Blog Archive

Sunday, July 22, 2012

postheadericon Grooveshark Tries To Force Digital Music News To Unveil Commenter, Ignoring First Amendment

We covered different parts of Grooveshark claims against the recording industry. I have no idea how these requirements are coming out, but a bit of a show that you touch on topics that are of crucial importance here: the right to the protection of anonymous speakers, and protection laws protecting journalistic sources. Last fall, in the latest effort by Universal Music against Grooveshark, the company cited an anonymous blog comment on the blog of the popular music industry, digital music news. The comment claimed to be an employee of Grooveshark, and reads (in part):


work for Grooveshark. Here is some information from the trenches:

we have not been assigned a default file system for each week and get a small bonus if we go beyond the (easy). The tasks are assumed to direct orders from top to bottom, we do not volunteer to "improve" the Grooveshark database.

All search results are monitored and when something is labeled as "not available", which is in line to load our lists. You have to visualize the database into two general sections: "known" things and "discover / indie / underground." The "known" things is handled internally by the load. Only for "discovering" things are users involved, as explained in some posts above. In practical terms, there is little need for users to download a major album since they already take care of this on a daily basis.

To be honest, when I mention the original presentation of this comment, I was very surprised that Universal would use it on demand. After all, a

anonymous

comment on a blog. It is pure rumor, without any real evidence that the commentator actually works in Grooveshark. It's completely useless as evidence.


Although
Naturally, one would think that Universal Music, then issue a summons to who was the comment author. ... But instead of
Grooveshark issued a subpoena (PDF embedded below) seeks to identify the speaker. It is also strange. If UMG has been able to identify the individual, then Grooveshark know that information. But if (as seems to be the case so far ) UMG does nothing, this individual claims in the lawsuit are useless anyway.
Anyway, Paul Resnikoff of Digital Music News concerned about the quote to appear as DMN has a policy not to reveal his anonymous commentators (and often used as sources.) Therefore, it was decided to postpone, highlighting key points. Public Citizen, Paul Levy has recently agreed to Resnikoff represent in this case and sent a letter to the parent company Grooveshark (embedded below) explaining why you should stop barking Groovehsark this special tree. Beyond questions of the First Amendment, the right of journalists to protect their sources, and ueslessness the original comment, first, there is the simple fact that DMN does not keep records for long comments, and no useful information to answer the call anyway.


Find best price for : --News----Resnikoff----Paul----Digital----Music----Universal----Grooveshark--

0 comments:

About Me