Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grooveshark Co-founder Josh Greenberg Dead At 28

Posted by samzenpus on from the rest-in-peace dept.

alphadogg writes: The tech startup world has been shaken today by news that 28-year-old Josh Greenberg, co-founder of recently defunct music sharing service Grooveshark, was found dead on Sunday in the Florida apartment he shared with his girlfriend. No foul play is suspected, but the local medical examiner is conducting an autopsy, according to the Gainesville Sun. Grooveshark was shut down in April after the company was threatened with legal action and possibly hundreds of millions in damages by several big music labels.

173 comments

  1. Music industry is sooo fucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they dont even know it, thanks for the memories Josh. You, Tarantino and that indian guy were good to G-ville.

    1. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Josh may not be dead of fowl play, but the music industry... as in the artists are definitely dead.

      The big labels are doing fine, with record album sales. However, their bands are the labels' constructs with musicians hired individually. They don't have A&R men that find a good band gigging at a night club and sign that band anymore. At best they are looking for someone good looking, and docile enough to sign what lyrics are put in front of them.

      As for what put the artists out of business. Very simple: Streaming (virtually zero revenue), pay by the track (can't make money from 99 cents/track as you can with CD sales), and piracy (zero revenue.) There are far more bands than venues, and if you want to "gig" you have to rent the venue and pay those costs, as opposed to just hopping on stage and getting a cut of the door and bar as in the past.

      So, the artists are hosed... but the music industry will happily making Justin Biebers, and the masses will obey and buy those songs.

    2. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      http://www.floridageekscene.co...

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    3. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A chicken might have killed him?

    4. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are far more bands than venues, and if you want to "gig" you have to rent the venue and pay those costs, as opposed to just hopping on stage and getting a cut of the door and bar as in the past.

      Maybe that's true if you're trying to play a concert hall but there are lots of gigs to be had without renting out a venue. I'm active in the bar scene in Louisville and most places operate the old fashioned way. Either the bar will charge a cover and you take a percentage, or the house straight up pays the band, say, $300 plus drinks for a 3 hour set. Nobody's getting rich at the no-cover shows but it's always been like that...

      Rest of what you said seems spot on. The "music industry" as pertains to record labels are a bunch of predatory shits. Nothing new there.

    5. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Josh may not be dead of fowl play

      Certainly not: he was no chicken that one.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Josh may not be dead of fowl play,[...]

      What! There is no killer chickens on the loose. That's a relief.

    7. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      The big labels are doing fine, with record album sales.

      While I agree about the challenges around streaming, pay by the track, and piracy, where are you getting the idea that album sales are at records?

      Album sales (including album downloads) are down by nearly 65% from their peak around 2000.

      http://blog.thecurrent.org/201...

    8. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to leave this here...

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129441/

    9. Re:Music industry is sooo fucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the heck do you idiots get this "can't make money with pay-per-track" idea? When one track costs 99 cents, you're probably paying on average 50% more than someone who pays per album. I still buy CDs instead of MP3s (unless Amazon sells it with "autorip") because it's cheaper for me, AND I can rip to FLAC or Ogg instead as soon as I have it in hand.

    10. Re: Music industry is sooo fucked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense. I can't think of a single album with more than 6 songs I care about. No album is $5.94.

      You're stupid. How is buying 2-3 popular songs from an album for $2.97 50% more than paying for album for half Shit filler songs?

  2. No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... suicide?

    1. Re:No Foul play... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So... suicide?

      I'm guessing no... Accidental overdose is my bet. Of course there are a whole range of possible options...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely under-reported. Almost willing to put money on alcohol + benzos. e.g., xanax, etc.

    3. Re:No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if there is no medical reason or 'foul play' given in a story, that usually means someone took their own life. Of course until the autopsy it's technically too early to say, so journalists have the excuse that they don't want to speculate, for not spelling it out.

    4. Re:No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wasn't because of birds playing and I guess, hitting him in the head with a bat or ball or something. In Florida, the water fowl can be a bit aggressive in their games.

      Now, it's quite possible that fowl work was involved. Those damn birds will do anything for food!

    5. Re:No Foul play... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing he suffered an overdose of lawyers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:No Foul play... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Accidental overdose on 5 knives sticking out of his back and chest. Obviously no foul play. A guy tries to run a startup, the startup has crushed for various reasons, then there is the question of lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed damages to music labels. No foul play...

