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
post Dec 13 2012, 18:17
Post #1

Group: Members
Posts: 1217
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

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: 27th November 2015 - 08:09