Court Recognizes DMCA Safe Harbor in Universal v Grooveshark Lawsuit(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Court Recognizes DMCA Safe Harbor in Universal v Grooveshark Lawsuit
http://torrentfreak.com/court-recognizes-dmca-safe-harbor-in-universal-v-grooveshark-lawsuit-120711/
8 comments
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.
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".
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".
> 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.
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.
How can you possibly compare HN, reddit and Grooveshark? The first 2 aggregate links to content, Grooveshark distributes content (often unlicensed). That's akin to comparing IMDB and iTunes, because both have movie related content? It's nonsensical.
If you want to use reddit as an example we'd have to pretend that reddit downloads the content from any submitted link and serves it, so let's pretend that happens: if a company went to reddit and said please stop downloading our website content when it's submitted from the domain website.com, would you do that? Would you tell them to fuck off? While profiting from that content?
Grooveshark could if they wanted without any effort comply with what companies like Universal want. They choose not to. It's not about whether or not they comply with the law. It's absolutely not unreasonable for any artist to expect their music not to be on Grooveshark, Grooveshark made a business decision to use the DMCA to their advantage.
> They aren't supporting Rihanna, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have to.
That's fine, they don't have to support Rihanna, but what they should not then do is take her content anyway. If they're not willing to comply with the wishes/expectations of the rights holder (which probably isn't Rihanna but let's pretend it is for simplicities sake) then they SHOULD NOT be making money from that content!
Grooveshark is a business that takes other peoples content WITHOUT PERMISSION and then makes money from that content and uses the DMCA to get away with it, doing the bare minimum to be compliant. How can anyone defend that?
If you want to use reddit as an example we'd have to pretend that reddit downloads the content from any submitted link and serves it, so let's pretend that happens: if a company went to reddit and said please stop downloading our website content when it's submitted from the domain website.com, would you do that? Would you tell them to fuck off? While profiting from that content?
Grooveshark could if they wanted without any effort comply with what companies like Universal want. They choose not to. It's not about whether or not they comply with the law. It's absolutely not unreasonable for any artist to expect their music not to be on Grooveshark, Grooveshark made a business decision to use the DMCA to their advantage.
> They aren't supporting Rihanna, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have to.
That's fine, they don't have to support Rihanna, but what they should not then do is take her content anyway. If they're not willing to comply with the wishes/expectations of the rights holder (which probably isn't Rihanna but let's pretend it is for simplicities sake) then they SHOULD NOT be making money from that content!
Grooveshark is a business that takes other peoples content WITHOUT PERMISSION and then makes money from that content and uses the DMCA to get away with it, doing the bare minimum to be compliant. How can anyone defend that?
It is nowhere near as easy as you suppose to filter out all unlicensed content with a computer program. If you believe otherwise, feel free to create and market such a system so that we can judge for ourselves. Google, a company who has plenty of capable coders, wrote their own such system. It misidentified birdcalls as copyrighted music:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-ge...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-ge...
if(artist.name == "Rihanna")
error("You can't post Rihanna");
It doesn't need to be sophisticated to remove 99% cases of infringement. Sure people could upload Rihanna's music under the name "Johnny John Johnson" but then nobody would find it, so the problem would be solved. Grooveshark choose not to do this because they are driving revenue with unlicensed music.
It doesn't need to be sophisticated to remove 99% cases of infringement. Sure people could upload Rihanna's music under the name "Johnny John Johnson" but then nobody would find it, so the problem would be solved. Grooveshark choose not to do this because they are driving revenue with unlicensed music.
Congrats, you just banned Prof. Usher's lecture notes:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-1001095.html
You've also missed all the "Riana," "Rihana," "Rieana," etc. songs out there, making your filter both harmful to innocent people and worthless at stopping infringement.
EDIT: And this part is badly mistaken: "It doesn't need to be sophisticated to remove 99% cases of infringement." So you have 1 copy for people to download instead of 100. But 1 is enough for everyone, so you've made no dent in piracy whatsoever, because everyone will copy the one file that is available and won't even care that there aren't 99 more copies of it.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-1001095.html
You've also missed all the "Riana," "Rihana," "Rieana," etc. songs out there, making your filter both harmful to innocent people and worthless at stopping infringement.
