws are equally ridiculous. Come to think of it, I've also heard that Grooveshark has a live music program for DJs and venues.

rhn

16 anni fadiscuss

You didn't reply to the main point of my post. Have you ever been to a bar that played music you don't own? Did the bar steal from the artist by letting you and others hear something you don't own? Should the DJ call the artist first to get permission?

Please explain why it is not incumbent upon the artist to request that someone stop playing a copy of their music in public. Or why - if no digital/physical copies are being distributed - the label should have the right to make such a request.

Also, Grooveshark is in fact operating "legitimately" according to EMI, all of their other partners and legal precedent. Is Universal's approval the arbiter of legitimacy?

rhn

16 anni fadiscuss

Grooveshark is not equivalent to the Pirate Bay.

I use the service to stream music that is completely paid for and legal. Allowing other users to stream the music I uploaded seems to be no different in principle than playing it on a loudspeaker in a public space. Do I have the right to let other people listen to my music? This doesn't seem to be a copyright issue because no media has been actually copied. Grooveshark allows multiple users to listen to a single, legally owned copy. Grooveshark not only removes copyrighted material upon request, but also blocks uploading privileges for users who have violated the rules.

It is also not the case that they are acting selfishly and without regard for the industry. They are constantly taking steps to work with the major labels and have already closed a deal with EMI. Only Universal is suing them. They also have a profit sharing program with artists and do seem to care about finding new revenue streams for the music industry.

comments