The Real Difference Between Grooveshark and YouTube…

groovesharkdead

 

Grooveshark is audio, YouTube is video.  But what’s the real difference between Grooveshark and YouTube?

The answer is that YouTube follows the law, while Grooveshark broke it.  And no matter what you think of copyright law in America, that’s what a judge cares about.

You might argue that copyright law is broken and antiquated.  I’d argue that it’s completely fucked up.  But it is the law, and as flawed as our judicial system is, America is still a nation that has a rule of law (and you should be happy it does).  In that terrain, YouTube and Google have figured out clever methods and strategies to exploit loopholes in that law, while (mostly) avoiding direct, blatant violations.

Grooveshark did the opposite: in a fairly lopsided decision just issued by the US District Court in Manhattan, it turns out that Grooveshark’s CEO, Sam Tarantino, was blasting emails commanding all employees to upload popular songs onto Grooveshark’s servers.  And deposed executives revealed that they were required to seed Grooveshark’s servers with unauthorized content.

Grooveshark’s upload logs verified this.  That is, the ones that weren’t purposely deleted.  See the problem here?

You can tell the judge and the media that drug laws in this country are stupid, and maybe you’re right.  But that doesn’t mean you should be transporting a kilo in your trunk.


Now take a look at how YouTube and Google approach the exact same body of copyright law.  Most importantly, they use the DMCA to their advantage by forcing copyright owners to repeatedly issue takedown notices, while being careful to never upload material themselves.  So, you have groups like the BPI issuing more than a million takedown notices to Google, often for the same damn websites over and over again, and Google complies and takes them down.  Because as stupid as the DMCA is, it’s the law, and Google and YouTube are exploiting it to the maximum extent possible.

And yes, Google and YouTube are exploiting content owners and couldn’t give a shit about your intellectual property.  But they’re also not breaking the law.

But this goes way beyond the DMCA.  Because YouTube has shrewdly figured out a way to circumvent a large portion of arcane copyright law with their own, controlled copyright environment.  In this carefully-constructed, circumvented streaming video arena, copyright owners are also forced to demand takedowns, or encouraged to claim their content and receive ad-supported scraps.  And YouTube decides what those scraps are, not you.

So is it stealing if they’re not technically breaking any laws?  That’s a philosophical question for some, but a very concrete question for the courts.

So why doesn’t a group of investors and entrepreneurs simply start a legal Grooveshark, without stupidly breaking copyright law and leaving a trail that proves it?  That may be happening right now, but the window for an ‘audio YouTube’ may be long gone.  Just like Napster wouldn’t make much sense in 2014, neither would a clean Grooveshark: the company has been losing ground to Spotify and YouTube for years, partly because Spotify and YouTube offer cleaner experiences with greater selection and reliability.

The world was receptive to Grooveshark back in 2008.  Now it doesn’t really fit.

And where does Spotify fit into all of this?  For all of Spotify’s slimy, artist-screwing practices, this is a company that is clearly following the letter of the law.  Actually, they’re obeying the law even more than YouTube and Google, who mostly specialize in exploiting gray areas to their advantage.  And when it boils down to it, Spotify is actually paying for content, even if that money never gets back to the artist.

Because the future of streaming doesn’t belong to those that blatantly violate the law to draw massive audiences.  It belongs to those that smartly exploit the law instead, and somehow make piracy legal in the process.

 

Written while listening to Armin Van Buuren on Beats.  

Image by Dave Jones, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0).

44 Responses

  1. agraham999

    Did you actually ever read the Viacom v YouTube emails? Because it was pretty clear YouTube was in direct violation of copyright law and knew it.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “YouTube was in direct violation of copyright law and knew it”

      Well, yes — but that’s why YouTube invented ContentID. And survived.

      As of today, the service is completely legitimate.

      However, it seems that ContentID only will be available in the future for content owners that sign Google’s new controversial contract. Which means YouTube is back at square one — only worse:

      Back in the Viacom days, Google always claimed it couldn’t prevent illegal content on YouTube.

      But they can’t do that anymore. ContentID exists. Google just won’t use it.

      So any unlicensed content created by non-signed acts and uploaded by users to YouTube Music Key will most likely be considered willful infringement in court. And that could kill YouTube…

      Reply
      • agraham999

        Actually it isn’t legitimate. YouTube may have some basic rights to grant a “sync” license (from music companies), but the problem is that they still allow videos that are infringement. They just can’t get busted on the massive infringement because the technology to detect this isn’t available. Once again the onus is placed on individual rights owners to police the billions of videos on YouTube…a battle they cannot win.

