Grooveshark attorneys are now exerting heavy legal pressure on Digital Music News, with the goal of outing a very problematic whistleblower. Just this weekend, our offices received a mountain of subpoena paperwork from Grooveshark attorneys McPherson Rane LLC, a Los Angeles-based firm headed by celebrity lawyer Ed McPherson. The aggressive and broad-reaching subpoena is designed to force the disclosure of the identity of the anonymous whistleblower, and gain access to any and all correspondence between Digital Music News, Grooveshark employees and plaintiff Universal Music Group.
The whistleblower, who surfaced as an anonymous commenter in this Digital Music News article late last year, could potentially bury Grooveshark and its parent, Escape Media Group. The comment, itself buried in more than 100 responses, prompted a massive lawsuit from Universal Music Group, and the eventual participation of Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group. EMI Music will soon be roped by acquisition, while EMI Music Publishing has filed a separate action. The Universal lawsuit, currently being heard in New York State Supreme Court, alleges that Grooveshark employees are instructed to upload copyrighted recordings into the application, thereby nullifying any protections afforded by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The far-reaching subpoena from Grooveshark is probably based on the assumption that Digital Music News is small enough to be intimidated, legally or otherwise. That could prove a drastic miscalculation, especially considering a wide body of legal protections and precedents that protect journalists and their whistleblower sources, not to mention a determination by this publication to protect all informants. The subpoena action may also stir additional information from unfriendly sources, which could be entered into the case and prove incredibly damaging to Grooveshark's defense effort.
Separately, we're also awaiting potential legal demands from litigant Universal Music Group. The major is certainly throwing its legal weight around, with a long-running 'legal jihad' against Grooveshark. But its latest case seems a bit flimsy, especially given the anonymous and unsubstantiated identity of the whistleblower in question. Which may be a prelude to another legal chapter in this case.
Specifically, the Grooveshark subpoena demands the following information (transcribed verbatim from the subpoena itself).
(1) Any and all correspondence or other communications between DMN and UMG concerning Escape, Grooveshark or the Article.
(2) Any and all documents concerning the correspondence or other communications described in the immediately preceding request.
(3) Any and all documents concerning the identity of the First Anonymous Commenter, including, without limitation, that person's name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, and the IP Address and ISP associated with that person, as well as any other information that would assist Escape in ascertaining the identity of that person and/or the geographic location from which that person transmitted to DMN the written comments described in Definition G, above.
(4) Any and all documents concerning the identity of the Second Anonymous Commenter (to the extent that person is, or may be, someone different than the First Anonymous Commenter), including, without limitation, that person's name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, and the IP address and ISP association with that person, as well as any other information that would assist Escape in ascertaining the identity of that person and/or the geographic location from which that person transmitted to DMN the written comments described in Definition H, above.
The complete subpoena document is here.
And, this is the comment that's caused such a fuss.
Comments Closed
Vail, CO Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb move Grooveshark.
anon Thursday, January 19, 2012
All you "content rights owners" need to wake the FUCK up! Grooveshark is NOT the enemy, they are your CASH COW!
None of you bigwigs have a freaking clue, look at all of them trying to shove SOPA down our throat. LEARN TO ADAPT WITH TECHNOLOGY.
Take a look at Pandora, Spotify, even Youtube. These are services that ADAPTED sensibly to provide a legal service where everyone is happy.
And guess what....every one of the services above were ONCE ILLEGAL. But some smart entrepenuers SAW the potential and swooped it up.
You retards in the record industry need to get a fucking clue! Approach Grooveshark with open arms and buy them out...or work something out! I guarantee Grooveshark would be chomping at the bits to setup a subscription service.
Grooveshark = no need for expensive production, free advertisements, a monthly income in a form of subscriptions no matter what kind of GARBAGE music you spew....the list can go on.
Sharks can't fly Thursday, January 19, 2012
New meaning for "cash cow", ladies and gentlemen:
cash cow = a company that pays you nothing
Thanks for the tip, can't wait to invest in Grooveshark once they share their internal data with the public. Challenge accepted?