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    7. Re:No Foul play... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      or an un-diagnosed heart condition. which is surprisingly common.

    8. Re:No Foul play... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Well, everybody knows about angry birds so it shouldn't be a surprise.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    9. Re:No Foul play... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A guy tries to run a startup, the startup has crushed for various reasons, then there is the question of lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed damages to music labels. No foul play...

      Really? That's your approach to this? Yet another young guy trying to find a way to get rich by setting up a system built from the ground up to infringe on others' copyrights, and which gave laughable lip service to take-down notices (ripped off material that was removed re-appeared more or less instantly). Foul play? The foul play was on his part, and of course the chickens came home to roost, which is why he gave up on the scheme. Whether or how yet another failure of a Piracy-As-A-Service "start-up" might have contributed to his death remains to be seen.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re: No Foul play... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When things like "happy birthday" can still retain copyright, then I have zero respect for all copyright.

    11. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And no one who still has their life wrote "Happy Birthday", so there. Copyright law is insane, and one way to try to change it is to ignore it with derision. Not saying it's the best way, just a way.

    12. Re: No Foul play... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 0

      So a song supposedly written in the last 80 years or so having a copyright still on it means that you have zero respect for the GPL?

    13. Re: No Foul play... by roninmagus · · Score: 1

      No, it means he wants shit for free and doesn't care if artists or their heirs get paid.

    14. Re: No Foul play... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      No, it means he wants shit for free and doesn't care if artists or their heirs get paid.

      Your fallacy is strong with this one. Creator-endorsed is a much more civil system - copyright isn't the only way to get paid. It may be one way to get paid more, but that gets paid for with lives of innocents (and no, profit reduced from a hypothetical does not make one a victim).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    15. Re:No Foul play... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Imagine a nation-wide referendum asking voters if music copyright law should be retained. What percentage would vote "yes" you think? 0.01%? 0.02%? 0.05% possibly? Whatever number you pick, there's your answer who paid for that law.

    16. Re: No Foul play... by roninmagus · · Score: 1

      Call it falacy if you want. I've written and sold software that made its way onto TPB and resulted directly in lost sales, so I'm a bit salty. They just want shit for free, and the logic of that assertion will always be perfectly sound to me.

    17. Re: No Foul play... by roninmagus · · Score: 1

      Fallacy*

    18. Re: No Foul play... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Since when did rationale become synonymous with excuse?

    19. Re: No Foul play... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      It's not my responsibility to see that anybody gets paid.

    20. Re:No Foul play... by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Imagine a nation-wide referendum asking voters if music copyright law should be retained.

      Which is exactly why referendum votes are usually such a terrible idea. Because most people lack the information and critical thinking skills to vote wisely. The same people you think would sweep away copyright laws would then be wondering why nobody is making them any movies beyond the generally crappy garage-level indie dreck that can scrape up some family and gofundme me cash. They'd wonder why their favorite musicians would be charging $400 for a concert ticket, and no longer laboring to make complex recordings that involve months of work, dozens of studio musicians and the like. They'd wonder why their favorite authors would stop writing books that involve the investment of years of their lives ... because they're too busy trying to pay their bills doing paid short story readings at Barnes & Noble. Of course B&N would be out of business, so that wouldn't actually happen.

      "Paid for the law?" The concept has been in place since the founding of the country, because the people who chartered the nation recognized the essential role that copyrights play in protecting a vital area of work. Because most voters couldn't even tell you what the Bill of Rights is, don't lecture about how meaningful a simple referendum would be, in this regard.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re:No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yet another young guy trying to find a way to get rich by setting up a system built from the ground up to infringe on others' copyrights, and which gave laughable lip service to take-down notices...

      pfft. not even the half of it:
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/judge-rules-grooveshark-infringed-thousands-of-copyrights/

      In 2007, Grooveshark CTO Joshua Greenberg wrote a company-wide post reading:

      Please share as much music as possible from outside the office, and leave your computers on whenever you can. This initial content is what will help to get our network started—it’s very important that we all help out! ... Download as many MP3’s as possible, and add them to the folders you’re sharing on Grooveshark. Some of us are setting up special “seed points” to house tens or even hundreds of thousands of files, but we can’t do this alone There is no reason why ANYONE in the company should not be able to do this, and I expect everyone to have this done by Monday IF I DON’T HAVE AN EMAIL FROM YOU IN MY INBOX BY MONDAY, YOU’RE ON MY OFFICIAL SHIT LIST.