        Every video that has any image in it…unless those rights are cleared, you can’t create a sync. Countless videos…billions of them have infringement because the images in the videos are taken without permission and compensation. Here’s an example:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbgoXgBfEvM

        and

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZSt-NV5DtA

        Hundreds of violations in just those two videos. If photographers and image companies ever get together they can take this house of cards down pretty easily in court.

        So tell me again how the service is completely legit.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          “So tell me again how the service is completely legit”

          YouTube is legitimate today — legally as well as morally — because it does try to prevent piracy, and because it works.

          This is not Google-style whack-a-mole. Content owners can use ContentID to remove or monetize their property, or they can send traditional takedown notices. YouTube removes illegal material and shuts down infringing accounts — fast.

          Again, this is not like Google Search where you have to explain over and over and over again that song X belongs to you and that the Pirate Bay happens to be a criminal site.

          On YouTube, we have what everybody wants from Google Search: Take Down = Stay Down!

          But ContentID can’t block content it doesn’t know, so some material will still pass through the filters. I don’t think any of us want a completely closed system where mistakes never happen (and trust me, I really really believe in anti-piracy).

          In my opinion, ContentID is the best thing since iTunes. And that’s why I think it’s a disaster if the function is going to be disabled for thousands of acts now.

          Reply
          • agraham999

            ContentID is a band-aid on a problem that will increasingly get worse. The solution to the infringement on YouTube is to prevent it from occurring in the first place so ContentID is not needed. There are technical solutions to this as well.

          • Anonymous

            “The solution to the infringement on YouTube is to prevent it from occurring in the first place”

            And that is exactly what ContentID does.

            Many seems to be unaware of the system so here’s Google’s own description (I’ll post the link in a separate comment below; it may take some time to show up):

            “Copyright owners can use a system called Content ID to easily identify and manage their content on YouTube. Videos uploaded to YouTube are scanned against a database of files that have been submitted to us by content owners. Copyright owners get to decide what happens when content in a video on YouTube matches a work they own. When this happens, the video gets a Content ID claim.
            What options are available to copyright owners?

            Copyright owners can choose different actions to take on material that matches theirs:

            Mute audio that matches their music
            Block a whole video from being viewed
            Monetize the video by running ads against it
            Track the video’s viewership statistics”

          • Anonymous

            …however, I’d like to add that there is one very serious problem with ContentID (or, rather, how it is implemented):

            You have to own quite a lot of content — and that content has to be pirated often on YouTube — in order to use ContentID.

            Which means that the photographers you mention may not be able to use it. And again; Google may introduce further restrictions when YouTube Music Key arrives.

            So what I’m saying is that ContentID is the best thing since iTunes — if you have access to the function.

            If you don’t, then it’s back to playing whack-a-mole (and good luck with that).

            So you could in fact argue — in court, too — that unlicensed content, created by artists without access to ContentID and uploaded by YouTube users, actually could be considered willful infringement today: Google does have the means (ContentID) to prevent piracy; it just won’t use them.

          • john

            def agree here. tried numerous times to have our independent publishing company with over 100 songs to get a youtube content id account and failed. Had to take a less direct route to get things done, but still glad to be a part of it.

          • Anonymous

            “tried numerous times to have our independent publishing company with over 100 songs to get a youtube content id account and failed”

            Well, it’s definitely hard to see how 100 songs are not “a substantial body of original material”.

            So we have a dark little YouTube secret here: Google’s automated technology can indeed stop piracy — the company just won’t use it.

            Wonder how that would hold up in court…

          • Anonymous

            It’s not exactly a secret that most musicians want an artist-friendly YouTube alternative after the indie scandal and the controversial Google contract.

            While a site owned by the music industry obviously will be the best option, it still makes sense to look at existing sites like Vimeo and Daily Motion, or newcomers like VIDescape.com (claims to pay more than other services but is still in beta) and Vessel.com which is going to launch soon:

            Vessel’s founder, former Hulu CEO Jason Kilar, has raised $75m so far. Investors include Benchmark, Greylock Partners and Bezos Expeditions — yes, that Bezos — and its team comes from Hulu, Netflix and Amazon. So it could be pretty interesting.

            And then there is Yahoo:

            According to Slate yesterday, Yahoo has been “working on a plan to lure some of YouTube’s most popular stars and networks to show their stuff on the site”.

