Lawsuits Against Grooveshark Continue; Music Publishers Seek To Redefine The DMCA
from the that's-not-how-it-works dept
Grooveshark has been involved in a series of lawsuits from the recording industry and, as with the Limewire lawsuits, it looks like the music publishers are piggybacking on the labels by suing later. We've already explained why Grooveshark appears to follow the rules set out by the DMCA, but I would imagine that Grooveshark is the sort of site where judges simply won't like the idea of it, and will thus figure out a way to rule against it. That could be very problematic.To make their case, the publishers are trying to claim that Grooveshark is not a service provider for the purpose of the DMCA. It's going to be difficult to have that claim stick, as courts have generally (correctly, in our opinion) deemed a wide spectrum of offerings to meet the "service provider" hurdle. And then the lawsuit gets even sillier. It claims that Grooveshark itself is doing everything that its users are actually doing. It's as if the publishers wish to simply pretend that the DMCA doesn't exist and that liability automatically applies to the service provider.
I think it's difficult for anyone to argue that Grooveshark is any different technically from YouTube, but when it comes to these sorts of things the industry isn't known for actually understanding what these offerings are really about, preferring instead to leap straight to the freak-out-that-must-be-illegal stage...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, innovation, lawsuits, music, publishers
Companies: grooveshark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viacom v. Youtube is a pretty strong precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not when Grooveshark is the “sort of site where judges simply won't like the idea of it, and will thus figure out a way to rule against it.”
The system would be more fair if the judges just flipped a coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
YouTube too proactive action that has kept them from being crushed by the copyright giants.
Grooveshark is getting way to many DMCA notices to not have an idea what their service is being used for. Are the aggressive in terminating offending users? Or do they just remove the offending video and let the user keep uploading anyway?
You can also go on down the line: If Groovesharks knows a user constantly uploads offending material, but encourages them to do so anyway, at what point to they stop being a service provider and start being a participant in the infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also find it amusing that you refer to the hilarious ContentID system. If Youtube infringes, it is because the user has uploaded it. Whilst I would LOVE to see Roger Ailes arrested for consistent torture of logic, it is his legal right to do that.
Also, perhaps you're unfamiliar with sharing increasing sales, whether by direct piracy or unintentional piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Me: If Youtube infringes, it is because the user has uploaded it and YouTube declined to check the material before publishing it on their website, aggregating it, and distributing it.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, the law does not require them to limit the time a song plays. It's classic dual use. They put together a service to promote bands and offered to compensate them for playing their songs over the grooveshark service. If indie bands want to utilize such a service, it should be legal.
As I understand it (repeat IANAL) filtering could push the ruling in their favor, but it is part of a test that could go either way, not a requirement of the legislature.
If they took the proactive step of terminating accounts, they will probably be fine (IANAL). If they did not, they will get shut down and a similar service that does follow the letter of the law will shortly pop up.
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, if the user never filed a counter notice after getting a DMCA takedown it is reasonable to believe/probable that the user didn't want to fight and not even a bit more than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]