EDIT: And this part is badly mistaken: "It doesn't need to be sophisticated to remove 99% cases of infringement." So you have 1 copy for people to download instead of 100. But 1 is enough for everyone, so you've made no dent in piracy whatsoever, because everyone will copy the one file that is available and won't even care that there aren't 99 more copies of it.
Now you're just being intentionally stupid.
Yes, the idea of a single if statement is over simplifying, but it's an example of how easy such a system is. If I was grooveshark and actually building such a system I would build in common song name matching (eg: If Rihanna is the artist name and the song is "Rude boy" then it's bad, if the song is "Hacker News is fun!" it's probably not!
The point is, a system for matching against names of popular artists is trivial to build, are you denying that? If someone tasked you with building a system that could take an mp3 + title + artist and tell if it was the song of a popular artist in a database could you not do that?
Yes, the idea of a single if statement is over simplifying, but it's an example of how easy such a system is. If I was grooveshark and actually building such a system I would build in common song name matching (eg: If Rihanna is the artist name and the song is "Rude boy" then it's bad, if the song is "Hacker News is fun!" it's probably not!
The point is, a system for matching against names of popular artists is trivial to build, are you denying that? If someone tasked you with building a system that could take an mp3 + title + artist and tell if it was the song of a popular artist in a database could you not do that?
Searching for "usher.mp3" where the artist.name = Usher is pretty much exactly how Prof. Usher's lecture notes got DMCA'd. I'll give you credit that you could probably ban most of the typos of Rihanna, though. But the wider you cast that net, the more "dolphins" like Prof. Usher you're going to catch.
And you have to cast it widely to even put a dent into things, because you only need one copy available for everyone to copy it. Just one false negative out of millions of songs and everyone copies that one that slipped through. They need exactly one search result, not 100. Google does all that you say and more on YouTube. Let me know how hard it is for you to find infringing content there (hint: not very)? Sure, they play whack-a-mole with it. But that damned mole keeps popping back up and it's not hard to find a mole that hasn't yet been whacked.
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.
You should have at least banned the cryptographic hashes of anything that got DMCA'd. At least that has few false positives (assuming few DMCA notices are false). It's vulnerable to deliberate infringers making tiny changes to the files, sure, but I'm unaware of any solution that isn't. And you're required to ban anyone who is a repeat infringer anyhow. But we're playing whack-a-mole. More moles always pop up.
And you have to cast it widely to even put a dent into things, because you only need one copy available for everyone to copy it. Just one false negative out of millions of songs and everyone copies that one that slipped through. They need exactly one search result, not 100. Google does all that you say and more on YouTube. Let me know how hard it is for you to find infringing content there (hint: not very)? Sure, they play whack-a-mole with it. But that damned mole keeps popping back up and it's not hard to find a mole that hasn't yet been whacked.
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.
You should have at least banned the cryptographic hashes of anything that got DMCA'd. At least that has few false positives (assuming few DMCA notices are false). It's vulnerable to deliberate infringers making tiny changes to the files, sure, but I'm unaware of any solution that isn't. And you're required to ban anyone who is a repeat infringer anyhow. But we're playing whack-a-mole. More moles always pop up.
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.
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
No, assuming filters are easy and foolproof is intentionally stupid and ignorant. Google took years to develop the technology and it was because they had the massive capital at their disposal. But all it takes to get around the technology is apply a few audio/video filters to get around the fingerprinting technology and words and phrases don't work, what if its a celebrity gossip video on Rihanna? That's fair use. The technology Google developed is easily gotten around by those determined and hits enough false positives that people with legitimate content have their videos taken down for no reason.
As far as the suffering of the music industry. Music sales are up, not down. There are also plenty of studies that show people who listen to artists online for free have a higher likelihood of purchasing the album online or attending a concert. People are buying more indy artists, not just what they hear on the radio and the middlemen in the record companies no longer control the distribution channels or who is exposed to what artists. Artists are benefiting from this loss of control, so I don't exactly feel bad for Universal, a one of the many record companies that has fought tooth and nail against any progress in consumer friendly methods of distribution and a legit and easy alternative to pirating. It took Apple to get them to finally let people buy audio files, and even then it was locked down which hurt people buying the music, not the people downloading MP3's off Limewire. They created the situation they are in now.
