TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court To Order Grooveshark DNS Block

After court action in Denmark ended with the country’s major Internet service providers blocking The Pirate Bay, copyright holders now have a new target in their sights. An anti-piracy group say they have sent an urgent letter to a court demanding that Grooveshark should be subjected to an ISP DNS blockade, an action which would take the site offline in Denmark.

Anti-piracy group RettighedsAlliancen, who are better known by their former name of Antipiratgruppen, have revealed their latest target. Surprisingly though, it’s not a notorious torrent portal or some other so-called ‘rogue site’.

According to comments originally made in the print version of Politiken, RettighedsAlliancen have sent an urgent demand to the Danish “bailiff court” (known locally as Fogedretten) to have the country’s Internet service providers block US-based streaming music service Grooveshark.

“When you want to offer music on the Danish market, one must have an agreement with rightholders to do so. Grooveshark does not and has been completely uncooperative,” explained RettighedsAlliancen chief Maria Fredenslund.

In recent years access to authorized streaming services such as Spotify has increased for Danes, says Fredenslund, so now is the time to give those types of companies protection.

“There is a burgeoning market for online music that we believe it is necessary to support. We are in a situation where the market will die if Grooveshark continues,” she adds.

Previously other sites have been blocked on copyright infringement grounds in Denmark including AllofMP3 and more recently The Pirate Bay, but the situation with Grooveshark is more complex. Since sites like TPB do not honor DMCA-style takedown requests, arguing that they should be blocked becomes a greatly simplified process. For Grooveshark the situation is much more complex.

Senior VP of Information Products at Grooveshark, Paul Geller, is on record stating that “there is nothing illegal” about Grooveshark since like its video counterpart YouTube, by responding to takedown notices it enjoys Safe Harbor under the DMCA.

Rightsholders in Denmark, however, say they don’t have the patience to deal with the process and that taking down content effectively from Grooveshark has proved impossible. Just like the RIAA, they suggest that the DMCA swings too far in favor of service providers, and official label licensing is required for a service to be considered legitimate. (Grooveshark is in fact licensed by EMI and dozens of other labels)

Nevertheless, Geller’s position on takedowns is widely supported. Piratgruppen spokesman Troels Møller describes this new move against Grooveshark as “censorship.”

“Grooveshark reacts to takedown notices, but that is not good enough for the copyright industry – they want complete control,” Troels told TorrentFreak. “And I can see why since Spotify, partially owned by the record companies, was just launched in Denmark. It is a very convenient time to get rid of the competition.”

“Denmark is becoming a censoring state, much like Syria, Tunisia, China, etc. They are effectively destroying the internet. It’s becoming less and less neutral and free,” Troels adds. “Luckily they are only using DNS-blocking so far, which can be easily circumvented.”

Troels, who is also co-founder of
internet think tank Bitbureauet, is concerned that should a block against Grooveshark be approved, it would set a worryingly low blocking threshold for other sites in the future.

“If the same logic is applied throughout the internet, the next logical step would be to block Facebook, YouTube, Soundcloud and similar sites, which also host potentially infringing material until notified,” he concludes.

Jakob Willer of the Telecommunications Industry Association of Denmark says it’s not for his group or the ISPs to decide whether Grooveshark is legal, but hopes the service will get a chance to defend itself.

“I hope that Grooveshark will be consulted in the process because they are the ones who where applicable, will be barred,” Willer concludes.

Grooveshark’s Geller says he is unaware of any case pending against his company in Denmark.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Murga

    Grooveshark *doesn’t* respond to DMCA notices. this has been long and widely reported.
    they are the people who give filesharing a bad name. a bunch of yanks looking to get rich off the backs of other people – they have no interest in truly sharing and improving culture.
    They should be shut down.

    • http://twitter.com/BadReligionish BadReligionish

      HAhaha OMG hahahahh Do you have proof that they do not respond?No proof no truth!!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CUD5VO53DRZQKHASQ24VU54XTM Karl

      my best friend’s mother makes $73 an hour on the Laptop. She has been fired for 5 months but last month her check was $8294 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it on this web site http://nirl.eu/J

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CUD5VO53DRZQKHASQ24VU54XTM Karl

      my best friend’s mother makes $73 an hour on the Laptop. She has been fired for 5 months but last month her check was $8294 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it on this web site http://nirl.eu/J

    • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

      Even if what you say is true, remember that if they don’t have the freedom to share (regardless of whether they profit), neither do you.

      If others are able to profit off of your work and people are willing to pay, maybe you need to rethink your own business model.

    • http://profiles.google.com/orfetheo Orfeas Theofanis

      How do they give filesharing a bad name? They don’t ask for any money, they just have ads, which is normal, since they have to pay for music rights and servers.

      • LOLZ-GROOVESHARK

        Actually they have a membership package…You need to look closer

      • LOLZ-GROOVESHARK

        Actually they have a membership package…You need to look closer

      • LOLZ-GROOVESHARK

        Actually they have a membership package…You need to look closer

    • http://Operation-DarkSky.askaboutit.com Needlez™

      @Murga: Please think about what your stating here. What it seems like your saying is that if any site doesn’t comply with DMCA notices it should be taken offline. I think of hundreds of sites that wouldn’t comply with DMCA because DMCA is a broken system that doesn’t work. For instance through DMCA dead-people, printers, and more recently my pen have seen DMCA take downs. Does that make it right for sites that don’t comply with stupid request to be shutdown? I don’t know, but any form of sharing is caring, as long as you are doing it help improve the future.