            Yahoo’s plan “aimed at taking advantage of persistent complaints by both video creators and owners, who think that they don’t make enough money on YouTube“.

            Many assumed that Yahoo would use its own video platform Screen, but Slate now reports that Yahoo will let its artists use Tumblr instead.

            And that’s definitely interesting, too.

            So perhaps all the seriously bad YouTube news this year have a silver lining…

          • agraham999

            I’m not trying to get into an argument here but…

            My statement:
            “The solution to the infringement on YouTube is to prevent it from occurring in the first place”
            Yours:
            “And that is exactly what ContentID does.”

            No that’s completely wrong. Preventing infringement is done at the point of creation. If you are familiar at all regarding the creation of a sync licence, it occurs with the user of the media at the point of creation, not afterwards. What ContentID does is catch infringement. This is how all licensing works. You are granted the licence before you create something, not afterwards when you’ve already infringed. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of rights and copyright. You don’t take something and then ask permission. So the solution we have in place with something like ContentID is essentially a time machine for infringement.

            Again…ContentID only catches infringement…it doesn’t prevent it.

            The secret to solving this problem is solving the licensing issue at the genesis of creation, not afterwards.

            It will only take one class action lawsuit in the US on behalf of photographers or image rights companies to bring this whole house of cards down and then no one makes any money. This is the conceit that the music industry seems to fail to recognize…is that the revenue they get from ad-share is built upon the violation of copyright for the work of others that simply don’t have a system to identify and monetize their work as well.

          • Anonymous

            “Preventing infringement is done at the point of creation”

            We both want infringement to stop. Period!

            But what you’re suggesting was difficult before the internet — and it’s impossible today.

            It has always been easier to ask for forgiveness than permission — even for professional publishers — and we can’t ask the average internet user to be more law-abiding than professionals. That would be the end of the open internet, and nobody wants that.

            ContentID is perfect — if YouTube allows you to use it — because it

            1) allows fans to be creative and have fun with any content in any way they wish, and it
            2) allows content owners to block or monetize that content automatically.

            That’s the closest we’ll ever come to a win-win situation. Imagine if a similar system were introduced on criminal sites and on ISP level…

            “the revenue they get from ad-share is built upon the violation of copyright for the work of others that simply don’t have a system to identify and monetize their work as well”

            What you’re really saying is that ContentID would be perfect if only everybody (including individual photographers/artists) had access to it.

            And I agree.

            So why not take ContentID and make it available to everybody, instead of trying to go back to some good old days that never existed in the first place?

          • agraham999

            Again…not true. There is technology out there right now that makes permission easier than infringement and it is better than ContentID. It just isn’t in place yet….yet. You’ll likely see it within the next 6 months.

            “So why not take ContentID and make it available to everybody, instead of trying to go back to some good old days that never existed in the first place?”

            I’m not talking bout the good old days, I’m talking about technology that is available today. I’ve worked in tech for 20+ years, I know what’s possible. The problem with ContentID besides what I’ve already stated is that it is a proprietary solution that works for one company and it only identifies certain content. You can’t magically say “Poof…everyone can use it now,” because it can’t ID everything.

            ContentID current scans 400 years of video a day. This is a system that inherently cannot continue to scale to feed the need of citizen creators or rights owners. And rights owners can’t possibly keep up with this either. And what happens when YouTube goes the way of MySpace? There is always a disruptor for the disruptors. How about when everything goes behind the walls of private apps that cannot be crawled to look for infringement? How about apps like Snapchat where there are almost a billion messages a day and everything vanishes within 24 hours?

            We need a different approach.

          • Anonymous

            “There is technology out there right now that makes permission easier than infringement and it is better than ContentID. It just isn’t in place yet….yet. You’ll likely see it within the next 6 months”

            That sounds pretty optimistic, but I’m open to all kinds of solutions and I’d like to hear more if and when reliable information becomes available.

            “The problem with ContentID besides what I’ve already stated is that it is a proprietary solution that works for one company and it only identifies certain content.”

            I obviously didn’t mean that Google’s own ContentID could be used outside of Google, but systems like it — preferably on ISP level — are the only solution to mainstream piracy. There’s no way you can stop user generated content from infringing at the point of creation; how would you do that? And why?

            “ContentID current scans 400 years of video a day. This is a system that inherently cannot continue to scale to feed the need of citizen creators or rights owners.”