In the business Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Really? So, Digital Music News believes that Grooveshark does not have the right to face it's accuser/whistle blower? You are willing to hide behind the "Journalist" curtain? I call bullshit on Digital Music News.
There is "case" law that will determin if this is a Whistle Blower situation and if Digital Music News has any foundation to hide by hide the "Journalist" curtan.
I am not a fan of Grooveshark. Nor am I of Digital Music news is half the shit you report is a joke and the other half is Bublegum Writing.
I am a fan of the Consitution and Business Law. Journalist are to quick to run to their " Don't ask me because my source is a whistle blower" defense.
I'm a bet'n man and I lay down Big Chips that You will comply and you will be forced to turn over the "evidence" accusing Grooveshark of "Wrong Doing".
Now, allow me to get back to making HOUSE MUSIC and gearing up for IBIZA 2012. The rest of this shit is Non-sense.
Idaho87 Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Uh, the answer is Y-E-S. This is the cornerstone of freedom of the press and open society.
wow Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Are you actually serious or was that post a joke?
Haha Wednesday, January 18, 2012
That person makes House music. They're obviously a joke.
KnowYourMarket! Thursday, January 19, 2012
House Music is not a Joke buddy. It' makes a lot of money and it's mainstream now. Oh wait...as if you haven't noticed by now.
PR 101 Thursday, January 19, 2012
Well, if he is a well known House artist and he wants to support Grooveshark, why does he make posts anonymously? It would really help Grooveshark if some artists spoke publicly for the company...
Visitor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I think they should be able to protect their commentors. But there is no way in hell an "anonymous" comment on a blog should be allowed as evidence for anything. UMG should probably get penalizied for that.
Lolz Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Oh boy Thursday, January 19, 2012
Journalists can't work with whistleblowers, because it is against Grooveshark's financial interests? Good luck telling that in court.
Visitor Friday, January 20, 2012
Digital music news IS standing by it's statements of privacy. They said that the commentor would remain anonymous, and they are fighting hard to be of their word.
lost john Friday, January 20, 2012
agreed. it's a flimsy lawsuit if the sole evidence of wrongdoing is "i read it on the internet"
Visitor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I think they should be able to protect their commentors. But there is no way in hell an "anonymous" comment on a blog should be allowed as evidence for anything. UMG should probably get penalizied for that.
Nope. Thursday, January 19, 2012
Please don't pretend to be a lawyer on the internets.
f the anonymous comment is similar to the contents of various Grooveshark internal emails, then UMG has the right to use it. It is not the only thing making their case, anyway. Grooveshark failed to respect numerous DMCA notices, remember?
Aspen, CO Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Pretty Sure this is the eventual outcome of DMN's journalist claim:
Chicago Judge Says CA Blogger not a Journalist
Still, agreed, this could be really dumb on Grooveshark's part. I mean, what if it turns out that the annoymous poster was telling the truth, or even just partially telling the truth. There seems to be a lot of disgruntled current or maybe ex-grooveshark employees making comments on this blog. Or maybe there is just a bunch of people pretending.
Interesting situation Tuesday, January 17, 2012
So:
Grooveshark opposes SOPA, because, as most of the United States tech industry claims, "it will harm free speech on the internet".
And at the same time, taking advantage of already existing legislation, Grooveshark demands to find out and publicly expose the identity of a whistleblower. The identity of a person who dared to exercised his/her right to free speech on the internet.
I wonder what the tech industry has to say about this. Could someone send the link for this thead to Hacker News, please?
