Grooveshark is hunting an anonymous commenter

http://allthingsd.com/20120118/grooveshark-fights-a-copyright-lawsuit-by-chasing-after-anonymous-commenters/

by ryandvm • 15 years ago

36 11 15 years ago

At first I thought: "How dare they, I'll never use Grooveshark again." Then I realized Groovshark probably has an inkling that the anonymous comment from a "former employee" is in fact some sort of astroturfing via the company suing them, so as to strengthen their case. Just my thoughts on the issue. We shouldn't be too quick to judge here, big media co's are devious bastards, no?

CharlieA• 15 years ago

Reminds me of Viacom/YouTube. I wonder if this is going to have a similar ending.

nkassis• 15 years ago

I had a similar feeling, basically the comment can be considered slanderous. I do have to agree with the site that they might not be able technically to give the info.

I don't think whistle blower laws apply to someone making a post on the internet but I could be wrong. I thought it was more if you heard of illegal things and went to law enforcement about it.

Anyone can clarify if it applies or not?

groggles2• 15 years ago

>I do have to agree with the site that they might not be able technically to give the info.

I have mixed feelings about sites that rely upon the "we regularly purge identifying information" excuse. In this case I believe it makes the site directly responsible for libel as they are actively looking to protect the sources of information that benefits them.

ralphc• 15 years ago

All the searching and outrage about the anonymous blogger is orthogonal to the original questions - are the majority of songs on Grooveshark put there by employees, by order of management (I'm guessing this takes away safe harbor), and is it possible for artists to get their music off of Grooveshark if they ask.

rsanchez1• 15 years ago

It's kind of ridiculous that an anonymous comment left on a blog caused all this hoopla in the first place.

mason55• 15 years ago

I can't imagine that the comments from the anonymous commenter can be accepted as evidence or testimony in any sort of lawsuit or deposition. Wouldn't that violate all existing precedent regarding the right to cross-examine your accuser?

Edit: Nevermind... it appears that the Confrontation Clause only applies to criminal and not civil matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

freehunter• 15 years ago

I'd imagine it'd go the other way: the burden of proof would be on UMG to prove the claims made by the anonymous commenter. That would be easier to do if they could get the anonymous commenter to testify.

Grooveshark is hunting an anonymous commenter

Related Stories