SoylentNews

darkfeline wrote in with an Ars Technica article entitled "Mystery person puts shuttered music site Grooveshark back online", and this:

Provides an example of how laws only matter insofar as the people agree to follow them. If everybody wants something, it will be had, irrespective of corporate fiddling.

Grooveshark was a music-streaming site that was finally shut down by the music industry last week due to the revelation of deliberate violations of copyright by employees. Employees had uploaded music tracks themselves to bolster Grooveshark's catalog, in contrast to other services (e.g. YouTube) that simply take down user-uploaded content in response to DMCA notices and are not liable for copyright infringement of the users.

TorrentFreak reports that the widely-reported "clone" that emerged soon after Grooveshark's demise is actually a reskin of another site, MP3Juices.se:

We concede that to some the idea of a reincarnated Grooveshark will be a somewhat romantic one but as we highlighted at the weekend, the practice of passing one site off as another is now really getting out of hand.

Only time will tell if Grooveshark.io will magically transform into a proper replacement for the now defunct site, complete with playlist and community features for example, but it seems unlikely.

As things stand Grooveshark.io appears to be just a re-badged/re-skinned clone of MP3Juices.se, a low-traffic clone of the original MP3Juices. In the scheme of things it's hardly likely to be an important target for the RIAA, except for one small detail. The labels now own all of Grooveshark's intellectual property – brand names and trademarks included...