DeepCool LS720 (LCS) review
Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Silicon Power XPOWER XS70 1TB NVMe SSD Review
GrooveShark Shuts Down Services Completely (updated)
Updated content after the break - Big and bad news in streaming land, music streaming service GrooveShark possibly needs to pay 736 million UD dollars (680 million Euro) to the American music industry after a judge rules that the company has been sharing 5000 songs illegal, that would be $150,000 in damages per song with names like Eminem, Green Day and Madonna.
Reuters reports on this story today that U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa, who will preside over the trial in federal court in Manhattan, said in a court order on Thursday that because of Grooveshark's actions he will tell jurors they can choose to award the statutory maximum of $150,000 in damages per song. Jurors also could decide to award less. But if the jury awards that amount, Grooveshark's parent company, Escape Media Group Inc, could be forced to pay more than $736 million.
As Reuters reports:
Last September, Griesa ruled that Escape and its founders, Samuel Tarantino and Joshua Greenberg, were liable for the illegal uploads of thousands of recordings by artists such as Madonna, Eminem, Bob Marley and Jay-Z.
Griesa said the defendants had directed their employees to make the uploads in spite of the legal risk. The only question to be resolved at Monday's trial is how much Escape must pay as in penalties for the infringement.
Nine record companies including Arista Music, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, and Warner Bros Records, sued Escape for infringement in 2011.
Griesa found in September that Escape's business plan was to exploit the copyrighted content in order to grow Grooveshark and then "beg forgiveness" from the labels.
Escape hopes to limit its losses at trial by arguing there were mitigating circumstances to the infringement, according to court papers. In Thursday's order, Griesa said he will allow the company to present evidence of its attempts to secure licenses from the record labels.
Gainesville, Florida-based Grooveshark describes itself as "one of the largest on-demand music services on the Internet" with more than 30 million users sharing over 15 million files. The company says it has a policy to honor copyright holders' "takedown" requests that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In court papers, the plaintiffs have called Grooveshark a "linear descendant" of Grokster, LimeWire and Napster, all of which had been shut down because of copyright infringement.
A spokesman for Grooveshark said the company had no comment. Representatives for the record labels could not immediately be reached.
--
Update: May 1st 2015
GrooveShark have now shut down their service. You can see their farewell message on the website http://grooveshark.com/
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 3397
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 3397
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5058762 Posted on: 04/27/2015 11:06 AM
in USA they still think that everyone have a static IP in the world...
i let you imagine
lawyer and judge have more than 10 year of knowledge to get up to date (on other hand it is not their job).
Same old story. Supplier of infrastructure is responsible for content. Nothing new, I'm just curios when they will move onto the ISP / server suppliers, since they have money, and provide the most basic infrastructure.
in USA they still think that everyone have a static IP in the world...
i let you imagine
lawyer and judge have more than 10 year of knowledge to get up to date (on other hand it is not their job).
Loobyluggs
Senior Member
Posts: 4769
Joined: 2008-09-07
Senior Member
Posts: 4769
Joined: 2008-09-07
#5058781 Posted on: 04/27/2015 11:59 AM
Wait, the owners of the individual tracks don't have to prove loss of income?
I think they should counter-sue, demanding the owners demonstrate they have the ability to perfectly duplicate the original tracks - which of course is impossible.
That's the only way to put forth the argument the owners have the right to the $ they are asking for - because just creating something once and having someone duplicate on the internet and expecting to get paid for it is just insane. What is it they are supposed to be getting paid for? Something they recorded a decade ago? Why?
Just nutty.
If this was someone like iTunes who are opening charging people for the right to download, then I could get on board, but just having a low-grade streaming site? That doesn't offer the same quality as CD (WMA or uncompressed or w/e) versus crappy 128 kbs - you need to ask the question.
Streaming sites are junk anyway, almost as bad as YouTube is for video quality, if you'll excuse the poor analogy.
Wait, the owners of the individual tracks don't have to prove loss of income?
I think they should counter-sue, demanding the owners demonstrate they have the ability to perfectly duplicate the original tracks - which of course is impossible.
That's the only way to put forth the argument the owners have the right to the $ they are asking for - because just creating something once and having someone duplicate on the internet and expecting to get paid for it is just insane. What is it they are supposed to be getting paid for? Something they recorded a decade ago? Why?
Just nutty.
If this was someone like iTunes who are opening charging people for the right to download, then I could get on board, but just having a low-grade streaming site? That doesn't offer the same quality as CD (WMA or uncompressed or w/e) versus crappy 128 kbs - you need to ask the question.
Streaming sites are junk anyway, almost as bad as YouTube is for video quality, if you'll excuse the poor analogy.
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 13111
Joined: 2014-07-21
Senior Member
Posts: 13111
Joined: 2014-07-21
#5058798 Posted on: 04/27/2015 12:40 PM
It's a fight against windmills people, no real gain in arguing against them. As the court is held in the US (Manhattan.... wtf?), I don't even want to think about the neutrality of any judge for that matter. Quite a few times US courts have ruled contrary to common sense, so I won't lose any more sleep over it. What's making me lose my sleep is that this behavior will swap over the great pond soon enough...
It's a fight against windmills people, no real gain in arguing against them. As the court is held in the US (Manhattan.... wtf?), I don't even want to think about the neutrality of any judge for that matter. Quite a few times US courts have ruled contrary to common sense, so I won't lose any more sleep over it. What's making me lose my sleep is that this behavior will swap over the great pond soon enough...
Octopuss
Senior Member
Posts: 866
Joined: 2012-05-14
Senior Member
Posts: 866
Joined: 2012-05-14
#5058802 Posted on: 04/27/2015 12:45 PM
5000 songs are worth over 700 millions dollars? Go f*ck yourself.
5000 songs are worth over 700 millions dollars? Go f*ck yourself.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 3397
Joined: 2007-05-31
in a world where it is a witch hunt to site, it had never been so easy to rip (DRM or not).
Anything that display, broadcast, stream can be rip.
i call that a massive fail of the protection system and this justice decision is just a way to grab money, nothing else.
maybe if music doesn't cost a week or two of food for an album, and a month of food for a movie then it would sold better... just my point of view.