Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday May 11 2015, @12:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the corrupted-resurrection dept.

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...

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 11 2015, @04:37PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday May 11 2015, @04:37PM (#181527) Homepage
    Absolutely - I agree with every single one of your points.

    For me, a lot of it's genre-related, there are a few styles of music that I like where I would never have any interest in seeing the artist perform it live (E.g. most minimalism, and other things heavily reliant on simple playback of the music (e.g. sequencers), as basically the only "performance" is to press the "play" button.)
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @08:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 11 2015, @08:19PM (#181623)

    Yup.
    DJ Bob Parlocha (1938-2015)[1] would mention that James Moody would record short little numbers (so they would get played on the radio??).

    When you went to a club, however, Moody could make 1 tune into an entire set, improvising like crazy and really stretching out.
    Assuming that's what everyone came to hear, everyone was in Heaven and realized that his recordings were just the commercial stuff he was required to do by his recording contract--records being just promotional leaders for the real deal.

    ...and it sounds like the AC is talking about Rock 'n' Roll--as in "that's close enough for...".

    WRT the statements by DaTrueDave, isn't it interesting how aficionados will listen to an old, worn recording of a piece and overlook the surface noise and other defects and concentrate on the underlying art?

    [1] Gonna miss not having any new stuff from you, Bob.
    Best DJ on the radio in many a year (not even a close contest.)
    Knew the music; knew|knew about the musicians (and let -you- know about them); NEVER willfully talked over the music.

    -- gewg_