I want to know what "free speech" really means for the tech companies. "Speak your mind freely"? Or "speak your mind freely as long as you don't mess with our business/interests"?
wow! Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Funny how that link doesn't even have a title anymore, they just killed your post and left in there in a hurry.
expected Wednesday, January 18, 2012
They support Grooveshark over at Hacker News, that's how far their IQ can reach:
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Grooveshark
Visitor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The comments of this poster are the basis of major lawsuits against Grooveshark. Grooveshark needs the identity of this person in order to prove that the allegations levied against it as a company are false. Free speech does have consequences. You cannot slander or libel someone without consequences. What if the poster of that comment turns out to be a plant and originates from a UMG IP address? How can you not understand that Grooveshark is within their rights here?
that's double standards Wednesday, January 18, 2012
See, if someone takes your post and replaces "Grooveshark" with "DoD" or "Pentagon", we are then talking about Wikileaks. What if the operation of Wikileaks originates from a government ip address in Russia? Or China? Hey, let's reveal the identity of all Wikileaks activists, just to make sure that they are not FSB operatives. Sounds stupid to me. And really undemocratic. I would go as far as to call it fascist.
anon Thursday, January 19, 2012
ur 'tarded son. slander and government whistleblowing are completely different things.
Logic: not found Thursday, January 19, 2012
Grooveshark employees don't have the right to be whistleblowers because Grooveshark is not bombing Iraqi schools?
anon Thursday, January 19, 2012
All you "content rights owners" need to wake the FUCK up! Grooveshark is NOT the enemy, they are your CASH COW!
None of you bigwigs have a freaking clue, look at all of them trying to shove SOPA down our throught. LEARN TO ADAPT WITH TECHNOLOGY.
Take a look at Pandora, Spotify, even Youtube. These are services that ADAPTED sensibly to provide a legal service where everyone is happy.
And guess what....every one of the services above were ONCE ILLEGAL. But some smart entrepenuers SAW the potential and swooped it up.
You retards in the record industry need to get a fucking clue! Approach Grooveshark with open arms and buy them out...or work something out! I guarantee Grooveshark would be chomping at the bits to setup a subscription service.
Grooveshark = no need for expensive production, free advertisements, a monthly income in a form of subscriptions no matter what kind of GARBAGE music you spew....the list can go on.
Angry man... Thursday, January 19, 2012
You must be very very pissed off at this whistleblower...
And Friday, January 20, 2012
You must be very pissed off that your comment is worthless...
Angry man... Friday, January 20, 2012
No, I actually enjoy defending whistleblowers. They do good to our society. Companies can't be trusted to share the truth with us.
D.V. Tuesday, January 17, 2012
It would be very very funny, entertaining and educative at the same time, if the Grooveshark employee in questiond used a proxy to make that post.
Because, well, then what, Grooveshark boys and girls?
Would you go after let's say a Tor server admin from California and try to force them to cooperate with you?
What if it is a proxy site based in the EU? Or Russia? Would you ask for the admin to be extradicted to the US?
You don't give a shit about free speech. We all know that. You just went ahead and proved it to the general public!
Lawyer guy Wednesday, January 18, 2012
If you're right and that's how the post was made then Grooveshark wins. If the "whistleblower" is merely repeating something he/she heard or was told to say, it's hearsay and inadmissible (other than in limited circumstances, a witness cannot testify to what someone else told them).
If this evidence is not competent then Grooveshark could get the case tossed out before further discovery - thus even if the statement is true, no one will know because the plaintiffs won't get a chance to prove it. Not only are they aware of the possibility you're suggesting, they're hoping for it.
"Wins"?! Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Grooveshark wins by revealing the identity of a person who exercised his/her right to free speech?
If Grooveshark wins by attacking free speech, who loses?
Let's see if you dare to come up with a reasonable answer to this.
Visitor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
How do you know this person is indeed a whistleblower and not a former employee with an axe to grind making the accusation up? This is the basis of the subpeona.
that's creepy Wednesday, January 18, 2012
So, former employees of Grooveshark don't have the right to free speech online? Interesting.
Could you please remind us all why Brandley E. Manning is accused of by the US government?
