Grooveshark infringed record labels' copyrights: U.S. judge
Oct 5, 2014 1:06:11 GMT -5
Post by 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 on Oct 5, 2014 1:06:11 GMT -5
Grooveshark infringed record labels' copyrights: U.S. judge
BY JONATHAN STEMPEL
NEW YORK Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:34pm EDT
(Reuters) - The online streaming service Grooveshark suffered a legal defeat on Monday when a U.S. judge found its operators liable to nine record companies for having directed employees to upload thousands of copyrighted songs without permission.
The judge held Grooveshark's parent company, Escape Media Group Inc, and its founders Samuel Tarantino and Joshua Greenberg, responsible for the illegal uploads of 5,977 songs by musicians such as Eminem, Green Day, Jay-Z and Madonna.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan pointed to "uncontroverted evidence" of direct infringement, including a 2007 internal announcement where Greenberg asked employees to "please share as much music as possible from outside the office" to speed growth.
"By overtly instructing its employees to upload as many files as possible to Grooveshark as a condition of their employment, Escape engaged in purposeful conduct with a manifest intent to foster copyright infringement via the Grooveshark service," Griesa wrote in a 57-page decision.
Plaintiffs in the case included Arista Music, Arista Records, Atlantic Recording, Elektra Entertainment Group, LaFace Records, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recording, Warner Brothers Records and Zomba Recording.
Griesa ordered both sides to propose within 21 days a permanent injunction to hold further infringements.
The decision is the latest in a years-long clash between the recording industry and various websites over how music can be distributed online.
"Escape respectfully disagrees with the court's decision, and is currently assessing its next steps, including the possibility of an appeal," John Rosenberg, a partner at Rosenberg & Giger representing the defendants, said in a phone interview.
Andrew Bart, a partner at Jenner & Block representing the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, had no immediate comment.
With offices in Gainesville, Florida, Grooveshark describes itself on its website as "one of the largest on-demand music services on the Internet," with more than 30 million users sharing in excess of 15 million files.
The company does obtain licenses from many music providers. It said its policy is to honor copyright holders' "takedown" requests that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other intellectual property laws.
In court papers, the plaintiffs had called Grooveshark a "linear descendant" of Grokster, LimeWire and Napster, all of which had been shut down because of copyright infringement.
The case is UMG Recording Inc et al v. Escape Media Group Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-08407.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Grant McCool)
Source
Grooveshark speaks out as it prepares to appeal copyright lawsuit
Days after a US judge ruled against online music service Grooveshark in a lawsuit brought by music labels, the company has issued a statement disagreeing with the decision and declaring its intent to appeal.
Earlier in the week, Grooveshark had said it was looking into the possibility of an appeal, but the company now says it is “preparing for the appeal process.” Grooveshark says the complaint is related to an “early iteration” of the service that has since been discontinued.
In the meantime, the company has pledged to continue operating its business “ethically and honestly – with first-to-market technology as we have done since 2006.”
That’s quite the claim, considering that evidence from the trial showed Grooveshark CTO Joshua Greenberg had threatened employees with his, “sh*t list” if they didn’t “download as many MP3s as possible” and share them on the service. Grooveshark certainly seems to have an uphill battle ahead of it.
Here’s the full statement:
Grooveshark cannot comment on our current litigation but I can say we are preparing for the appeal process. We can say that we will continue to operate our business ethically and honestly — with first-to-market technology as we have done since 2006. I can also say Grooveshark’s current service has provided millions of dollars in revenue to artists and labels globally.
This decision dealt specifically with an early iteration of Grooveshark which we discontinued in 2008 in favor of our current music streaming service. In turn, we respectfully disagree with the decision, and we are assessing next steps, which will all focus on remaining extremely committed to ensuring we respect artist and songwriter copyrights.
Prior to 2008, the service was a paid music download platform that functioned like a “Buy-Sell-Trade” store, in which users paid for individual tracks. This is very different from the model of our current popular music streaming service, modeled off of YouTube, in which users play songs directly through a browser without the capability of downloads.
We always knew that our service could serve as a powerful tool for labels to build engaged fan evangelism for artists. We prove this daily when we promote and socialize exclusive content to our global audience of nearly 30 million listeners. We want to support musicians just as we do our broadcasters and international partners. Grooveshark was built with the goal of connecting artists and rabid fans.