            I don’t agree. Technical possibilities scale at the same rate as the challenges, and YouTube makes $3-4bn/year so it can easily afford to keep systems like ContentID up to date.

          • agraham999

            http://www.oneclicklicense.org

            It works because it is a licensing engine that allows users to automatically gain access to copyright works at the point of creation, just as they do it today, only it makes it 100% legal and ensures rights holders get paid for their work. When you eventually see it in action you’ll think…hmmm…why hasn’t anyone ever thought of this idea before?

            The answer is because people got caught up in Safe Harbor and DMCA and YouTube and were blinded by making anything work as fast as that could happen because any solution was better than hemorrhaging more money and fighting over rights. In order to fix the problem you have to take a step back with a fresh approach. It also helps that we have had some advancements in technology and behavior in the past 2-3 years that make this possible. It works better than DMCA and ContentID because it doesn’t require scanning of infringing works…it already blessed the work at the point of creation.

            Read the quotes on the page…these are highly respected people when it comes to music…they’ve seen it and support it.

          • Anonymous

            I am not sure you understand what it would take for ISPs to implement ContentID like services. This would not be a trivial task. It would require massive infrastructure changes and cause massive contention with their customers, likely resulting in costly class actions.

            No ISP would do so willingly except for maybe Comcast as they would benefit directly from it. Small ISPs wouldn’t be able to afford it.

          • Anonymous

            “what it would take for ISPs to implement ContentID like services. This would not be a trivial task. It would require massive infrastructure changes”

            Well, that’s not a problem.

            “No ISP would do so willingly”

            That’s not a problem, either — that’s what we have laws and legislation for.

            “Small ISPs wouldn’t be able to afford it.”

            They’ll just disappear — again, not a problem at all.

          • Anonymous

            Your ignorance is showing. Firstly, Verizon & At&t have far more influence over the laws and regulations made in this country than the entire entertainment industry combined. No laws currently force them to implement content regulation technologies and no law will be passed that does unless they get something out of it. Not to mention they would have consumers (AKA voters) backing them along with tech giants like Google.

            Secondly, ISPs disappearing would be a BIG problem. Most small ISPs are the sole ISP in their area. If they die, their users lose access to the internet. Suddenly people’s lives become significantly impacted. People’s jobs and education depend heavily on the internet. Their ability to communicate gets impacted. Loss of internet access would lower property values, force small businesses to move or close. E-commerce and local economies both get affected negatively. There are some ISPs with over a million customers just scrapping by who could face serious difficulties if they have to spend tens of millions rebuilding their infrastructure and face increased operating expenses and lawsuits. The loss of a single one of those ISPs would be devastating to an entire state’s economy.

            You really have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Anonymous

            “No laws currently force them to implement content regulation technologies”

            Currently being the operative word…

            “ISPs disappearing would be a BIG problem”

            Not at all, they’ll just adapt or disappear.

          • Anonymous

            I agree content ID is great. But it’s great if we’re working on the basis that Youtube give it to everyone when they definitely don’t.

          • Anonymous

            sorry, ignore that. I was answering the top post without reading the replies

    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      Yes, I am well aware of those, which is why I had to be a little cautious in my language. By the way, Grooveshark argued that their infringing days ended in 2008, which is interesting because yes, there are dirty skeletons in the YouTube/Google closet.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        I don’t think they was ever any evidence that YouTube employees actually uploaded copyrighted content to YouTube. In the Viacom case is there was evidence that Viacom was uploading copyright to make it look like bootleg stuff.

        Reply
        • agraham999

          You don’t have to be the person who directly commits a crime to be complicit in a crime. If you enable something to occur…you are just as guilty. Here are some bits from YouTube/Viacom case:

          “co-founder Steve Chen stated “we got a complaint from someone that we were violating their user agreement. i *think* it may be because we’re hosting copyrighted content. instead of taking it down – i’m not about to take down content because our ISP is giving us shit – we should just investigate moving http://www.youtube.com


          co-founders Chad Hurley stated: “So, a way to avoid the copyright bastards might be to remove the ‘No copyrighted or obscene material’ lìne and let the users moderate the videos themselves. legally, this wì1 probably be better for us, as we’ll make the case we can review all videos and tell them if they’re concerned they have the tools to do it themselves.”
          —-