Calling Anonymous... Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Information wants to be free. I want to see all Grooveshark internal documents, memos, financial details e.t.c. in an neat torrent on Pirate Bay. Come on, Anonymous. A company is trying to hunt down a whistleblower. Do your thing.
B. Blaze Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Yup. Grooveshark + lawyers prolly gonna get their entire site ripped down over this.
12212012X Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Seems the current fad for most social startups, allow questionable media content so as to paste ads around or charge a membership fee. Meanwhile, the Googles, Facebook, Groovesharks dance around venture capital firms or go public with only a hand slap while billions are looted from the creators.
Even the government does not get it, yet most artist voted for these career freeloaders.
One thing is clear, the yellow brick road leads to nowhere and you'll never find your way back to Kansas.
Courage, brains, heart?.
@madktc Tuesday, January 17, 2012
I'm very curious given the recent Crystal Cox vs. Kevin Padrick case if DMN has protection here.
FWIW: Paul I think you're a respected and informative source to the music industry.
MisterSoftee Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Grooveshark: you are proving to everyone you are lying scumbags and thiefs. Thanks for stealing from every artist and screwing over every label and publisher you deal with. Just wait cuz paybacks gonna be a real bitch.
@KeyMediaPR Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Things are upside down so much around intellectual property, music & the internet.
jamie Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Really fascinating.
Martijn Tjho Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Insane
Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop- Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Soooo,
Lemme see if I have this right Grooveshark...speech (copyrighted or otherwise) should be free (unless it damages your business interests).
Jason Miles Wednesday, January 18, 2012
It always seems to be one thing or another with Grooveshark. I can't see how they have abright future with everybody constantly after them with one lawsuit after another. All this action would not make me feel good if I was an investor
Have they turned a profit yet?
@steffenkelle Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ridiculous.
@ronaldkunenborg Wednesday, January 18, 2012
eh, there goes my music.
Peter W Wednesday, January 18, 2012
So, basically Grooveshark is following what the government did against Wikileaks and soldier B.M.
Why am I not surprised.
dhenn Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Stay strong Paul! Screw those guys!
mdti Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Where are the "business records" that have been produced ?
Taylor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
you're nobody till somebody sues you. keep it up paul.
Tonight Only Wednesday, January 18, 2012
"You're nobody till somebody... sues you...?"
Call EFF! Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Hey Paul, you should ask for EFF's support on this. They are devoted in protecting free speech online. I am sure they will offer you help and support.
Visitor Wednesday, January 18, 2012
LOL
The idealogies of Grooveshark and the EFF go hand in hand.
Call EFF! Wednesday, January 18, 2012
If EFF cares about free speech, they have to fight agaist Grooveshark. How could they deny help to Paul/Digital Music News?
Not at all like Wikileaks... Thursday, January 19, 2012
Because free speech law sdoesn't protect against libel.
Grooveshark aren't trying to hunt down a commenter and have them arrested (not only do they have no power to do that, but an IP wouldn't be grounds enough for it), they're trying to defend themselves against a comment that was used against them in court.
Libellula Thursday, January 19, 2012
The things Grooveshark people told each other via e-mail are far worse than what the whistleblower posted on DMN. I guess you haven't read the Grooveshark e-mails yet? Can't be that hard to use Google Search.
Oh, Friday, January 20, 2012
I read them. Please explain what was so terrible that it was worse than a governmental coverup.
Shallow enough? Friday, January 20, 2012
So, whistleblowers can only talk about the government? That's the kind of society you want? Companies' coverups to be left in the dark for ever?
James Wednesday, January 18, 2012
LOL indeed. Paul, you should contact the EFF just for the irony
bastards Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Grooveshark has the time and money to hunt down anonymous posters on blogs, but they don't have the time and money to handle DMCA notices.
Me & Stuff Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I doubt DMN can successfully quash this subpoena. It is very important to note that the individual at issue was not an employee of DMN, or the writer of the blog post to which the comment was posted. Rather, this guy is just a random person commenting on a blog post on the internet.