As far as the suffering of the music industry. Music sales are up, not down. There are also plenty of studies that show people who listen to artists online for free have a higher likelihood of purchasing the album online or attending a concert. People are buying more indy artists, not just what they hear on the radio and the middlemen in the record companies no longer control the distribution channels or who is exposed to what artists. Artists are benefiting from this loss of control, so I don't exactly feel bad for Universal, a one of the many record companies that has fought tooth and nail against any progress in consumer friendly methods of distribution and a legit and easy alternative to pirating. It took Apple to get them to finally let people buy audio files, and even then it was locked down which hurt people buying the music, not the people downloading MP3's off Limewire. They created the situation they are in now.
You're missing the point!
They don't need to filter the audio files themselves, that's completely un-needed, all they need to do is filter the meta data (eg: artist name, song title, album name). That is not hard. If you have a list of artists with their songs and albums you could easily match the submitted data against this and work out if the submission is disallowed. If they upload with "fake" meta data (eg: fake artist name) it doesn't matter because no user is going to find that music.
They don't need to filter the audio files themselves, that's completely un-needed, all they need to do is filter the meta data (eg: artist name, song title, album name). That is not hard. If you have a list of artists with their songs and albums you could easily match the submitted data against this and work out if the submission is disallowed. If they upload with "fake" meta data (eg: fake artist name) it doesn't matter because no user is going to find that music.
Bare minimum, guys.
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?
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?
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.
[deleted]
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
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?
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?
> Just like murderers don't deserve human rights?
Well in the United States it is relatively common for murderers to be put to death.
Well in the United States it is relatively common for murderers to be put to death.
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
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
I don't know about you, but a bunch of my friends go to Youtube precisely because they can listen to pirated music. In fact, sometimes when I'm at parties, people pull up their own youtube playlists that are exactly the same content Grooveshark would have.
I also think Grooveshark's service has become less of a place for popular music consumption than indie/ self-made content because there are, quite frankly, much better options (ITunes, Spotify, Rdio) if you want to listen to your Billboard Top 100. And I think indie artists actually love having their content on Grooveshark. Grooveshark runs site-wide campaigns for new bands, they have a sweet bus that goes to concerts and records artists unplugged, and their radio service is very niche focused.
I also think Grooveshark's service has become less of a place for popular music consumption than indie/ self-made content because there are, quite frankly, much better options (ITunes, Spotify, Rdio) if you want to listen to your Billboard Top 100. And I think indie artists actually love having their content on Grooveshark. Grooveshark runs site-wide campaigns for new bands, they have a sweet bus that goes to concerts and records artists unplugged, and their radio service is very niche focused.
Yeah, I go to Grooveshark to listen to remixes and artists I find on turntable.fm I can't simply listen to through Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, etc.
Grooveshark provides a legit service, as long as they take down the music when requested by a copyright holder, they are following the same rules as everyone else.
Grooveshark provides a legit service, as long as they take down the music when requested by a copyright holder, they are following the same rules as everyone else.
Grooveshark has no legal obligation to tell their users what can and can't be uploaded. Their only obligation is to follow the DMCA procedures when they receive a takedown notice for content that is allegedly infringing.
The broader discussion here it that the cost of enforcing copyright protection should fall on the copyright owners. And it's obvious that they're not up to the task, which is another clear signal that their business models sit at odds with the current state of technology.
The broader discussion here it that the cost of enforcing copyright protection should fall on the copyright owners. And it's obvious that they're not up to the task, which is another clear signal that their business models sit at odds with the current state of technology.
nowhere does it mention "oh btw if you don't own the rights don't do it", that's hidden on the terms of service page.
Are you surprised that when you buy a knife, it doesn't come with a warning explaining that you can't stab people with it? Uploading music you don't have a redistribution license for is not against the ToS, it's against the law. You're supposed to know it in the first place.
Are you surprised that when you buy a knife, it doesn't come with a warning explaining that you can't stab people with it? Uploading music you don't have a redistribution license for is not against the ToS, it's against the law. You're supposed to know it in the first place.