      • Predator

        Nobody shall response to any DMCA notice since the DMCA is

        ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL.

        Attempting to enforce the DMCA is a crime punished by law.

        Let’s go to work folks! A lot of corporate parasites cops and judges to jail right now.

    • Guest

      And all the corporate parasites you are working for as a troll should but shoot down and they will be trust me, they will be.

    • Ogra

      I suppose I have a question; why would it matter if they were making a profit off of filesharing? I mean, most filesharing sites link to copyrighted content. Why would it matter if they made money off of doing so? Seems like a logical step to me. People want a way to access for free, and they’re providing the way. If they can make money doing it, more power to them.

      • Ven

        It opens frightening precedent to say that others can profit off of the works of others if the public likes their business model more. It means that the industry merely needs to pour money into infrastructure that locks out the small players and they can corner the market by offering the lowest prices.

        It sounds goofy to think about it from a digital media standpoint, but it’s the same fundamental premise behind minimum wage laws, labor laws, pricing laws, union laws, and others. The people with the money figure out how to crotch-kick the the rest of the public into their monopoly.

    • Anonymous

      If they don’t respond to takedown notices and stuff, how come my account got blocked from uploading new music because of copyright infringement? And why can’t I find any music from one of my favorite bands, 30 seconds to mars? And why do you think they have programs for artists so they can earn when their music is listened to on the website?

      Grooveshark is great. It brings music of all artists to the wide public, without charging anything basically. This attracts many people, like me. Yet artists can earn money from it.
      So Grooveshark is doing artists a service by getting the product (music) to the customer (listener).

      You can argue that Grooveshark uses the copyrighted music illegally until an artist claims copyright. But isn’t it as “illegal” as Rapidshare is: they ask users not to upload material they don’t have rights for, and when they notice that something copyrighted is uploaded they take it down. Yet rapidshare seems to be allowed in Denmark, isn’t it?

  • Murga

    Grooveshark *doesn’t* respond to DMCA notices. this has been long and widely reported.
    they are the people who give filesharing a bad name. a bunch of yanks looking to get rich off the backs of other people – they have no interest in truly sharing and improving culture.
    They should be shut down.

  • Twice Daily

    More people capture music from Youtube than Grooveshark.
    Money based priority here…no logic to it whatsoever.
    Nothing changes. Once a shill always a shill.

  • Twice Daily

    More people capture music from Youtube than Grooveshark.
    Money based priority here…no logic to it whatsoever.
    Nothing changes. Once a shill always a shill.

  • Zan

    if you are going to block grooveshark block youtube as well!

    stupid morons cutting of their noses to spite their faces.

    whats next? ban music television? ban radios from playing music?

    arrgghhhh i despair at the stupidity of it all.

    • Anon

      music tv and radio pay them millions of dollars so they are ok. But Grooveshark with music that is made my artists that don’t belong to RIAA can’t be allowed. Artists giving music away should be banned, because they get no money. They are too lazy to file YMCA takedown notices when copyrighted files show up there so the whole service should go away. Actually they just dont want any competition for Spotify, their own service.

      • Zan

        ” Artists giving music away should be banned, because they get no money.”

        So you believe artists shouldnt give away music through their own choice?!? ok…

      • travieso

        Dude, you should reconsider your post .. “Artists giving music away should be banned, because they get no money” this sentence here is way out of line .. how about you get informed before you these kinds of statements ..

        • Ven

          My friend, he meant to say what he did. The whole post is poorly worded true, but he meant that line to be spoken from the RIAA’s perspective.

      • Dwpbike

        “YMCA takedown” – men at work are making a comeback?

        • anon

          No, the Village People.

    • Anon

      “if you are going to block grooveshark block youtube as well!”

      That depends on a lot of extenuating circumstances. But fundamentally you are on the right track.

      If any industry with any product line proves unable to curtail infringement without government help, then it’s natural government would step in, as they are doing. In fact, anytime, anywhere, any realm, any product or line of merchandise that is being systematically looted and that looting is being openly and actively facilitated by an organization, application, webpage or other entity, that entity should feel the relentless invasion of law enforcement, then the full pressure of the justice system and finally, if guilty, bear the scathing, crippling consequences for their actions. A just society has always supported this in analog merchandise and it is only a matter of time before it is also supported in digital merchandise.

      Count on it.

      • Anonymous

        No, its only natural for government to move in after the bribing your industries do, if the political reforms went ahead, such bribery would be criminal and subject to a prison term.

        • Anon

          Citations needed or you are full of sh*t. As usual.

        • Ballsdeep

          “Citations needed or you are full of sh*t. As usual.”

          Shlurp shlurp shlurp. Get ready, here comes the money shot. Swallow it bitch

      • Anonymous

        Citations needed for your comment too, as you only spout bullsh*t on here anyway!

      • Ballsdeep

        ‘Anon’ deepthroating the MAFIAA again… suck it deep, you’ll get your ‘special little present’ soon.

      • Nerdgirl

        >>>”If any industry with any product line proves unable to curtail infringement without government help, then it’s natural government would step in, as they are doing. In fact, anytime, anywhere, any realm, any product or line of merchandise that is being systematically looted and that looting is being openly and actively facilitated by an organization, application, webpage or other entity, that entity should feel the relentless invasion of law enforcement, then the full pressure of the justice system and finally, if guilty, bear the scathing, crippling consequences for their actions. A just society has always supported this in analog merchandise and it is only a matter of time before it is also supported in digital merchandise.”