    22. Re: No Foul play... by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      It's not my responsibility to see that anybody gets paid.

      But it IS your responsibility to not rip people off, or to tolerate other people doing so. Especially if you personally like the output of artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and others who - without copyrights on their creations - wouldn't bother to create what you like.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    23. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Artists should be paid for the work they do and the works they create.

      Artists' heirs can get a fucking job like everybody else, unless their parent(s) saved their money wisely. Children of engineers don't get royalty checks just because daddy helped build the Golden Gate Bridge. The garbage man's kids aren't entitled to free money forever, either. Copyright was never intended to be a multi-generational endowment.

    24. Re: No Foul play... by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      And who gets to decide that someone has been "ripped off"? If instead of there being a privileged class of people "creating" things I like, there was more of an effort to make tools that make it easier to bring things into existence things people like, the world would be a far better place.

    25. Re:No Foul play... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      The mafia has used "drug overdose" for at least the past 30 years. We all know what the RIAA really is...

    26. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Personally, I send payment in cash directly to artists home address and bypass any middlemen for the cost of album.

    27. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I think of the GPL as the cure to copyright. It's job is to ensure work stays in the public, copyright is designed to keep the rights private.

      Man kind would be better off limiting copyright to life of author, or 25 years for a corporation.

    28. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When things like "happy birthday" can still retain copyright, then I have zero respect for all copyright.

      Notorious cases of alleged police brutality resulting in the death of the suspect are often followed by widespread looting of stores, with the perpetrators using justification like yours.

      If you graduated from college and still can think like that, you should ask your college for a refund.

    29. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bet you it didnt

    30. Re: No Foul play... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Call it falacy if you want. I've written and sold software that made its way onto TPB and resulted directly in lost sales,

      No doubt you got an F in high school economics.

      In fact here's a little lesson: At my school, a student walked into the classroom saying that the soda machine was selling bottles (which were normally $1.50) for 5 cents. You know what happened? Basically the whole class went out to buy a soda. However if the price remained at $1.50, there wouldn't have been any increased sales; they would have simply done without.

      This is a very basic economic concept called price elasticity. When something is free (aka your software) then the demand is much greater. However if the price is higher, then there's substantially less demand.

      In simpler terms, if somebody didn't get your software for free, they would have simply gone without it anyways.

      Now, that isn't to say that piracy doesn't negatively impact sales. It can, but not in the way you're thinking. Namely, one download isn't one lost sale. It's realistically much less than that, though how much less depends on the particular good.

      For example, gasoline is something that is very inelastic. It pretty much doesn't matter how much it costs, people still tend to consume roughly the same amount of it, even when it goes up substantially.

      However, in digital goods it tends to work more like this: The pirated copy may negatively impact the perceived value of a legitimate copy, but has virtually no negative impact on actual sales. Somebody might, for example, pirate a copy of your program, but then wait until it is offered at a discount before buying the real thing.

      Now -- having said that -- a lot of software companies have taken advantage of this by offering special incentives for pirated users to go legit, and they usually do quite well with it. Although they made less than they would have if they had sold it at full price, they at least got some sales that they otherwise never would have had, so in the end it's a much more profitable proposition than had those users just done without entirely.

    31. Re: No Foul play... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Notorious cases of alleged police brutality resulting in the death of the suspect are often followed by widespread looting of stores, with the perpetrators using justification like yours.

      I don't recall justifying anything, just saying that I don't respect copyright law. It's like a homosexual saying they don't respect any laws against gay marriage. Why do they need to justify it? It's just their opinion whether you like it or not.

      If you graduated from college and still can think like that, you should ask your college for a refund.

      Actually I've written commercial software that I know somebody has pirated and then sold for a profit. I just shrugged it off and decided not to get bent out of shape over it.

    32. Re:No Foul play... by storkus · · Score: 1

      Really? That's your approach to this? Yet another young guy trying to find a way to get rich by setting up a system built from the ground up to infringe on others' copyrights, and which gave laughable lip service to take-down notices (ripped off material that was removed re-appeared more or less instantly). Foul play? The foul play was on his part, and of course the chickens came home to roost, which is why he gave up on the scheme. Whether or how yet another failure of a Piracy-As-A-Service "start-up" might have contributed to his death remains to be seen.

      Paid for by your friends in the MPAA and RIAA.