          co-founders Steve Chen and Jawed Karim titled “budlight commercials,” stating “we need to reject these Hohengarten too” Steve Chen responded by asking to “leave these in a bit longer? another week or two can’t hurt;” Jawed Karim subsequently stated that he “added back all 28 bud videos. stupid…,” and Steve Chen replied: “okay first, regardless of the video they upload, people are going to be telling people about the site, therefore making it viraL. they’re going to drive traffic. second, it adds more content to the site. third, we’re going to be adding advertisements in the future so this gets them used to it. I’m asking for a couple more weeks.”
          —-
          “co-founder Jawed Karim reported that he had found a “copyright video” and stated: “Ordinarily I’d say reject it, but I agree with Steve, let’s ease up on our strict policies for now. So let’s just leave copyrighted stuff there if it’ s news clips
          —-
          “YouTube co-founder Steve Chen wrote to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim, “steal it!”, and Chad Hurley responded: “hmm, steal the movies?” Steve Chen replìed: “we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. how much traffic will we get from personal videos? remember, the only reason why our traffic surged was due to a video of this type…. viral videos will tend to be THOSE type of videos.””

          http://www.fastcompany.com/1588353/steal-it-and-other-internal-youtube-emails-viacoms-copyright-suit

          Reply
        • Anonymous

          “I don’t think they was ever any evidence that YouTube employees actually uploaded copyrighted content to YouTube”

          Nonsense.

          “YouTube executives were aware early on in the video-sharing website’s history that large numbers of copyrighted videos were being uploaded to it, with even one of its founders “blatantly stealing” videos from other sources, according to internal evidence unsealed by a US court on Thursday.

          […]

          In one potentially damaging e-mail from July 19 2005, shortly after the site’s launch, Steve Chen, YouTube co-founder, wrote to fellow co-founders Jawed Karim and Chad Hurley: “Jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site.”

          Mr Chen’s e-mail continued: “We’re going to have a tough time defending the fact that we’re not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn’t put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it.”

          In another e-mail on September 3 2005, Mr Hurley wrote to the co-founders: “Aaahhh, the site is starting to get out of control with copyrighted material.””

          SOURCE: Financial Times, March 19, 2010 (I’ll post the link in a comment below; it may take some time before it shows up.)

          Reply
    • Chula.ivi.yjvH.i

      Grow up!
      Get a job and pay for shit.
      You are not in a garage anymore
      Or in the basement.
      When Parker did his stuff he was young.
      You are grown.

      Reply
  2. David

    The article seems to confuse YouTube and Google Search. So far as I know, YouTube does not receive countless DMCA notices against the same uploader without taking action against them. (Unlike Google Search with MP3Skull, etc.)

    An important difference between YouTube (even in its original form) and Grooveshark is in the way infringing content is displayed. As emerged in court documents against Grooveshark (not in the UMG case) Grooveshark only used one ‘primary’ copy of each track as the basis for streaming. An unknown number of secondary copies would be held in reserve, hidden from copyright owners, so that when the primary copy was removed in response to a DMCA notice, a secondary copy could quickly be promoted to the primary role. I don’t think there was anything like this in YouTube. If you search for a particular item on YouTube, all current uploads of that item will be shown in search results, so that the copyright owner can identify them and target them all for DMCA action.

    Not that I want to whitewash YouTube, but I don’t think they have ever been as blatantly dedicated to infringement as Grooveshark. Another difference, of course, is that unlike Grooveshark YouTube does contain a substantial proportion of genuine user-generated content.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      “So far as I know, YouTube does not receive countless DMCA notices against the same uploader without taking action against them”

      That is correct: Repeated infringers are banned from YouTube — but allowed on Google.

      This two-headed Googleplex monster has been a mystery to content providers for years, but the law-abiding YouTube finally seems to be defeated by its evil Google twin now (please see my comment regarding ContentID above).

      “Not that I want to whitewash YouTube, but I don’t think they have ever been as blatantly dedicated to infringement as Grooveshark”

      Prior to ContentID, YouTube was an ordinary piracy site (it didn’t respect take-down notices). Then the Viacom case forced Google to invent ContentID, and all was well for years — but Google now seems to make the function unavailable for YouTube Music Key, unless content owners sign Google’s new contract.

      So YouTube will be back at square one — and back in court.

      Reply
      • Paul Resnikoff
        Paul Resnikoff

        but Google now seems to make the function unavailable for YouTube Music Key, unless content owners sign Google’s new contract.

        Did I miss something here?

        Reply
          • Anonymous

            ContentID is only available if you have a business relationship with YouTube (i.e. you can monetize your YouTube channel(s)).

