IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

Grooveshark lawsuit, Split from: "Victor's plan to turn CDs into high resolution&q
hlloyge
post Dec 13 2012, 13:58
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 695
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



My daughter (18) and a lot of her friends listen to music on Youtube, very few of them download albums or songs from pirate sites, even though they can and are able to do that. The reason is simple - a simple google-like search gives them song they want. They even don't use sites like Grooveshark, where the quality of some music uploads is better.
And they really don't care about 24 bits, 96 kHz, analog-digital sound wars. They just want to listen to music they like.

Face it, old folks, new generations don't really care about these "improvements" - they are used to laptop speakers and cheap earbuds.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
mzil
post Dec 13 2012, 18:17
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 497
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



QUOTE (hlloyge @ Dec 13 2012, 08:58) *
My daughter (18) and a lot of her friends listen to music on Youtube, very few of them download albums or songs from pirate sites, even though they can and are able to do that. The reason is simple - a simple google-like search gives them song they want. They even don't use sites like G**********, where the quality of some music uploads is better.


Considering this company, I've never even heard of 'til now, has been sued according to wikipedia's entry on them:

"... has been sued for copyright infringement by all the major music companies, and the suits were active in January 2012. The major companies are EMI Music Publishing, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group.[3] Concerns about copyright usage have prompted Google, Apple and Facebook to remove G**********'s applications from Google Play, the App Store (iOS) and Facebook platform respectively"

I need clarification as to how the previous mention of another site earlier in the thread was deemed a violation of TOS #9, banning a member for two days, yet this isn't.

I've never downloaded anything illegally, in fact I've never even heard of any of these companies, I have to look them up each time they get mentioned, but if simply mentioning "they exist" is a violation of TOS #9, then the rule should be applied uniformly. IMO, I also think that TOS #9 is poorly worded if simply mentioning they exist, yet not advocating their use, is considered objectionable. That's not how I read it at least.

I am simply asking for clarification; I am not in any way opposing the rule itself.

This post has been edited by mzil: Dec 13 2012, 18:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 13 2012, 18:50
Post #3





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Do not mention entities (sites, groups, hubs, trackers, etc.) by name that are typically used to distribute unauthorized copyrighted material. I don't know that I should be saying this, but this site has actually lost revenue as a result of some of you twits breaking TOS #9. Mentioning youtube and google is not going to get you into trouble; however, using them in a way as to answer how one could distribute unauthorized copyrighted material is another story since that demonstrates a clear intention to violate the rule. Mentioning software like bittorrent may or may not get you into trouble depending on the context.

It was brought to my attention that the entity (NOT Grooveshark!) I censored no longer exists. Unfortunately, the post I censored also no longer exists because of a bone-headed error on my part to clean up ths off-topic mess. To the entity no longer existing I answer: tough shit, you should have said so in the first place. Had it been clear that the entity is either long gone or is no longer facilitating illegal activity (like Napster) and you're only mentioning them because of historical significance then that's probably not going to ruffle any feathers. Furthermore, don't expect moderators to reaearch these entities to determine whether they are legal or not; or whether they still exist.

If you think mentioning something might violate the rule but aren't sure, my advice is to keep it to yourself.

Also, do not expect instant moderation. We do this free and at-will. Not every post is caught.

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 14 2012, 07:53


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 17:49