<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: EFF: Google must explain why they nuked the Grooveshark&#160;app</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html</link>
	<description>Brain candy for Happy Mutants</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:19:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: dculberson</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089027</link>
		<dc:creator>dculberson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089027</guid>
		<description>Banks are actually required to report suspicious transactions and seize money based on law enforcement requests.  If a transaction appears suspicious and they don&#039;t report it they can get in serious trouble.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Banks are actually required to report suspicious transactions and seize money based on law enforcement requests.  If a transaction appears suspicious and they don&#8217;t report it they can get in serious trouble.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089031</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089031</guid>
		<description>&quot;Cant we just have phones that we really own?&quot;

Well, not anymore - because then we only have to pay for them once, and that&#039;s not a valid business model in today&#039;s electronics economy....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Cant we just have phones that we really own?&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, not anymore &#8211; because then we only have to pay for them once, and that&#8217;s not a valid business model in today&#8217;s electronics economy&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: atman</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089034</link>
		<dc:creator>atman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089034</guid>
		<description>Grooveshark is available for iOS as well, through Cydia. 

Both Android and iOS have the same &quot;failure mode&quot;: root/jailbreak, then sideload. The differences between the platforms in terms of actual user freedom are vanishingly small.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grooveshark is available for iOS as well, through Cydia. </p>
<p>Both Android and iOS have the same &#8220;failure mode&#8221;: root/jailbreak, then sideload. The differences between the platforms in terms of actual user freedom are vanishingly small.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: penguinchris</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089547</link>
		<dc:creator>penguinchris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089547</guid>
		<description>I hadn&#039;t really looked into Grooveshark before, but I just tried it and it seems that their business model is a) show ads next to copyright-infringing music b) charge money for mobile access to copyright-infringing music c) profit.

It looks like a neat service, but without the support of the labels (which as far as I can tell they don&#039;t have), how can they possibly get far? If it was hosted in Russia or someplace I could understand - it&#039;d be like the modern equivalent of a pirate radio station - but it&#039;s hosted in Florida.

I hope that their efforts do some good and help force change in the music industry, but as it stands they&#039;re enabling copyright infringement on a massive scale. I personally don&#039;t think copyright infringement means much, but I can understand why Google is cautious about allowing it in the market.

And has been noted, the freedom of Android is not that you&#039;re free to put whatever you want on the market. You&#039;re free to install things from other sources. Google has every right to restrict what&#039;s in their market, and in fact they *should* do that, at least in certain cases like this where allowing it would only cause pain for Google.

I use AT&amp;T (family plan), but I have an unlocked Android phone (Nexus One) and I rooted it, installed a custom ROM, etc. So I can install things from outside the market. I won&#039;t be installing Grooveshark, though, because for mobile access they want $9 a month and it doesn&#039;t really seem like it&#039;s legal! At least if it were free (even ad-supported) it wouldn&#039;t seem like extremely un-subtle subversion of the law (as incorrect as the law may be). If that $9 was spread evenly among the artists who you listen to each month, that&#039;d be something else which I could totally get behind, but that&#039;s not what&#039;s happening here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hadn&#8217;t really looked into Grooveshark before, but I just tried it and it seems that their business model is a) show ads next to copyright-infringing music b) charge money for mobile access to copyright-infringing music c) profit.</p>
<p>It looks like a neat service, but without the support of the labels (which as far as I can tell they don&#8217;t have), how can they possibly get far? If it was hosted in Russia or someplace I could understand &#8211; it&#8217;d be like the modern equivalent of a pirate radio station &#8211; but it&#8217;s hosted in Florida.</p>
<p>I hope that their efforts do some good and help force change in the music industry, but as it stands they&#8217;re enabling copyright infringement on a massive scale. I personally don&#8217;t think copyright infringement means much, but I can understand why Google is cautious about allowing it in the market.</p>
<p>And has been noted, the freedom of Android is not that you&#8217;re free to put whatever you want on the market. You&#8217;re free to install things from other sources. Google has every right to restrict what&#8217;s in their market, and in fact they *should* do that, at least in certain cases like this where allowing it would only cause pain for Google.</p>
<p>I use AT&#038;T (family plan), but I have an unlocked Android phone (Nexus One) and I rooted it, installed a custom ROM, etc. So I can install things from outside the market. I won&#8217;t be installing Grooveshark, though, because for mobile access they want $9 a month and it doesn&#8217;t really seem like it&#8217;s legal! At least if it were free (even ad-supported) it wouldn&#8217;t seem like extremely un-subtle subversion of the law (as incorrect as the law may be). If that $9 was spread evenly among the artists who you listen to each month, that&#8217;d be something else which I could totally get behind, but that&#8217;s not what&#8217;s happening here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brillow</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1090321</link>
		<dc:creator>brillow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1090321</guid>
		<description>Google is snuggling up to the RIAA so they can launch their music locker service with limited fuss, this was (directly or indirectly) part of that process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google is snuggling up to the RIAA so they can launch their music locker service with limited fuss, this was (directly or indirectly) part of that process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hectorinwa</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089576</link>
		<dc:creator>hectorinwa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089576</guid>
		<description>The native app sucked anyhow - You all know about Tinyshark, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The native app sucked anyhow &#8211; You all know about Tinyshark, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089090</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089090</guid>
		<description>You are mistaken: Android phones do not require any hacking of any sort in order to sideload applications.

