GrooveShark possibly fined 736 million USD for sharing 5000 songs

It is pure BS, where's the evidence that the artist lost this much money?

Where is the evidence that the downloaders would have bought the music if it was not on GS for free?

Their saying $150k per MP3 is just a random digit, pure guess work, no-one knows exactly how much was lost, there is a chance that absolutely nothing was lost if every download was by an individual who would never have bought it in the first place

Yes my statement is guesswork, as is their $150k per MP3 estimate, both just as valid as each other, so why do they get to win?

Because they make millions from it, that's why, they are worse than the pirates, think that $736m would have gone straight to the artists? Or even a decent % of it? Nope, straight in the anti-piracy trolls pockets

 

My characterization of the infographic is correct. They pulled the infographic a day after it got released because they were essentially laughed off the internet.

 

Whether the characterization is correct or not has no basis. Step back and take a look at the bigger picture. Fines are supposed to be punitive enough to end the aberrant behavior. The fines are a joke because they have no teeth. The pirating continues because the fines end up being a common business expense because of the money being made. So as ridiculous as the fines appear to be, the pirating continues. The fines increase yet the issue persists. If the current fine amounts to more than the currency that is in circulation, and the aberrant behavior persists, that states that the money being made is still more than the fines being paid. So refer to all the graphs as pleased. Those graphs only prove that the fines being paid are still not hefty enough.

EDIT: The graph was pulled because it sends the message: Look at how effective our legal system is. We make a judgment of this amount and you only have to pay this much smaller amount.

 

It is still up to the jury to decide, they surely have documentation available which they will make their decision from.

I agree that the industry eats to much, I think up to 85%, after that comes taxes, so the artists don't get a lot out of the sales.
Anyway, it is still a good thing that GrooveShark has been shut down.
Practice is that you do pay small copyright fees for each time a song has been listened too, this is where the copyright holder isn't one of the greedy giants, those don't even allow online services to stream without you purchasing the song and sometimes even the entire album.
GrooveShark did **** on it all, so they got what was coming for them.

 

There is absolutely nothing in this to protect the artists, this is all purely to line the pockets of the so called anti-piracy trolls, who have in the past been caught pirating themselves, they are scum

If there was an independent body that did this, and gave all fines back to the artists, fair enough, but there isn't, the guys fining are the real thieves

 

The artists have signed a contract with the company they are represented by. The fact that the artist's lawyer does not know schite from shinola is the artist's fault. The company owns and has a right to protect what belongs to them under the contract. The artist is the greedy one. No one held a gun to their head to sign the contract. Why is it the artist feels they will be the exception to the rule: "I will not be taken advantage of." All they see is dollar signs and have no idea what they are agreeing to by signing the contract. Yet they all still do even though all the history of the industry is there.

 

I never condone thievery but people always say the artists lose out. But the stolen songs, videos, whatever, would have never been purchased in the first place.

The whole thing is null.

 

This is why piracy will not abate.

The punishment does not fit the crime. That's not justice.

 

I truly believe that piracy is a separate world, remove 100% of pirates, improve next to nothing for the artists or industry

Pirates won't buy, end of. Being able to get it for free or not will not change the number of real sales

Anyone who would buy whatever it is, would not pirate, and anyone who pirates, will not buy whatever it is

The only reason for these fines is to line worse pirates pockets, the people who sue and fine

--
You think a car thief who earns a living stealing cars, if stopped, would suddenly become a legal genuine car salesman?

Nope

 

Think your arguments through. Those who pirate will never buy a thing. Therefore, if you are a pirate stealing is ok. Prison, fines, community service, those things are not for you. You are a pirate. That's what pirates do. So no harm, no foul. If a pirate would legitimately purchase something...that's against character so jail time for them at that point.

Take it a step further, those who are murders/contract killers, cannot be put in prison, waste of time. They will kill anyway. So leave them alone.

Get it through your heads. The artists loose out on nothing. They own nothing. The terms of the contract governs ownership. The corps pay the artists a percentage of the sales. So, according to the current arguments the corps get nothing so therefore have nothing to pay the artists for. The corps go broke and the artists are penniless as well. Going after the pirates is a waste of time. The artist's lawyers would never have thought to have a clause concerning the recovery of lost sales. What a pile of horse manure.

 

In some cases a judge can actually choose to not apply a specific rule or law due to it being ... well retarded in this era.

Dunno if possible in the US, but it is over here in Belgium. Though it rarely happens and it's usually followed by adjustment of said law.

 

I don't think people are saying they should not be fined but not by that ridiculous amount of money coming out of nowhere? No way in hell i'm paying it.

Sometimes punishment should exceeds its crime to prevent similar crime in the future but 150k per song is ****ing ridiculous, overkill and unreasonable.

 

This is not the first trip to the rodeo under these conditions. Obviously the creators of GrooveShark were not thoughtful enough to have safeguards in place to prevent such occurrences. The fines in the past were not severe enough to make sure such policies were in place. The amount has yet to be high enough to create a prevailing attitude of making sure such violations will not occur, unless the allowing of the violation to occur was part of the service being offered to begin with. So stating that the fine is a ridiculous amount could only apply if one thought the fine is way below what it should be.

 

Not really, think legal music streaming services. (Also depends on what you define as pirates in the quoted statement)
GrooveShark was offered to play by the rules like any other such service provider: YouTube, Spotify, Xbox Music, just to name a few.
They did not care too well knowing that it would have it's consequence.
Let's not forget that GrooveShark took money for some of it's services on top of that.
People forget that this isn't about some pirate but about a company that didn't give a flying.

 

EDIT: Basically we are saying the same thing; just in different terms.

Pirate, Robber Baron...six of one, half a dozen of another. One is not supposed to make money off of someone else's work, unless there is a royalty agreement in place. One sided benefit agreements / unjust enrichment, never hold up under scrutiny.

 

Mysterious group relaunches Grooveshark



Quasi-legal music streaming service Grooveshark shutdown earlier this month as part of a settlement agreement with major labels. But the internet wouldn't let it die. A mysterious team has resurrected the service. One of the team, an individual who calls himself Shark, told BGR, "well, I started backing up all the content on the website when I started suspecting that Grooveshark's demise is close and my suspicion was confirmed a few days later when they closed." The relaunched music-stealing site is a shadow of its former self, but Shark's team hopes to recreate the defunct site's entire UI experience including playlists and favorites. It's unclear if the team is affiliated in any way with the former Grooveshark. Whoever they are, the team behind this zombie version of the site should expect the same type of copyright lawsuits from record labels.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/05/grooveshark-relaunch/