    33. Re: No Foul play... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      So they lost money on every sale of soda? That is not a good argument.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re: No Foul play... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's demonstrably bad for the entire music industry, especially as the labels which are complaining now are seeking to remove the access they used to get successful. I've created a fair bit, personally, so I'll save you the hassle of having to accuse me of not knowing.

    35. Re: No Foul play... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's not the artists getting ripped off, but the music labels. You really should figure out how much money from these services - even the 100% legit ones - goes to the artists. It's apparently a lot less than you seem to think, and if you think the labels ask the artists whether they want their music to be available for streaming, think again. Large acts with good representation might be able to swing it, but everyone else is screwed. Why do you support music labels screwing over artists and the public alike? Honest question.

    36. Re: No Foul play... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Just to play devil's advocate - the software on the TPB might have lead to a lost sale, but it also might not have. You'd need some actual evidence one way or another to make that leap.

    37. Re: No Foul play... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Music labels rip the artists off, but you are calling for music labels to be respected in their dealings. It seems you are slightly confused as to what roles artists and labels play.

    38. Re: No Foul play... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Nit picking the difference between physical end electronic goods doesn't actually detract from his excellent example of price elasticity.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    39. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything I have created has been given to mankind for free.

    40. Re:No Foul play... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Or trying to treat a serious hangover with tylenol. A doctor friend of mine says tylenol needs to have a skull and crossbones on it thanks to how many die of liver shutdown because they got drunk and then tried to get rid of the hangover with some extra strength tylenol.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    41. Re: No Foul play... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Music labels rip the artists off, but you are calling for music labels to be respected in their dealings. It seems you are slightly confused as to what roles artists and labels play.

      Are you talking about actual fraud and breech of contract? If so, artists have all sorts of recourse to recover not only something that's been fraudulently taken from them, but to recover punitive damages, as well.

      Or are you talking about artists who sign an ill-considered contract because they've chosen poorly in their selection of business partners, and couldn't be bothered to get some expert help to look over the contract? You're not being "ripped off" when you choose to enter into an agreement.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    42. Re: No Foul play... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And who gets to decide that someone has been "ripped off"?

      It's really not that complicated. When an artist creates something, and offers it to the market on certain terms, people who take it anyway without actually honoring those terms are ripping it off. It's as simple as that. If you don't like the terms under which someone's creative work is being offered, just walk away. If you say instead, "That's nice, Mr. Filmmaker/Recording Artist/Author, I really admire your creativity and appreciate the thousands of hours you've put into creating the entertainment I want ... but I don't respect you enough to agree to your terms, so I'm just going to take what I want and screw you... but please, keep making more of what I like!" ... then you know exactly who is doing the ripping off.

      Pretending you can't get that is you being completely disingenuous, and you know it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    43. Re: No Foul play... by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      In simpler terms, if somebody didn't get your software for free, they would have simply gone without it anyways.

      That would only be true if (a) no one ever bought software and (b) it was considered fair for all creators of digital works to give their time for free and absorb any other incidental expenses.

      As it is, this software developer had no chance to try out the market for his work, as it is clearly impossible to compete on price with zero.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    44. Re: No Foul play... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Nit picking the difference between physical end electronic goods doesn't actually detract from his excellent example of price elasticity.

      I disagree. It's meaningless talking about price elasticity when you are comparing any cost with zero. The assumption is that, just because you can copy something, it has no intrinsic value. This would be plausible if software (or games, music, movies) cost nothing to create, but that's not true.

      And the problem is that you can't really let the market sort it out, since no one can compete with free.

      So you end up with the people who create the goods having no way to even cover their costs, let alone make a profit. Seems crazy in a capitalist society to me.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re: No Foul play... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's not my responsibility to see that anybody gets paid.

      Nor is it anyone's responsibility to provide you with free stuff.

      You are perfectly free to make your own software, music or movies.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    46. Re: No Foul play... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And who gets to decide that someone has been "ripped off"? If instead of there being a privileged class of people "creating" things I like, there was more of an effort to make tools that make it easier to bring things into existence things people like, the world would be a far better place.

      Oh please, there has never been an easier time to make music, movies, games or anything else.

      Having free tools available doesn't make everyone into a musician, film director or games programmer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    47. Re: No Foul play... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Children of engineers don't get royalty checks just because daddy helped build the Golden Gate Bridge

      If daddy owned a toll bridge then the kids could still be earning toll fees from it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re: No Foul play... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Actually I've written commercial software that I know somebody has pirated and then sold for a profit. I just shrugged it off and decided not to get bent out of shape over it.