Android phone with AT&amp;T branding do not allow this, however, but they are the exception.

The very same grooveshark app for Android is freely available to download at their website m.grooveshark.com.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are mistaken: Android phones do not require any hacking of any sort in order to sideload applications.</p>
<p>Android phone with AT&#038;T branding do not allow this, however, but they are the exception.</p>
<p>The very same grooveshark app for Android is freely available to download at their website m.grooveshark.com.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089094</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089094</guid>
		<description>You don&#039;t have to root to sideload Android.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You don&#8217;t have to root to sideload Android.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pmark</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089103</link>
		<dc:creator>pmark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089103</guid>
		<description>There should be an investigation into why Google removed real-estate searches from Maps. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There should be an investigation into why Google removed real-estate searches from Maps. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YarbroughFair</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1088869</link>
		<dc:creator>YarbroughFair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1088869</guid>
		<description>I agree: Google storing code is the same as a bank storing money; a bank has no obligation to define the representation of every dollar it stores, were it came from, how it was used or how it may be used once it&#039;s withdrawn. Additionally, the interest a bank earns on these deposits does not inherit the monies history, good or bad. Finally, Google is responsible on how they &quot;lend&quot; their code; as a bank would too concerning money. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree: Google storing code is the same as a bank storing money; a bank has no obligation to define the representation of every dollar it stores, were it came from, how it was used or how it may be used once it&#8217;s withdrawn. Additionally, the interest a bank earns on these deposits does not inherit the monies history, good or bad. Finally, Google is responsible on how they &#8220;lend&#8221; their code; as a bank would too concerning money. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yano</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1088883</link>
		<dc:creator>Yano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1088883</guid>
		<description>With all due respect to the EFF they weren&#039;t present during the last last COICA/piracy congressional hearing: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20051248-261.html 

Reps were seriously asking why Google doesn&#039;t fix all the ills in the world and stop all crime and the hearing before that turned into a Google witch trial in absentia.

So they are essentially under huge pressure from politicians in the pocket of big content.

Oh, and you can still side-load the app(s).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With all due respect to the EFF they weren&#8217;t present during the last last COICA/piracy congressional hearing: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20051248-261.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20051248-261.html</a> </p>
<p>Reps were seriously asking why Google doesn&#8217;t fix all the ills in the world and stop all crime and the hearing before that turned into a Google witch trial in absentia.</p>
<p>So they are essentially under huge pressure from politicians in the pocket of big content.</p>
<p>Oh, and you can still side-load the app(s).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1088923</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1088923</guid>
		<description>While I don&#039;t know why Google pulled the app, and it would be nice if Google made it clear why when something was pulled, after reading:

http://grooveshark.com/api
http://grooveshark.com/terms
http://grooveshark.com/privacy

I&#039;m not at all surprised that there was some reason to pull it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I don&#8217;t know why Google pulled the app, and it would be nice if Google made it clear why when something was pulled, after reading:</p>
<p><a href="http://grooveshark.com/api" rel="nofollow">http://grooveshark.com/api</a><br />
<a href="http://grooveshark.com/terms" rel="nofollow">http://grooveshark.com/terms</a><br />
<a href="http://grooveshark.com/privacy" rel="nofollow">http://grooveshark.com/privacy</a></p>
<p>I&#8217;m not at all surprised that there was some reason to pull it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1088974</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1088974</guid>
		<description>It just occurred to me: why is the EFF defending the rights of people the way they do? shouldn&#039;t there be like...some sort
of governmental body for that? Somewhere?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It just occurred to me: why is the EFF defending the rights of people the way they do? shouldn&#8217;t there be like&#8230;some sort<br />
of governmental body for that? Somewhere?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pantograph</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089757</link>
		<dc:creator>Pantograph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089757</guid>
		<description>I do now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089259</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089259</guid>
		<description>Jailbreak != Root either.

To my understanding there are some sizeable tradeoffs when  jailbreaking - so much so that its mostly not worth it (battery performance decline among others).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jailbreak != Root either.</p>
<p>To my understanding there are some sizeable tradeoffs when  jailbreaking &#8211; so much so that its mostly not worth it (battery performance decline among others).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rebdav</title>
		<link>http://boingboing.net/2011/04/21/eff-google-must-expl.html#comment-1089012</link>
		<dc:creator>rebdav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1089012</guid>
		<description>This is why I chose the MAEMO powered Nokia N900, default unlocked, free as in beer/speech Linux goodness, every built in phone accessory known to man including a great point and shoot camera, in a far better developed for piece of hardware than the train wreck that was OpenMoko.  I have more high quality useful apps than any phone OS I know and still get a native Angry Birds port too.
Why does every manufacturer even Nokia have to eventually revert to the MSFT or iOS model?
Cant we just have phones that we really own?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is why I chose the MAEMO powered Nokia N900, default unlocked, free as in beer/speech Linux goodness, every built in phone accessory known to man including a great point and shoot camera, in a far better developed for piece of hardware than the train wreck that was OpenMoko.  I have more high quality useful apps than any phone OS I know and still get a native Angry Birds port too.<br />
Why does every manufacturer even Nokia have to eventually revert to the MSFT or iOS model?<br />
Cant we just have phones that we really own?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