If you go to a website and click "My Music" and then it says "Upload your music collection to be accessed from anywhere" and doesn't explicitly state "It's illegal to upload music you are not licensed to distribute, you're posting music to be listened to by any user of Grooveshark" and then distributes every upload you submit to every user of that website I would not compare that to buying a knife and not being told it can kill people.
The DMCA doesn't say they have to pre-screen everything. Youtube goes above and beyond what the law requires (in many cases to the detriment of its users). The law doesn't say "you have to do whatever other, similar companies do". It says "here is what you have to do".
Of course Grooveshark might still be inducing infringement or something like that, so I have no idea about your second paragraph.
Of course Grooveshark might still be inducing infringement or something like that, so I have no idea about your second paragraph.
"companies like Youtube actively work to prevent restricted music from being uploaded"
Search for The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd on Youtube and let me know what you find. None of those artists want any of their content digitally distributed (none of their content is even on Spotify). So, unless they have some sort of deal with these artists that I don't know about these are all unlicensed recordings.
And I do realize that a lot of these are live recordings, which have their own issues. But, plenty of them aren't and have millions of views.
Search for The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd on Youtube and let me know what you find. None of those artists want any of their content digitally distributed (none of their content is even on Spotify). So, unless they have some sort of deal with these artists that I don't know about these are all unlicensed recordings.
And I do realize that a lot of these are live recordings, which have their own issues. But, plenty of them aren't and have millions of views.
Along that note, you should try searching for "The Beatles" or "Pink Floyd" on Grooveshark.
YouTube does that at great expense and, I believe, partially as the result of a legal settlement, unless I'm mistaken.. Your suggestion would create a one-way ratchet wherein everyone would have to do as much or more than everyone else, in spite of the law or the cost of doing so.
The standard they must adhere to is the law. If this is unreasonable, and law is often unreasonable, the proper response is to change the law, not to ask the courts to create their own standard of compliance that excludes someone who is, by your own admission, DMCA compliant.
The standard they must adhere to is the law. If this is unreasonable, and law is often unreasonable, the proper response is to change the law, not to ask the courts to create their own standard of compliance that excludes someone who is, by your own admission, DMCA compliant.
Google is under no obligation to voluntarily remove videos and music from Youtube. They do it themselves, because of whatever compromise they made with the labels. I actually think people should be a lot more outraged about this than they are right now. Google is going out of their way to be stricter than the DMCA demands.
Really great to see that Universal may be held accountable for their thuglike behavior. Be nice to see some class action suits over the mass litigation against consumers using BitTorrent too.
Grooveshark is by no means innocent here. It's hard to get around the fact that they're distributing content without compensating its copyright holders through mechanical licenses, and without any agreement with these copyright holders. If it was your copyrighted content being distributed by Grooveshark for profit, with no money going to you, you might feel differently.
If you're following the law (which Grooveshark are), then you are ipso facto innocent.
They're not legally guilty but morally guilty.
It's websites like Grooveshark that weaken the premise for laws like DMCA safe harbour. Their entire business lies in using DMCA in a way in which it was clearly not designed, making it much easier to against such provisions. It's not only big music who might lose out because of them.
It's websites like Grooveshark that weaken the premise for laws like DMCA safe harbour. Their entire business lies in using DMCA in a way in which it was clearly not designed, making it much easier to against such provisions. It's not only big music who might lose out because of them.
"Morally guilty" is hugely subjective. I'm sure it's very, very easy to find a lot of people who would argue that Grooveshark's behavior is more moral than that of Universal, and it's hard to argue against them without falling back on legal arguments.
The question is not one of who is worse. Universal does some morally reprehensible things, that does not excuse Grooveshark.
Grooveshark aren't for anybody other than themselves, they base their entire business on people uploading sharing songs without giving any money to the musicians. If a user uploads the song, not a registered artist then the artist gets nothing and the money goes where?
As a result I believe through those actions they weaken the argument for DMCA safe harbour provisions by showing such a clear loophole in the meaning.
That's my moral and non-legal argument against Grooveshark (but not for Universal).
Grooveshark aren't for anybody other than themselves, they base their entire business on people uploading sharing songs without giving any money to the musicians. If a user uploads the song, not a registered artist then the artist gets nothing and the money goes where?