        Damn! I hope you don’t need a life-saving operation in the future. Because following that logic, any maker or supplier of syringes that can’t guarantee they won’t be used for illegal drugs will be shut down by the government.

        And I hope you don’t need your car – because anyone associated with the automotive industry who can’t guarantee that their cars won’t be used in the commission of a crime will be shut down.

        You don’t need to drive because you can get all of your products sent to you in the mail? Guess again! No postage service, because customs found a few people send illegal products via the mail. It was shut down too.

        Either something is wrong with your logic, or something is wrong with a system that supports such a limited view of the world.

        • Anon

          But yours is the limited view. Torrent sites routinely have 95-99% unlawfully distributed files on them. Were syringes used 95% of the time in the commission of a crime, they’d be under extraordinary scrutiny and control. Were 95% of all cars used unlawfully, we’d be lucky to even have access to them. And were 95% of postal traffic contraband, you might expect every package opened and inspected. Because in a civilized world that’s how society operates, and the voter gives government the ways and means to do it.

          What world do YOU live in? Freedom abused is freedom lost, and we’re seeing that happen right now.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jan/16/online-music-illegal-downloads

          http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/42116

          http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/torrent-crime/

        • Gene_Poole

          Zinc! Come back, Zinc!!!

          sorry, just sounded a little preachy.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Anon

          “Torrent sites routinely have 95-99% unlawfully distributed files on them.”

          Torrent files have been found to link to fully legitimate material in 80% of the cases…so your example is ill-chosen.

          For instance, bittorrent distributes just about all open-source code along with privately published material.

          For Ubuntu alone I find 14 full pages worth of torrents on TPB and it’s not a stretch to state that Linux distributions alone dwarf the summed content of media copied illegally.

          So the question would be whether a road should be shut down because roughly 20% of the drivers are speeding. We already have an answer to that – unless you happen to be a dogmatic copyright fanatic, that is.

      • Fredrika

        > “Torrent sites routinely have 95-99% unlawfully distributed files on them.”

        Please stop spreading confused lies and disinformation.

        Torrent sites always have 0% unlawfully distributed files on them. They only host torrent files. Torrent files are not copyrighted. The fact that a torrent file indexes copyrighted works, and that such torrent file is available on a torrent site does in no way equal that an actual copyright infringement has taken place.

        Any eventual infringement takes place exclusively between end users, it is entirely initialized by them, without the torrent sites having any insight whatsoever into their actions, and without any possibility whatsoever to identify or verify if any infringement takes place.

        As you know or may not know, in many countries in the world all non-profit filesharing is fully legal. That means that people in those countries can share the latest Hollywood movies well within their legal rights, regardless of what the copyright holders opinion on the matter is.

        They can index the copyrighted works and upload their torrents to a torrent site for legal distribution of the latest Hollywood movies.

        A torrent site obviously and logically has no more responsibility for end users own initialized actions and eventual infringement, which the torrent sites as explained can’t in any way control or verify, any more than what Sony has any responsibility for if a buyer of their CD-burner uses it for infringement.

        • Anon

          Fredrika, your assertions here have no bearing in the real world and as such, you are the one spreading lies. In cases the world over torrent sites have been found to facilitate, have been shut down and their owners/admins found liable and held accountable to their wrongdoing. Have you been missing this detail?

          It’s one thing for you to spout such repeated nonsense. You are entitled to that. But please get in touch with reality, genuine case law and the direction these issues are heading before you offer such ignorant insights again.

        • Fredrika

          > “In cases the world over torrent sites have been found to facilitate, have been shut down and their owners/admins found liable and held accountable to their wrongdoing.”

          First of all what you were saying were that “torrent sites routinely have 95-99% unlawfully distributed files on them”. But not one single higher court in the world as handed down a sentence with a precedent, that supports that claim.

          That some individuals have been illogically sentenced in non-functioning lower courts in some countries, for a certain type of operating of a torrent site, is something completely different. It does not equal that “torrent sites routinely have 95-99% unlawfully distributed files on them”.

          I would say that 100% of today’s torrent sites operate fully legal in countries where such operating hasn’t been found unlawful. That’s the reason why these sites stay up. Because they fully operate well within the law in the countries which they operate from. Therefore 100% of the files they offer is completely legal.

          Was it ignorant insights you called it?

        • Fredrika

          > “In cases the world over torrent sites have been found to facilitate, have been shut down and their owners/admins found liable and held accountable to their wrongdoing.”

          First of all what you were saying were that “torrent sites routinely have 95-99% unlawfully distributed files on them”. But not one single higher court in the world as handed down a sentence with a precedent, that supports that claim.

          That some individuals have been illogically sentenced in non-functioning lower courts in some countries, for a certain type of operating of a torrent site, is something completely different. It does not equal that “torrent sites routinely have 95-99% unlawfully distributed files on them”.

          I would say that 100% of today’s torrent sites operate fully legal in countries where such operating hasn’t been found unlawful. That’s the reason why these sites stay up. Because they fully operate well within the law in the countries which they operate from. Therefore 100% of the files they offer is completely legal.

          Was it ignorant insights you called it?

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Anon

          Fredrika actually has the real picture of the world. A “torrent” is nothing more than a number calculated from a data sum – so if the distribution of a torrent is illegal then so would any other commonly used archiving/indexing system.

          EAN numbers and Imdb index numbers could be used for torrent distribution as well. I think you and reality need to patch up your differences because so far your arguments are that any dual-use technology should be forbidden.

