GrooveShark Shuts Down Services Completely (updated)
Click here to post a comment for GrooveShark Shuts Down Services Completely (updated) on our message forum
bemaniac
given that they allow you to upload anything which is then instantly seachable and listenable by anyone then of course it's illegal.
fantaskarsef
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.
Bleib
Utterly ridiculous, still for the 2008 economic disaster nobody has been punished.
Extraordinary
$147,200 per song?
Neo Cyrus
In courts they even sue individual people for that amount per song. Let alone a streaming service.
Lawyer: "This song is popular therefore it's worth infinity billion dollars, the 10 seconds she pirated the song costs infinity dollars."
Judge: "Agreed."
rl66
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.
rl66
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
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
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
5000 songs are worth over 700 millions dollars? Go f*ck yourself.
Fender178
700+ Million for 5000 songs does sound pretty far fetched. I remember this one case where this Mother had to pay 80k per song for 24 songs which added up to around 1.92 million due to illegal downloading.
Extraordinary
And if you can't pay, jail?
Jail for sharing 0s and 1s....
nhlkoho
They can technically sue for up to $150,000 per song so they are getting a deal.
Prince Valiant
The music industry being ridiculous and insane, what a surprise! I'm so shocked. I'd be this shocked if the movie industry did things like this too!
Oh right, this is par for the course for these jackoffs -_-.
Neo Cyrus
Yes they've made examples of people in the past to try to control piracy through fear. The usual, reports of single mothers locked away for an eternity for downloading a song or two and being unable to make large enough payments towards $150000 per song.
All it did was spark outrage and people pirated harder. And yet they continue.
Extraordinary
Think they really locked anyone up? Sounds more like a purposely started rumour
Prince Valiant
Hard to say, I'd hope not. TorrentFreak had an article a while back about how these claimed settlement amounts are bull but any settlement agreement involves lying about it.
Extraordinary
I can't see a judge fining a single mother millions of dollars for sharing a few MP3s, then jailing her indefinitely when she obviously couldn't pay
And if that did happen, I have a feeling we would have heard about it big time, there would have been petitions and uproars all over the place
All we heard was that it apparently happened, nothing else - doesn't sound likely, just look at what's happening for paid mods lol
nhlkoho
The one big case a few years back against Jammie Thomas-Rasset went back and forth for years. Read up on that one to see how stupid copyright law in the US is. Even a settlement of $5,000 is ridiculous for the 24 songs she supposedly shared. I think she ended up declaring bankruptcy so she didn't have to pay anything anyway.
Clouseau
Bankruptcy is not what it appears to be. What monies are owed and wiped out/forgiven is deemed income by the IRS. Bankruptcy does not get one out of owing taxes. So still a penalty just not as much.
