[fauldsh]

They're not legally guilty but morally guilty.

It's websites like Grooveshark that weaken the premise for laws like DMCA safe harbour. Their entire business lies in using DMCA in a way in which it was clearly not designed, making it much easier to against such provisions. It's not only big music who might lose out because of them.

[ben0x539]

"Morally guilty" is hugely subjective. I'm sure it's very, very easy to find a lot of people who would argue that Grooveshark's behavior is more moral than that of Universal, and it's hard to argue against them without falling back on legal arguments.

[fauldsh]

The question is not one of who is worse. Universal does some morally reprehensible things, that does not excuse Grooveshark.

Grooveshark aren't for anybody other than themselves, they base their entire business on people uploading sharing songs without giving any money to the musicians. If a user uploads the song, not a registered artist then the artist gets nothing and the money goes where?

As a result I believe through those actions they weaken the argument for DMCA safe harbour provisions by showing such a clear loophole in the meaning.

That's my moral and non-legal argument against Grooveshark (but not for Universal).

[mullingitover]

If they spend shareholder capital to enforce someone else's copyright out of the goodness of their hearts, they're legally guilty of breach of fiduciary duty.

The argument that they're abusing the DMCA is a slippery slope. Who else should be helping the copyright holders freeload on their enforcement duties? Your ISP? Computer manufacturers? Your landlord, for not not searching your home regularly for copyright-violating media?