          Even in the unlikely event that torrent index sites should be forbidden in the future, filesharing will continue. We already use decentralized torrenting and darknets, so even the loss of every torrent indexer on the planet wouldn’t stop or even significantly hamper filesharing.

          The ugly truth is that governments can indeed restrict the freedom of ordinary people to large degrees but they can not stop filesharing. Not as long as the internet even exists.

  • Toysoldier

    and so it begins … whats next ? The banning / removal of streaming apps from android market (app store) etc.
    I have had it with these greedy bastards.

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court To Order Grooveshark DNS Block … | DNS Internet

  • http://artcontrol.me/ William

    wow this maakes me sick

  • Anonymous

    the entertainment industries want total control of the internet. not because they want to improve things, simply so they can continue to refuse to adapt to it and prevent the things they dont like from happening. governments are allowing, if not backing them in their crusade for this. i wonder, however, if successful, how long it will be before the governments take that control off of those industries?

    • Zzzz

      Of course governments are allowing this.
      Who do you think they work for, it certasinly isn’t the people.

    • Zzzz

      Of course governments are allowing this.
      Who do you think they work for, it certasinly isn’t the people.

      • Anonymous

        It’s the stupid bribery and corruption in US politics, weed out the corruption and say byebye to the inane stupid one-sided copycrap laws on the books.

  • Anonymous

    What. The. Fuck. Ludicrous.

    “If the same logic is applied throughout the internet, the next logical step would be to block Facebook, YouTube, Soundcloud and similar sites, which also host potentially infringing material until notified.”

    Raises a good point. But I fucking doubt YouTube will face a ban anytime in the near future. I’m just glad the websites getting all this anti-piracy crap thrown at them just give back the middle finger. Especially Google, they’ll definitely set an example.

    • Anon

      If it was up to them they would want you to pay for using colours on your own website.

    • http://www.LoudTronix.me BlackPropeller

      lol….YouTube and Facebook are already being threatened…if you don’t know what PROTECT IP and SOAP are, look them up. If those bills get passed, any site with user generated content will be legally liable for the content that their users upload. -_-’

      • Anonymous

        Yes, I’m aware of them. They changed the name of the PROTECT-IP to E-PARASITE, though.

    • CHRONOSSANGRY

      WHat he means is the feds have a need to spy so they keep google going, if that changed …YOU can bet it go poof too.

      AND that’s why facebook while its chats could have encryption and privacy BUY facebooks choice do not….google same shit just slightly less obvious about what ya can and cant do….

      • Anonymous

        I tried to understand what you were saying but after I tried to read your comment a third time I gave up.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          The CIA has linked up with Google and Facebook to spy. This is allowed through FISA laws which circumvent the 4th Amendment. You can’t know about the information these sites give up about you, but it’s very easy for law enforcement to get information about you, the individual through any US company that must comply with these rules.

        • Anonymous

          Websites that operate within USA jurisdiction have to give up information to law-enforcement authorities when asked for it, yeah.
          As far as Facebook goes, if you don’t want certain information about you leaked, you shouldn’t post it to being with. I know there’s only so much you can do and your friends can still upload photos of you with embedded EXIF data containing GPS coordinates and timestamps in them, though. Such a shame.

        • Anonymous

          Websites that operate within USA jurisdiction have to give up information to law-enforcement authorities when asked for it, yeah.
          As far as Facebook goes, if you don’t want certain information about you leaked, you shouldn’t post it to being with. I know there’s only so much you can do and your friends can still upload photos of you with embedded EXIF data containing GPS coordinates and timestamps in them, though. Such a shame.

  • anonco

    I didnt knew this website before !!!! Thanks anti-piracy agencies !!!!

  • anonco

    I didnt knew this website before !!!! Thanks anti-piracy agencies !!!!

  • Pingback: La industria del copyright pide el bloqueo DNS sobre Grooveshark - La Isla Buscada

  • http://www.facebook.com/rimas.kalpokas Rimas Kalpokas

    I saw somewhere that GrooveShark is backed by the labels… i.e., Sony BMG.

    Interesting how it turned out … if the previous assumption is right the copyright shills from Denmark have a shitstorm coming….. ;)

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      Grooveshark is NOT backed by the labels. They were sued by Universal, then received a licensing deal from them at a higher rate.

      This is copyright enforcement at work. What your business can’t do, sue and force them to a licensing deal.

  • Anon

    Piratebay gets censored, no one fights.
    Grooveshark gets censored, no one fights.
    They censor you, no one left to fight for you.

    How many until you see your country is acting like China? I can just hear them saying; I don’t care as long as i have beer and internet porn. Well those sites are next because they don’t pay copyright to the porn producers.

    • anonco

      Even china is becoming a better place for file sharing now ! Till you dont hurt their govnerment, they dont really care, for example , Xunlei, one of the largest bitorrent tracker of the world.

    • CHRONOSSANGRY

      Fook America and its copyright censors, GO CHINA

    • Anonymous

      Well as an update of on-going censorship then newzbin.com is still block free on my local BT connection. My only conclusion since the deadline has passed is that BT is in violation of this court order.

      I am going to have to look more into what is going on.

  • Pingback: Grooveshark 4.0 cede alla Social Music

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court To Order Grooveshark DNS Block | TorrentForce Blog

  • Louigi Verona

    I must say it is cases like these that show the absurdity of the situation and the immorality of forcing competition out by using government force rather than competing. Grooveshark is an excellent, very well built service. Built better and make it irrelevant. They choose to block.

