Prohibiting users from opting out will likely result in less 'likes' for corporate products. I find it puzzling that Facebook seems completely disinterested in incentivizing users to partcipate in their sponsor coaxing schemes. Moves like this would likely be better received if users were treated as affiliates (i.e. compensated for their product endorsements) rather than walking data aggregates.
I use the service to stream music that is completely paid for and legal. Allowing other users to stream the music I uploaded seems to be no different in principle than playing it on a loudspeaker in a public space. Do I have the right to let other people listen to my music? This doesn't seem to be a copyright issue because no media has been actually copied. Grooveshark allows multiple users to listen to a single, legally owned copy. Grooveshark not only removes copyrighted material upon request, but also blocks uploading privileges for users who have violated the rules.
It is also not the case that they are acting selfishly and without regard for the industry. They are constantly taking steps to work with the major labels and have already closed a deal with EMI. Only Universal is suing them. They also have a profit sharing program with artists and do seem to care about finding new revenue streams for the music industry.
Read again: I was arguing about the principle. I don't deny that there a ridiculous number of things the labels don't want you to do with your own property, like burning the disc. Copyright laws can be absurd in the extreme. In fact, I know of several economists who literally cannot quote their own works without getting permission from the publisher -- even if the book is out of print. The laws exist sure, but that doesn't make the actions they prohibit immoral or damaging.
Also, I wasn't talking about playing a CD: I was talking about streaming Grooveshark in public. This has different implications due to the DMCA.
That said, there are provisions in copyright law that govern public public performance that they can rely upon, without needing their license stickers to be valid.
music being used is opt-out, revenue sharing is opt-in, that to me explains all about their ethos and how they run the service. It would not be at all difficult for them to go legitimate like Spotify with regards to technology and number of employees needed, but it would kill their business because they can't operate "legitimately" like Spotify, that's not their business model.
Also I would eat my hat if you have a license that allows you to redistribute music you "purchased", I'd be even more surprised if that license allowed you to grant streaming rights to a third party. The license terms for an itunes purchase are extremely limited.
You didn't reply to the main point of my post. Have you ever been to a bar that played music you don't own? Did the bar steal from the artist by letting you and others hear something you don't own? Should the DJ call the artist first to get permission?
Please explain why it is not incumbent upon the artist to request that someone stop playing a copy of their music in public. Or why - if no digital/physical copies are being distributed - the label should have the right to make such a request.
Also, Grooveshark is in fact operating "legitimately" according to EMI, all of their other partners and legal precedent. Is Universal's approval the arbiter of legitimacy?
You do understand that bars and venues pay site licenses to PROs like ASCAP and BMI, don't you? And DJs don't need permission thanks to compulsory licenses, but they are required to report all plays if they're on-air or spin records in a licensed venue.
As far as I know, the fees to ASCAP and BMI only cover performance rights, and have nothing to do with the record labels.
It's the fact that streaming digital audio consists of making multiple copies of the same bits that allows them to call it (recording) copyright infringement.
Correct. I was addressing the commenter saying that uploading them legally and streaming to many is no different than a bar. My whole point was that a bar licenses the music.
Purchasing music under a personal license doesn't allow one to broadcast or perform the work, so the justification is off.
And it's actually considered the same thing for web streaming — it doesn't have all that much to do with copies. By law webcasting falls under a performance so webcasters are on the hook for both publishing and performance royalties. (Radio gets a waiver on performance royalties and only pays publishing. So the composers get paid, but not necessarily the performers.)
> Have you ever been to a bar that played music you don't own? Did the bar steal from the artist by letting you and others hear something you don't own? Should the DJ call the artist first to get permission?
Actually, yes. Bar do get sued when they haven't licensed the music properly, and I recall hearing of instances of them being sued successfully merely for having music played over the radio to a large audience, because it wasn't licensed correctly. Of course, it's only the large labels who actually have the resources to do this; bands would probably generally be okay with it (exposure, increasing the chance of people buying their records or going to their shows).
This is true, but I was referring primarily to the principle of whether someone has "stolen" by playing legally owned copyrighted media in public. Copyright laws have also forbidden public screenings for videos as well, and I think those laws are equally ridiculous. Come to think of it, I've also heard that Grooveshark has a live music program for DJs and venues.