As a result I believe through those actions they weaken the argument for DMCA safe harbour provisions by showing such a clear loophole in the meaning.
That's my moral and non-legal argument against Grooveshark (but not for Universal).
If they spend shareholder capital to enforce someone else's copyright out of the goodness of their hearts, they're legally guilty of breach of fiduciary duty.
The argument that they're abusing the DMCA is a slippery slope. Who else should be helping the copyright holders freeload on their enforcement duties? Your ISP? Computer manufacturers? Your landlord, for not not searching your home regularly for copyright-violating media?
The argument that they're abusing the DMCA is a slippery slope. Who else should be helping the copyright holders freeload on their enforcement duties? Your ISP? Computer manufacturers? Your landlord, for not not searching your home regularly for copyright-violating media?
If you're shafting people, then you're not innocent in my eyes.
The law is a set of tools commonly used to give people a sense that there is justice and order in our society. When the tools are found inadequate, new ones are developed. Ultimately, this probably won't work in Grooveshark's favor.
The law is a set of tools commonly used to give people a sense that there is justice and order in our society. When the tools are found inadequate, new ones are developed. Ultimately, this probably won't work in Grooveshark's favor.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
You 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.
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.
Hmm, 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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Universal must have forgotten to mention that Grooveshark has been trying to work with them for years. It's sad to see what a company does to cripple competition and innovation.
Apparently, they were not able to reach an agreement. Grooveshark should then stop distributing Universal's content and build their business with content partners with whom they can reach agreement. If that's insufficient, maybe they need to question their business model. No one should be coerced by a company into doing business under terms with which they disagree.
Grooveshark has removed every file that Universal requested them to remove through the appropriate channels. If they didn't they would've been shut down a long time ago. Grooveshark is completely safe in assuming that any remaining Universal content posted on their site is approved by Universal.
That's what the courts will determine. I am skeptical.
Then I'm happy to free you from your skepticism: that's what the courts have determined. Grooveshark has safe harbor. It's a fact.
What courts have determined that? For what jurisdictions? Seems like if they could take down MegaUpload, Grooveshark should be a cinch.
> What courts have determined that?
The New York court mentioned in the article these comments are attached to.
The MegaUpload case is entirely different. It is a federal criminal indictment and none of the allegations have yet been proven in court. Grooveshark has not been charged with anything of the sort. However, given that Hollywood has circulated a "hit list" of businesses they want to kill around Washington (one of which was MU, incidentally), I would not be overly surprised if it comes to that eventually.
The New York court mentioned in the article these comments are attached to.
The MegaUpload case is entirely different. It is a federal criminal indictment and none of the allegations have yet been proven in court. Grooveshark has not been charged with anything of the sort. However, given that Hollywood has circulated a "hit list" of businesses they want to kill around Washington (one of which was MU, incidentally), I would not be overly surprised if it comes to that eventually.
I used to work for Grooveshark. It's an amazing company full of awesome people that are really passionate about music and helping artists. I'm happy they got this win.
I'm not sure if helping artists would be a great phrase for it...How about a list of this months top 10 streamed tracks from users in the United States? I'd like to see how many of those tunes in the top 10 list are from actual artists whose music is legally licensed to be on Grooveshark.
Your anti-piracy point is one things, but are you willing to contend that the musicians would be better off if grooveshark didn't exist? Assuming grooveshark couldn't exist if they were required to pay licensing fees for every song that was uploaded and listened to (which, if you've seen their offices or knew how little they paid their developers, isn't farfetched).
The amount of money I spend on concert tickets has gone up drastically since becoming a grooveshark subscriber, and I've seen a few shows absolutely because their music was on the service, whether legally or not.
Here's a suggestion to help artists - for every track downloaded which is not directly assigned to a copyright holder, put an amount equal to the industry average for US DPDs, say 70 cents, into escrow, along with 9.1 cents for the US mechanical license, and hold it there for three years or until the copyright holders come calling for it. In addition, supply the copyright holders with the specific details of the uploader. That would help artists.
What does 'directly assigned' mean? If the uploader sets it then it's going to be set on all the pirate files and your clause never triggers. If Grooveshark sets it then they're going to have to manually inspect every upload. Neither of these helps any artist. Nobody is going to get paid for an $8-per-hour radio. Grooveshark would go out of business and help noone.