  • Gangsta4429

    Denmark will NEVER EVER have complete control over copyright since they DONT OWN COPYRIGHT!!! What those wankers need to do is changed their diapers, sit down, SHUT UP, and mind their own DAMN business before malitha groups come after them for stupid blockades…

  • Anonymous

    China really seems a good place for trackers, but we would need to censor words like TIANANMEN SQUARE PROTESTS to prevent us from getting executed.

    • CHRONOSSANGRY

      and in all my years on any tracker …ive never seen those words so im thinking your safe as long as you dont start the trend.

  • Dwpbike

    argh – this is my goto for obscure artists. i think they promote artists more than any promoter

  • Pingback: La industria del copyright pide el bloqueo DNS sobre Grooveshark | R-NET

  • Anon

    It’s interesting that record labels spend more time working on ways to make money than they do on making music. Destroy the record industry, save the artist.

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Is Not Out For Music Industry Blood - Forbes

  • http://Operation-DarkSky.askaboutit.com Needlez™

    I think this is beyond unintelligent. These broken systems like this need to realise that DMCA is flawed badly. Secondly that blocking sites like this means that blocking of sites like Google, Youtube, or any sites that share any form of information whether it be a piece of music, a video, a text document, or program if it was originally not made by them could land the site to be DNS blocked by these stupid measures. I think these companies have let enforcing pointless rules that they don’t realise that they’re causing themselves to lose more money now then ever. Back 10 years from now filesharing existed, and its aways existed, we have just gotten better at how we do it. Yes more people share files with each other, but that doesn’t mean that the artists are suffering from us. Most people donate to artists or buy a CD every now and then, but lets be realistic for a minute here.

    These corporations are going to try to force regurgitated garbage down our throats I think not. So if we download it and don’t like it throw it away and say it sucked. Then they respond by trying to sue or imprison the people who tested it and told them that what they produced wasn’t fit to wipe their ASS. I am one of these people I believe if you make a product and it truly is good then you should share it to help further its development. And I’m sure someone’s going to say but you’d make no money, and other people could charge for your product. And that’s where I’d point out look at a little thing called Open Source. A lot of open source programs don’t charge money, and you can redistribute them for your own gain, as long as you give the original author some kind of mentioning. I like this idea, and this is how the internet was intended to be used. More people should realise that through sharing information we become smarter, make better decisions, gain more economy, and replenish information that was once long forgotten. What these corporations pose to do is abolish all forms of freedom. Sharing is a freedom we are all born with, you have the right to share, you have the right not to also, but the more you share the more is shared with you. Just think back to when you where like 5 years old and you where taught that sharing is good, and now these corporations want to impose that this is illegal. This is wrong. Please don’t just sit idly by and listen to them and think that what you were taught and that your original feelings are wrong. You are human, and to be human is to share and care about your fellow humans. This is why filesharing will not ever die out. It will still exist millions of years from today, just faster, smarter, and better. I urge you, if you feel as I feel then you are human, not a slave to these corporations, and we have the power to change how the world looks at our community. I thank you and so does every other file sharer on the planet.

  • CHRONOSSANGRY

    everyone should just move out of Denmark and leave the 50 people that want this there

    ya …then come back after that nation goes bankrupt ….

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court To Order Grooveshark DNS Block | Links Daily

  • Arnakman

    Top ten pirated movies at http://www.deviloid.net

    1 [Orgasms.xxx] Marry Queen – Multiple Orgasms
    2 [My18Teens] – 2010-06-21 – Amelie -
    3 [TeenSexMania] Kani & Yanie
    4 [NuruMassage] Stephanie Cane – One Happy Customer
    5 [ExploitedCollegeGirls] Alicia – Glendale Community College
    6 [Orgasms.xxx] Sylvia – Make Me Feel
    7 [Woodman] – Kitty Jane & Little Caprice – Hard sofa 2
    8 [OnlyCuties] Mia and Francesca – Foursome
    9 [LittleCaprice] 2009-08-02 – Little Caprice-Young teen orgy
    10 [Evil Angel] – Anal Buffet 7

    Enjoy : http://www.deviloid.net

  • Mr.Afghanistan

    Well… I Didn’t know about this site at all, Anti-Piracy is advertising these sites, instead of weaken them.

    Because of Anti-Piracy, now i found grooveshark and listening free Music online haha

    Thank you Mr.Stupid Anti-Piracy ;)

  • http://crashsuit.tumblr.com/ crashsuit

    “don’t have the patience to deal with the process” <-lol

  • gae

    I knew it, give them an inch and they take a mile.
    Once they manage to block sites that are well known for infringement then they move onto blocking sites that simply create competition or do business in a different method than what the industry approves.

    They really won’t be happy until they have full control of the entire internet.

    • Adrian

      What do you expect, the RIAA is just a group of autistic children who have grown up chronologically, but not mentally and can’t get their own way.
      They resist change, that’s expected from autistic children.

    • Ballsdeep

      I think the phrase you were looking for was “give them an inch and they’ll swallow your load for hard currency”. The MAFIAA are dirty whores

  • Pingback: Grooveshark targeted by anti-piracy group DNS block request | Matias Vangsnes

  • Guest

    Soon this will be the end of centralized DNS servers.

  • Guest

    Soon this will be the end of centralized DNS servers.

  • Pingback: Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court To Order Grooveshark DNS Block | Feel the spirit of broadband

  • Pingback: sharktube.tv » Grooveshark Is Not Out For Music Industry Blood

  • http://twitter.com/AlyssaBlindy Alyssa Blindy

    Now that’s plain out ridiculous. Groveshark is Legal. Not illegal, but Legal. Wow, this is just getting insane.