Our immediate plan of action will be to continue to serve our nearly 30 million listeners with exclusive music, brand promotions, new technology and new device partners — all exclusively for Grooveshark users — which again has been our core edict from day one.
Source
BY JONATHAN STEMPEL
NEW YORK Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:34pm EDT
(Reuters) - The online streaming service Grooveshark suffered a legal defeat on Monday when a U.S. judge found its operators liable to nine record companies for having directed employees to upload thousands of copyrighted songs without permission.
The judge held Grooveshark's parent company, Escape Media Group Inc, and its founders Samuel Tarantino and Joshua Greenberg, responsible for the illegal uploads of 5,977 songs by musicians such as Eminem, Green Day, Jay-Z and Madonna.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa in Manhattan pointed to "uncontroverted evidence" of direct infringement, including a 2007 internal announcement where Greenberg asked employees to "please share as much music as possible from outside the office" to speed growth.
"By overtly instructing its employees to upload as many files as possible to Grooveshark as a condition of their employment, Escape engaged in purposeful conduct with a manifest intent to foster copyright infringement via the Grooveshark service," Griesa wrote in a 57-page decision.
Plaintiffs in the case included Arista Music, Arista Records, Atlantic Recording, Elektra Entertainment Group, LaFace Records, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recording, Warner Brothers Records and Zomba Recording.
Griesa ordered both sides to propose within 21 days a permanent injunction to hold further infringements.
The decision is the latest in a years-long clash between the recording industry and various websites over how music can be distributed online.
"Escape respectfully disagrees with the court's decision, and is currently assessing its next steps, including the possibility of an appeal," John Rosenberg, a partner at Rosenberg & Giger representing the defendants, said in a phone interview.
Andrew Bart, a partner at Jenner & Block representing the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, had no immediate comment.
With offices in Gainesville, Florida, Grooveshark describes itself on its website as "one of the largest on-demand music services on the Internet," with more than 30 million users sharing in excess of 15 million files.
The company does obtain licenses from many music providers. It said its policy is to honor copyright holders' "takedown" requests that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other intellectual property laws.
In court papers, the plaintiffs had called Grooveshark a "linear descendant" of Grokster, LimeWire and Napster, all of which had been shut down because of copyright infringement.
The case is UMG Recording Inc et al v. Escape Media Group Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-08407.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Grant McCool)
Source
Grooveshark speaks out as it prepares to appeal copyright lawsuit
Days after a US judge ruled against online music service Grooveshark in a lawsuit brought by music labels, the company has issued a statement disagreeing with the decision and declaring its intent to appeal.
Earlier in the week, Grooveshark had said it was looking into the possibility of an appeal, but the company now says it is “preparing for the appeal process.” Grooveshark says the complaint is related to an “early iteration” of the service that has since been discontinued.
In the meantime, the company has pledged to continue operating its business “ethically and honestly – with first-to-market technology as we have done since 2006.”
That’s quite the claim, considering that evidence from the trial showed Grooveshark CTO Joshua Greenberg had threatened employees with his, “sh*t list” if they didn’t “download as many MP3s as possible” and share them on the service. Grooveshark certainly seems to have an uphill battle ahead of it.
Here’s the full statement:
Grooveshark cannot comment on our current litigation but I can say we are preparing for the appeal process. We can say that we will continue to operate our business ethically and honestly — with first-to-market technology as we have done since 2006. I can also say Grooveshark’s current service has provided millions of dollars in revenue to artists and labels globally.
This decision dealt specifically with an early iteration of Grooveshark which we discontinued in 2008 in favor of our current music streaming service. In turn, we respectfully disagree with the decision, and we are assessing next steps, which will all focus on remaining extremely committed to ensuring we respect artist and songwriter copyrights.
Prior to 2008, the service was a paid music download platform that functioned like a “Buy-Sell-Trade” store, in which users paid for individual tracks. This is very different from the model of our current popular music streaming service, modeled off of YouTube, in which users play songs directly through a browser without the capability of downloads.
We always knew that our service could serve as a powerful tool for labels to build engaged fan evangelism for artists. We prove this daily when we promote and socialize exclusive content to our global audience of nearly 30 million listeners. We want to support musicians just as we do our broadcasters and international partners. Grooveshark was built with the goal of connecting artists and rabid fans.
Our immediate plan of action will be to continue to serve our nearly 30 million listeners with exclusive music, brand promotions, new technology and new device partners — all exclusively for Grooveshark users — which again has been our core edict from day one.
Source