By "directly assigned" I mean the case where Grooveshark and a third party rightsholder (record label, artist, etc.) have a deal in place covering the respective track.
But how do you stop artists from signing up and then labeling others' songs as their own?
I really don't see how the 70 cents are ever going to help an artist.
I really don't see how the 70 cents are ever going to help an artist.
70 cents * # of downloads is how lots of artists make money nowadays.
I don't think many people are going to sign a legal agreement and then purposely claim other people's songs. The legal and financial liability from that is huge and much more direct.
I don't think many people are going to sign a legal agreement and then purposely claim other people's songs. The legal and financial liability from that is huge and much more direct.
Okay, I guess I haven't made myself clear. If Grooveshark costs eight dollars and hour it's going to be out of business in a day. That doesn't help artists. I only see two scenarios, either the 70 cent tax is avoided in which case no artists are helped, or it's paid on almost every song in which case Grooveshark collapses and no artists are helped.
I couldn't find this in the article: which court is the decision from? The bio of the judge[1] suggests that it's a superior-court-level decision. This is an annoying omission to me because with decisions like this, it's important to know what the appeals prospects are. The odds of a decision being overturned on appeal are relevant.
[1]: http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/comdiv/newyork_bio_Kapnick.sh...
[1]: http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/comdiv/newyork_bio_Kapnick.sh...
Not clear to me from the article. Why did the universal lawyers believe the DMCA Safe Harbor rules wouldn't apply to pre 1972 music?
From another source:
A judge has handed controversial music streaming service Grooveshark a major win in a dispute with record label Universal Music, rejecting an argument which would make Grooveshark responsible for determining the copyright status of all pre-1972 recordings. Arguing in a New York court, Universal had attempted to claim that safe harbor provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) do not apply to recordings made before 1972, as the recordings were not covered by federal copyright law at the time of their creation.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/11/3151127/grooveshark-dmca-u...
A judge has handed controversial music streaming service Grooveshark a major win in a dispute with record label Universal Music, rejecting an argument which would make Grooveshark responsible for determining the copyright status of all pre-1972 recordings. Arguing in a New York court, Universal had attempted to claim that safe harbor provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) do not apply to recordings made before 1972, as the recordings were not covered by federal copyright law at the time of their creation.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/11/3151127/grooveshark-dmca-u...
I would bet coffee and doughnuts that it's less that Universal's lawyers believe that than that Universal's executives have ordered the legal team to use anything they can find, no matter how flimsy, to attempt to kneecap Grooveshark and other things that inconvenience the old-media cartel.
It's a novel argument to run - obviously the beauty of the judicial system is that the court ruling against this novel argument now sets a precedent (subject to appeal etc) that can be applied in future.
In some ways, I'm grateful to Universal for running the argument as it's one less cause of action that can be argued in the future, or at least can be dismissed much more easily by relying on the precedent.
In some ways, I'm grateful to Universal for running the argument as it's one less cause of action that can be argued in the future, or at least can be dismissed much more easily by relying on the precedent.
Wasn't there another case against Grooveshark saying the employees themselves were uploading songs on the site?
Yeah it was based on an anonymous blog comment and I think it's still ongoing. I asked a couple guys at Grooveshark about it and they didn't seem concerned at all, they described it as a last, desperate move by the record companies.
Well that's huge news for them, I'm sure they knew this would be the outcome though. :)
They're not even reasonable about uploading; I login to Grooveshark and go to "My Music" and click "Upload" and it asks me to upload my library, nowhere does it mention "oh btw if you don't own the rights don't do it", that's hidden on the terms of service page. The language used on the upload page is I'm sure well crafted so that they don't fall foul of the law but don't dissuade users from uploading: "...and only upload content that does not infringe upon the rights of others.". Why isn't that "Do not upload content that you are not licensed to distribute"?
I must be missing something.
Edit: to clarify for anyone that doesn't understand how Grooveshark works. They encourage users to upload their own music collection and do not at any point explain to the user that the music they're uploading is available to everyone or that what they're doing is illegal. Yes they're DMCA compliant but only at the very minimum required; if they wanted to be respectful towards labels/artists they could quite easily prevent people from uploading unlicensed material.