    • http://www.facebook.com/donagh.oleary Donagh O’Leary

      It’s not. They don’t have a license. They don’t pay publishers or songwriters they relevant royalties.

      • Fredrika

        > “They don’t have a license. They don’t pay publishers or songwriters they relevant royalties.”

        That does not equal that Grooveshark is illegal. That something isn’t licenesed doesn’t necessarily make it illegal.

        In fact, no court have found Grooveshark to operate in an illegal manner, that’s why the site continues to operate as it does.

        • Anon

          No Fredrika, again you have your facts wrong. GrooveShark continues to operate because rightsholders have not yet moved against their infringement in their home country, the USA. Whether GrooveShark operates illegally under the DMCA in the United States will be sorted going forward. This action is in Denmark. GrooveShark enjoys no such indemnity in Denmark. They are flat out illegal in Denmark and that’s why this action was taken there.

          Seriously, Fredrika. Get the facts, improve your game or seriously, just hush.

        • Fredrika

          Again you seem confused. The courts decide what’s illegal. Until a higher court has handed down a sentence and set a precedent, that something is in fact illegal, it is by definition not illegal, according to the judicial system.

          Whether or not any rightsholder has attempted to take any judicial action against Grooveshark, does in no way decide whether or not the site is operating illegally.

          These are facts about how the judicial systems works. Did you not know this?

          Secondly, Grooveshark does not operate out of Denmark, and does therefore obviously not fall under Danish jurisdiction, and neither has any Danish higher court handed down a precedent penal sentence saying that such operating that Grooveshark offers, is illegal in Denmark.

          That a fascist organisation tries to get a court to hand down an injunction, forcing a ISP to censor DNS lookups for a site, a site that no court has found to operate in an illegal manner, is in no way equal to that a certain type of operating of a site is illegal, neither in Denmark or any other country.

          Are you sure you should accuse me of not getting the facts, when it’s you who obviously don’t grasp the most basic fundamentals about how the judicial system works?

          Seriously.

        • Anon

          Oh, Fredrika, where to begin?
          Do you honestly believe that because GrooveShark is not based in Denmark, it’s activities don’t fall under Danish jurisdiction?

          Haven’t you learned anything from watching TPB be taken to task all over the world? Have you been studying this?

          And now an industry enforcing their copyrights in the face of mass infringement is “fascist.” lol

          Being ignorant of the facts is correctable, Fredrika, you can read up and get your facts straight. But sounding like a spoiled child, very young, poorly informed, full of her own ignorant self importance, that might be permanent. Alas.

        • Fredrika

          > “Do you honestly believe that because GrooveShark is not based in Denmark, it’s activities don’t fall under Danish jurisdiction?”

          No, i do not believe this, i know this to be a fact. Groovesharks activities take in it’s entirety place in North America. I can give you the address if you want to. That’s were their activates end.

          After that the activities related to Grooveshark is carried out by other companies, mainly ISP’s all over the world.

          What these ISP’s do is in no way Grooveshark’s responsibility.

          Obviously Danish law has no relevance for North American companies, operating exclusively in North America.

          Does these fundamentals about laws, jurisdiction and physical fact’s really have to be explained to you?

          > “Haven’t you learned anything from watching TPB be taken to task all over the world? Have you been studying this?”

          Now you are again confusing injunctions, with penal law and precedent sentences handed down by higher courts, which is what determines what is illegal.

          An injunction does not decide what is illegal.

          Secondly, the discussed injunction in Denmark is obviously not directed at Grooveshark, it’s directed at Danish ISP’s. Whether or not any injunctions is handed down in Denmark still has no relevance to whether Grooveshark’s operations, which in it’s entirety takes place in North America, is considered illegal according to the relevant judicial system.

          > “And now an industry enforcing their copyrights in the face of mass infringement is “fascist.”"

          No. But when a company is trying to force Danish ISP’s with injunctions to censor the transference of information from a fully legal company however, to benefit their profit, that’s clearly fascism.

          > “Being ignorant of the facts is correctable..//..you can read up and get your facts straight.”

          Yet i’m not the one getting the facts incorrect, about how the judicial system works, regarding which party that decides what constitutes something illegal, or facts such as under which laws North American companies operate. The only one having problems with the facts is you.

          > “But sounding like a spoiled child, very young, poorly informed, full of her own ignorant self importance, that might be permanent.”

          What leads you to believe that your personal opinion about any person is in any way relevant to this discussion, which is a discussion about facts about the judicial system?

          Are you aware of the fact that you repeatedly resort to personal attacks and Ad hominem-arguments, continuously trying to steer the discussion away from the actual topic and the facts, instead trying to focus on persons and irrelevant sidetracks?

          Such confused debating is what trolls resort to when they realize they have no facts backing up their initial claims, which is usually made up of personal ignorant beliefs, which has be proven to be faulty, as is almost always the case with whatever you claim.

        • Anon

          “No. But when a company is trying to force Danish ISP’s with injunctions to censor the transference of information from a fully legal company however, to benefit their profit, that’s clearly fascism.”

          The “information” is a sophists argument, Frederika, that “information” is their product and you know that, you just have no use for the facts. The transference of that product without license and fees paid for that legal privilege is unlawful and you know that too.

          The quid pro quo of valuable consideration for a product purchased isn’t fascism, whether you want to call it fascist or not. Enjoy yourself in that delusion if it reinforces that smug superiority you love to brandish about. But at the end of the day, you haven’t a realistic grasp of what is going on here (or why) at all.