            YouTube seems to terminate business relationships with all Indies that don’t sign Google’s new contract. No contract, no ContentID.

            But as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, ContentID is already restricted today:

            You not only need a business relationship with YouTube to use the function, you also need to “own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community“.

            If you don’t, then it’s back to playing whack-a-mole (and good luck with that).

            So you could argue — in court, too — that unlicensed content (created by artists without access to ContentID and uploaded without permission by YouTube users) can be considered willful infringement today: Google does have the means (ContentID) to prevent piracy; it just won’t use them.

    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      The article seems to confuse YouTube and Google Search.

      Well, not so much confuse as purposely conflate. But yes, agreed that there are quite a few differences; I’m arguing (at least on a top level) that the basic exploitations or the law are similar. But yes, accounts get banned on YouTube in a way that sites don’t get banned on Google. They are different, but related, animals.

      Reply
  3. Anonymous

    “the window for an ‘audio YouTube’ may be long gone”

    YouTube Music Key is going to be an ‘audio YouTube’ and a ‘video YouTube’ (you can disable video).

    “the future of streaming doesn’t belong to those that blatantly violate the law to draw massive audiences”

    No, it belongs to an industry-owned music service. Why pay YouTube, iTunes and Spotify billions of dollars?

    We need to launch a free, non-censored, high-quality, ad-financed, artist-friendly, better-paying YouTube alternative — owned and operated by the industry — and use that service exclusively. All revenues straight back to the artists!

    Exclusive releases have proved to be a huge success for Netflix.

    Now it’s our turn.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      If you want to talk about Netflix being successful, you have to talk about the whole picture. Netflix is highly successful because they pay content creators far less than 70% of their revenues. Not only because of exclusives. In fact nearly all their content can be bought in the form of downloads and a lot of their content can be found on competing streaming services like Amazon and Hulu.

      Reply
  4. jw

    I was going to point out the Youtube vs Viacom e-mails.

    >> In a July 19, 2005 email to YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and
    >> Jawed Karim, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen wrote: “jawed,
    >> please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We’re going to have
    >> a tough time defending the fact that we’re not liable for the
    >> copyrighted material on the site because we didn’t put it up when
    >> one of the co-founders is blatantly stealìng content from other
    >> sites and trying to get everyone to see it.”

    Granted, Grooveshark was much more blatant about it, and for much, much longer. But it’s disingenuous to suggest that YouTube wasn’t both uploading copyrighted material themselves, & also purposefully maximizing the length of time user-uploaded copyright material stayed on the site.

    Also, you’re going to have to be more specific about Spotify’s “slimy, artist-screwing practices.” I really don’t think you can back that up. Any artist can have his or her or their music removed from Spotify unless they’ve signed their rights away to a label, in which case they unfortunately have no say in the matter, & neither does Spotify. If a label wants music on the service, they can’t reasonably reject the recordings without cause. It seems clear that you’re using Spotify as a scapegoat for shady record label accounting, which is itself a pretty slimy journalism practice.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      Hmm but the tone of that e-mail implies that he is scolding him instead of encouraging him isn’t it?

      Reply
      • jw

        Chad was scolding everybody, but he was apparently the minority of the 3 founders.

        >> In response to YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley’s August 9,
        >> 2005 email, YouTube co-founder Steve Chen stated: “but we
        >> should just keep that stuff on the site. I really don’t see what
        >> will happen. what? someone from cnn sees it? he happens to
        >> be someone with power? he happens to want to take it down
        >> right away. he get in touch with cnn legaL. 2 weeks later, we
        >> get a cease & desist letter. we take the video down”; Chad
        >> Hurley replied: I just don’t want to create a bad vibe… and
        >> perhaps give the users or the press something bad to write
        >> about.”

        Reply
  5. Versus

    “Because the future of streaming doesn’t belong to those that blatantly violate the law to draw massive audiences. It belongs to those that smartly exploit the law instead, and somehow make piracy legal in the process.”

    Following the letter of the law and violating its spirit is still wrong, especially if it makes “piracy legal in the process”.

    Reply
  6. Versus

    “as stupid as the DMCA is”…

    Why is the DMCA stupid? It’s better than nothing, no?
    Of course, I would say it’s not stupid but just weak. It has no teeth, so it can’t properly defend against the Sharks out there.

    And remember: Sharks are the psychos of the ocean.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *