Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday May 17 2015, @09:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the whack-a-mole dept.

In a new game of whack-a-mole, Ars Technica is reporting that Grooveshark is live once again, despite the seizure of the Grooveshark.io

Just a few days after illegal music-streaming service Grooveshark apologized and shut down, a mysterious person identified only as "Shark" reconstituted the site at Grooveshark.io.

In response, the major record labels appear to have obtained a temporary restraining order wresting away that domain name. According to Torrentfreak, the labels filed a lawsuit under seal in New York federal court. The site reports that US District Judge Deborah Batts issued a seizure order "directed at the site’s operators, hosting providers, and domain registrar NameCheap."

[...] Meanwhile, a true game of whac-a-mole appears to have begun, with the team behind the new Grooveshark telling Torrentfreak that they have simply moved their website to grooveshark.vc.

"The harder you come at us, the stronger we’ll fight, and now after this hit we’re more determined than ever to keep Grooveshark alive and kicking," the site's anonymous operator said.

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 17 2015, @11:16PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 17 2015, @11:16PM (#184213) Journal

    There are gazillions of people who would be happy to pay the artist. The problem with that is, the artists doesn't get the revenues generated by these corporate profit schemes. Maybe you should research how many artists have made millions upon millions for a label, then ended up penniless. The contracts always favor the label - always.

    And, that is also a big part of the problem with copyright extensions. The artist isn't going to be around to collect any of that - one corporation or another will be though.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 17 2015, @11:34PM

    by frojack (1554) on Sunday May 17 2015, @11:34PM (#184216) Journal

    Yet try telling any upstart band that is starting to make a name for itself NOT to sign the Contract.
    You simply can not pound it into their heads.

    You think it would be easy with today's tech savvy younger generation, they have YouTube, they have Google Music Amazon Music that will both take indi music and sell it cheap enough that there is simply no point in stealing it, and all without a lock in contract.

    But they sign. They almost always sign.

    Sure, you can point to a hand full of exceptions. Those just prove the rule. They sign.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.