          If Denmark wants the USA to respect their laws, Denmark will offer a reciprocation. I suppose we’ll see how Denmark thinks about this. And we’ll see how much your opinion about fascism counts in the long run, too. Enjoy your condescending blindness while it lasts.

        • Fredrika

          > “..that “information” is their product..”

          No, that information is not their product, as has been explained to you before. The product is the item you sell. The product is the physical copy. You can not own an intellectual work, you can not sell it, and it is therefore not their product.

          Your eventual semantic belief of otherwise does not change that fact.

          > “..you just have no use for the facts.”

          I’m not the one continuously trying to change the facts to support my arguments, that’s what you alone do, and just did again.

          Secondly, your incorrect and semantic objection to what constitutes the product, does not change the facts that you now completely have stopped addressing, namely that Grooveshark indeed is a fully legal company, and that it is indeed fascism to try to force an ISP to censor information distributed from one of your competitors, which operates fully within the law.

          > “The transference of that product without license and fees paid for that legal privilege is unlawful..”

          Again, it is not unlawful. What is unlawful is, as i have been explaining several times now, decided by a higher court’s precedent sentences, and no court have handed down any precedent sentences saying that distribution of information in the manner that Grooveshark contributes with constitutes something unlawful.

          Just because you personally don’t like something, or because it offers competition to your favourite licensed services, does not make something illegal or unlawful.

          There are many many legal ways to distribute copyrighted information from point a to point b without needing a license, or an approval from a rights holder, and Grooveshark’s way is just one of them.

          > “The quid pro quo of valuable consideration for a product purchased isn’t fascism..”

          Which i have not claimed? Using the judicial system to force an intermediary to censor information legally distributed between other users however, to get rid of the competition, that’s clearly fascism.

          > “Enjoy yourself in that delusion if it reinforces that smug superiority you love to brandish about.”

          Again you seem to stear away from the topic, trying to discuss me? However, as always you seem confused, maybe confusing me up with someone else? I’m not brandishing anything. This always starts with you, putting forward faulty claims that are simply incorrect as they are written. Because you, according to the facts, are incorrect about almost everything you say, i simply correct you, pointing out that what you just said was wrong.

          I seriously wish i didn’t have to, but for that to happen, you simply have got to stop putting forward so many erroneous claims that you do. Maybe you should take your own advise and hush?

          All of this starts and ends with you.

          > “But at the end of the day, you haven’t a realistic grasp of what is going on here (or why) at all.”

          That’s impossible for you to know, since i have not disclosed my belief about what’s going on, or why it takes place? I have simply corrected your faulty claims.

          > “If Denmark wants the USA to respect their laws, Denmark will offer a reciprocation.”

          Denmark obviously only wants people in Denmark to follow their law. That a confused judge eventually hands down an injunction in one direction or another is irrelevant to what Denmark wants, or are you advocating political courts, that follow political pressure from other countries and their companies wishes, instead of the law? Again that would be fascism, something that you continuously seem to advocate.

          Secondly, Denmark is a part of the EU, which is a bigger and stronger economy than North America. It’s obviously North America that should kneel over the wishes of EU, and not the other way around.

        • Anon

          “No, that information is not their product, as has been explained to you before. The product is the item you sell. The product is the physical copy. You can not own an intellectual work, you can not sell it, and it is therefore not their product.”

          I don’t know where you are getting this stuff, Fredrika, but it’s all patently, demonstrably wrong. It’s false. You are just making this stuff up.

          The “information” itself is indeed the product, the tangible format isn’t the product anymore than the digital format is the product. It’s the work itself encoded within the format that is for license, not the cd, not the vinyl or the tape or any format. Were your assertion actually true, an empty cd would have the same market value as one full of copyrighted work, something clearly, demonstrably false.

          I see now why we can’t discuss this, I’m working within strict realities of merchandise ownership, licensing agreements, the real nuts and bolts of the situation. But you make this up as you go along, insisting the discussion be along your own illusionary lines, and you know what Fredrika? THAT’s WHY pirates get no heed. If you ever want to join reality and really, truly add to the discussion with something valuable, you can lead the way to your legislature and influence the path ahead.

          But not with your made up foolishness. Save that for high-fiving the other pirates.If what you really want is to spout “purchased legislator” and “the product is the physical copy” and all that other gibberish here, then do it and feel good about yourself. Just don’t expect to be heard by the parties who actually count.

          We’ll be happy to influence the debate going forward without you, just as we actually are, in case you hadn’t noticed.

        • Fredrika

          > “I don’t know where you are getting this stuff..//..but it’s all patently, demonstrably wrong. It’s false. You are just making this stuff up.”

          As we will now discover, again, it’s the other way around. It’s your claims, that are in fact incorrect. As when you were wrong claiming that Grooveshark was operating illegally. A argumentative thread you now have completely dropped, when you were proven wrong.

          > “The “information” itself is indeed the product, the tangible format isn’t the product anymore than the digital format is the product.”

          That is simply incorrect. A “product” is something that you can own, sell and buy. You can as i previously stated not own, sell or buy an intellectual work. It is therefore simply not a product.

          Regarding this discussion there are two different products, but neither of them is made up of the intellectual work, or the information. The first product is the copyright monopoly, which is a piece of intangible property, that can be owned, sold or bought. The copyright monopoly is a product that is initially owned by the creator, or later usually sold to a publisher.

          The second product in the filesharing discussion is the physical copy, which is a product that can be owned, sold or bought, and owned by the customer.