Even if DMN engages in journalism (and I think it does), this guy could never been construted as a journalist or informant. He didn't contact a staff writer at DMN and inform them of anything confidentially, which then resulted in a published piece of journalism. To the contrary, he publically, and without any expectation of confidentiality, commented on a piece of journalism with information that, unless true, constitutes serious lible/slander and intefereance with Groovesharks business relationships. Such is actionable.
If DMNs positon with regard to the subpoena is legitimate, than any person could freely libel/slander any one or thing - potentially doing serious harm to a totally innocent business - by speaking as a random commenter in well known trade blogs relevant to that industry or person, then hiding behind a claim they were somehow a "confidential informant" simply because they chose not to substantiate their claim with any evidence or identify themselves. Such would evicerate the protections our laws afford us regarding slander and libel. An absurd result.
HOWEVER, posting this article and purporting to stand by those that leak newsworth information or particularly salacious info clearly serves DMN's business interests - it encourages the conduct which, of course, results in more hits, more reads, more press, more PR for DMN and ultimately, more income. I'd probably make the same business decision. For DMN, this is one worth fighting and loosing. If it wins (long shot) then it's all upside. If it looses, it still got a lot of upside and goodwill on its hands. i don't view this article as much more complicated than that.
this is pathetic Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Take your post, replace DMN with Wikileaks and read it again. Then go tell Julian Assange he is wrong and should be brought to the US as a prisoner.
Uh, except for that fact that Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wikileaks spent countless resources verifying the truthfulness and veracity of the documents it received. Also, Wikileaks were never coerced into producing Bradley Manning's identity--he was named by another informant. Also, there's no way providing an IP address would identify the person individually.
Therefore, you're an idiot.
last year... Thursday, January 19, 2012
Got some...breaking news for you: The Pentagon got the ip addresses of all Whikileaks supporters on Twitter, Gmail e.t.c.
. Friday, January 20, 2012
Provide proof.
it's right there... Friday, January 20, 2012
Here you go:
http://www.google.com
another development Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Grooveshark lies that GEMA asked them for money:
And GEMA just announced that...Grooveshark never contacted them!
GEMA? Wednesday, January 18, 2012
GEMA's a bunch of crooks. You're comment is sarcastic, right?
Michael Wednesday, January 18, 2012
GEMA pays me on time, every single year for the last ten years. So, I expect you to bring some evidence to support that "they are a bunch of crooks". Looking forward to your input!
GEMA? Wednesday, January 18, 2012
For one thing, GEMA says Grooveshark has never contacted them, yet I'm threads between GEMA and Grooveshark. Ohs nose!
Michael Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that GEMA is "crooks".
GEMA! Friday, January 20, 2012
http://www.musiker-online.de/Newsdetails.newsdetails.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=267
Michael Friday, January 20, 2012
I challenge you to provide evindence that GEMA is "crooks" and all you can give is a lousy copy-paste excuse of a blog post that doesn't even have the correct names for the supposed story?
Must be hard for you.
mdti Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I don't understand that the subpoena mention a publication of "business records"...
does it mean the comment is actually a business record ??
interesting ;-)
ex@Grooveshark-employee Wednesday, January 18, 2012
I resigned from Grooveshark some time ago. The day I told them I was not comfortable working there any longer, the top guys made some really awful threats against me. I really hope Anonymous pays them a "visit".
BaconBits Thursday, January 19, 2012
What kind of threats are we talking about here?
Pissed at the authorities righ Thursday, January 19, 2012
Dear FBI Florida, please quit sticking magnetic GPS devices on cars of Middle East uni students and do some actual work to justify our tax money. It can't be that hard to have a look at Grooveshark. No?
I could say I'm Paul Resnikoff Thursday, January 19, 2012
I could say the same thing about working for Digital Music News if I wanted... There is no name verification on DMN and they don't even ask for an email. So ex@Grooveshark-employee, would you care to prove that you work at Grooveshark as you say you do? Or would anyone making comments on this blog like to verify who they are?