          When you stream a song from Grovoeshark, what you actually download is information describing the physical pattern of Groovesharks physical property. This information is obviously not a product owned by or belonging to someone else, as you previously stated.

          I can very well understand that some people working in the industry considers the intellectual work the product, but that is simply a self centred misconception on their behalf. From the market- or consumer perspective, the product is always the physical goods, or the service, that you sell.

          In filesharing discussions the product is made up of the physical copy, and regarding Grooveshark, the product is the service of offering categorizing and streaming information. The product is not the information in itself. The information does not belong to someone else, which you previously claimed.

          > “It’s the work itself encoded within the format that is for license..”

          No it is not. What is available for license is the right to manufacture physical copies of the intellectual work, or to stream information describing how to manufacture the physical copy.

          > “Were your assertion actually true, an empty cd would have the same market value as one full of copyrighted work, something clearly, demonstrably false.”

          First of all you can never speak of market value when were discussing products which the manufacturing and distribution of is regulated by a legislative monopoly. This is something you learn on the first lesson when you take a course in economics.

          Secondly, the actual market value of the physical copy is indeed today the same as a blank CD, namely zero or free. Anyone can manufacture the physical copy at zero cost, and therefore the market value is zero.

          Again your claim was completely incorrect.

          > “I see now why we can’t discuss this, I’m working within strict realities of merchandise ownership, licensing agreements, the real nuts and bolts of the situation. But you make this up as you go along, insisting the discussion be along your own illusionary lines..

          Actually, no. I am not making anything up, i’m simply continuously pointing out several actual facts, that you choose to ignore completely in your arguments. Those facts do not change based on your current employment, and what you do on a daily basis, or your subjective or semantic perception of things.

          Might i suggest that the fact that you on a daily basis work with whatever you work with, is the reason why you have completely lost track of reality, and all those actual indisputable facts that you continuously deny or distort in your argumentation?

          As we have seen over the last couple of months there are many such of yours, where you claim things, that are simply not true according to actual legislation, an actual dictionary or actual physics.

          > “We’ll be happy to influence the debate going forward without you, just as we actually are, in case you hadn’t noticed.”

          Indeed, you try to influence the debate with many distorted facts and lies, and the public laughs in your face every time you do. Please continue to do so. Nothing you say or do will change the fact’s that F2F-filesharing can’t be stopped, neither technically or legislatively. People will continue to be able to do as they wish with their physical property, such as making and spreading copies, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        What you are saying is that a hardware store should be held liable for offenses committed by the screwdrivers they’ve sold?

        It is quite legal for a service to allow users to upload content which is what Grooveshark does. Grooveshark also complies with takedown notices. This renders the service completely legal.

        What you are saying is that in essence the company which builds a road should pay indemnity to victims of hit-and-run drivers in order to be legal.

  • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

    “…but that is not good enough for the copyright industry – they want complete control.”

    ’nuff said. Thank you Mr. Møller.

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Is Not Out For Music Industry Blood | PoopyParody.com

  • Pingback: Danish Anti-Piracy Group Wants ISPs to Block Grooveshark | Lose Your Fear

  • http://www.facebook.com/donagh.oleary Donagh O’Leary

    We’ve been trying to get our material taken down from Grooveshark for a year. They keep dodging the issue…

    • Guest

      Good for them.

    • Guest

      Liked you in Tenpole Tudor. Just saying.
      You run Bomber Music, yes? You are expanding into Europe, yes?
      I don’t think you’re going broke, not even in this recession.
      I got no pity. Sorry.

  • Pingback: Danish Anit-Piracy Group Moving to Block Grooveshark | SNS Post

  • Anonymous

    nirl.eu/7

  • Pingback: The Future Under SOPA: Group Too Lazy To Police Own Copyrights Seeks To Block Access To Grooveshark’s Legal Music Service « waweru.net

  • Anonymous

    nirl.eu/7

  • Anonymous

    ta.gg/5jo

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/7x9vmd

  • Pingback: RIGHTS: Danish Anti-Piracy Group: "The Market Will Die if Grooveshark Continues…" | Jazz Forum

  • Pingback: Spotify jeszcze daleko od Polski, Groovesharka chc? zamkn??, a iTunes wci?? drogi

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/7x9vmd

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/7x9vmd

  • Pingback: “Grooveshark Bosses Uploaded Music” Say Universal In Massive Lawsuit | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: “Grooveshark Bosses Uploaded Music” Say Universal In Massive Lawsuit | Links Daily

  • Pingback: Lawsuit claims Grooveshark workers posted 100,000 pirated songs - TECHNOLOGY GADGETS – TECHNOLOGY GADGETS

  • Pingback: “Grooveshark Bosses Uploaded Music” Say Universal In Massive Lawsuit | DailyBinaryNews.com

  • Pingback: Grooveshark hit by music piracy suit | DailyBinaryNews.com

  • Pingback: Groovershark in Dark Waters « Good Looks

  • Pingback: Audio essay assignment & copyright: Random notes and research citations « Rumena Zlatkova

  • Pingback: RettigheadsAlliancen quer banir o Grooveshark da internet « Vértice Informática

  • Pingback: GROOVESHARK E UNIVERSAL MUSIC-discurssão/direitos/king crimison/uploads/music | newrockerpost

  • Pingback: Notrackingme | Proxy » Blog Archiv » Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court To Order Grooveshark DNS Block

  • Pingback: Notrackingme | Proxy » Blog Archiv » “Grooveshark Bosses Uploaded Music” Say Universal In Massive Lawsuit

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.