Obey! Friday, January 20, 2012
Would you like us to upload a scan of a government issued document (driver's license, passport, etc)? Or do we have to send a notary-stamped copy to Grooveshark's headquarters, just to exercise our right to free speech online?
George Thursday, January 19, 2012
What if the commentor claiming to be an "employee" was working under a non-disclosure agreement when the comment was made?
Free Speech. Thursday, January 19, 2012
Well, that's why we call them "whistleblowers". They need to protect their identities...
By the way, in case you are wondering: No, NDAs can't protect companies from the concequences of breaking the law. Otherwise the cartels and the gangs would be signing NDAs all day long...
Random Anon Thursday, January 19, 2012
I find it really funny these calls for Anonymous in the qouted comment of the article and the comments of this article.
Just FYI? Not your personal army, dngaf about this. Srsly, u think Anons are gonna target a company like grooveshark for badmouthing and disrepect to big music corporations? Really? Are u that stupid? Remember OpPayback before moralfags took it to wikileaks or are u just bandwagonfags since optunisia?
Bet u dollars to donuts an hour in the hive and Grooveshark will have its own Anon army. Just saying, history speaking? Siding with those who raep big music corps is sorta the thing.
DMN-
Information is free but whistleblowers (aka irlanons) should protect themselves. And aint got no probs with u protecting them. again, wdgaf.
Commentors-
If U want something done on this in an "Anonymous" theme, gtf off ur butt and do something about it. Don't baw for others to come fix ur problems, got better shit to do than be ur personal army, and if it aint important enough for u to mobilze? Aint important enough for us to back it.
Be ur own whiteknight.
protip; learn wtf vpns are if ur gonna keep callin for Anon, srsly some of u are just asking for raep.
Warren Friday, January 20, 2012
PRO-TIP: Hackers don't write like 14 year old virgin boys on MSN. And they don't use VPNs to post on music tech blogs. Because the FBI already has 4 out of 5 hackers working for them. They won't find that fifth one trolling on DMN.
Musician Thursday, January 19, 2012
I thought the anonymous post from the supposed "Grooveshark employee" had the ring of truth, didn't you?
I applaud Paul Resnikoff and Digital Music News for publishing the post and refusing to comply with the sub-poena. However, if the person *is* identified by some means, it would help clear up some of the misinformation flying around about this case.
Personally I think Grooveshark are thoroughly dishonest and unethical, but that's just my opinion.
@sandystarr0 Thursday, January 19, 2012
The situation described here and at the New York Times shows what assholes Grooveshark are.
Rona Thursday, January 19, 2012
Except that this was a press release coordinated by UMG. Just like everything else on this website, there's nothing to corroborate what I say, but it's the absolute truth. The truth is that Grooveshark's failed up to this point to prove why 'old school' labels should instantly become business savvy and choose a competitive market over a monopolistic one and investing in a company other than Spotify (which is another failure based on assumedly unsustainalbe deals in the long term). The billion dollar media corporations are out to send Grooveshark to their grave. It's sad really. Our industry's so effed up at the moment. The only take away I get comfort in is that the major labels as we currently see them lose more power every year.
Musician Friday, January 20, 2012
>The billion dollar media corporations are out to send Grooveshark to their grave.
Yes - not an edifying spectacle on the face of it, but it will help many small companies and artists whose recordings Grooveshark are ripping off daily.
>The only take away I get comfort in is that the major labels as we currently see them lose more power every year.
Can't be bad. Major labels have got away with ripping off artists for too long. Moral in all this: act ethically and pay bands a fair share (unlike Spotify).
Red Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Wow, reading this is confirming every thought I've had as I've tried to get my music taken down from Grooveshark. They've pretty much made it impossible for me to do so, to the point where i've sent them dozens of letters, dmca notices etc. and my music is still there, and I basically give up. It makes total sense that they see artists as the enemy. That's exactly how they've treated me for trying to get my music removed from their shady little site.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us