      Lucky you for not having to worry about money.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then the solution is to stop caring about money and everyone will get along just fine realizing that working for a green slip of paper is obtuse and the wrong way to evolve as a society.

    50. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you can't take it with you when you die, and *gasp* we all die, why should anyone care about money so much that it rules their existence? Lighten up, francis.

    51. Re:No Foul play... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Paid for the law in its current strict form by content owners and distributors. And btw if 99% were to vote for abolishing the copyright law, you can't attribute it to no one understanding the complex issue -- that's a valid argument only when the perception is split.

      If people would be really as disappointed as you describe, then have another referendum in 10 years and ask them do they want the copyright law back. Given the latest formulaic crap that's been made in the last few years, I don't think we'd be at much of a loss for that decade. And artists who just had to make art would make it anyway.

    52. Re: No Foul play... by fluffynuts · · Score: 1

      Just one little problem with your analogy:

      In the case of software, another distributed copy costs the coder nothing. The soda, on the other hand, cost the company > 5 cents, so they made a loss that day. Which is to say that your general gist is completely right (for software): a pirated download represents ZERO lost and a potential for gain as some who get the software for free and try it out will feel obliged to pay for it and will do so; however, without the "free full trial", they never would have even gone down that path.

    53. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but they made it up in volume.

    54. Re: No Foul play... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No, you misunderstand price elasticity. It has *nothing* to do with the production.

      Price elasticity is how much sales will change with change in price. Production and costs are not relevent to price elasticity.

      Production and costs + price elasticity weighs in to how you decide to price your product. Clearly there no point shipping units for less then the cost per unit. But that still doesn't effect price elasticity.

      And the soda can thing was an excellent example of how the number of sales changes with the price.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    55. Re: No Foul play... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      LOL I have heard this argument before only it was presented seriously. Loss-leaders are a thing. This was not one of them. Now, if the soda was less than five cents to produce and distribute then maybe... That would be the entirety of the bottle deposit in my current state.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    56. Re: No Foul play... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      So how do you determine what's copied and what's "created"?
      What if I say I couldn't care less about this "creativity" thing you just made up to justify charging me for something that no one actually owns. What if I said, I don't like the hostile environment you're shoving down people's throats.
      What if I told you I thought you were being disingenuous about how all this stuff came into being and if apparently destroyed could come into being again. What if I told I wanted you to stop "making" stuff ever again, and stop harassing people who are doing interesting things with the stuff you claim you made. Your stuff is garbage and I'm just recycling.

    57. Re: No Foul play... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Nobody said they were responsible for anything. In fact, I woud say we'd be better off if they just stopped being involved in junk culture..

    58. Re: No Foul play... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      No, but the only things preventing everyone from being a musician, film director or games programmer are handicaps that research into them would allow us to produce technology that would enable them to overcome said handicaps.

    59. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never had respect for copyright. When I can have whatever I want whenever I want, I am just thankful I live in such a time. I'm sure I would enjoy living in other times throughout history as well. I would like to have been like Doc Brown in BTTF3. I can only hope that I would be motivated to wonder how things work and how I could make changes. Anyway, the idea that I can have whatever I want for free but then I would have to elect to pay some other entity that claims to own such a thing is preposterous to me. I hear from people I speak to about this that this is stealing. It sure doesn't feel like stealing. I grew up in the time where if someone had the "new" cd and you wanted it, you either brought a blank disc to school the next day for them to burn it for you or you took the original and made the copy yourself. We were all quite trusting that the original would make it back to its owner. I say it doesn't feel like stealing because instead of the purchaser being deprived of his or her cd, now we both have it! It's the greatest thing! 2 from 1! Anyway, i'm too young to remember don't copy that floppy, and too old to be persuaded to buy all the itunes music my girlfriend has. That to me is illogical. If you (as a couple) have already purchased the music, why would you purchase it again? Madness.

    60. Re: No Foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've written and sold software that made its way onto TPB and resulted directly in lost sales

      Citation needed.

      The 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sales myth has been debunked over and over again.

      Dipshit

    61. Re: No Foul play... by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Or are you talking about artists who sign an ill-considered contract because they've chosen poorly in their selection of business partners, and couldn't be bothered to get some expert help to look over the contract? You're not being "ripped off" when you choose to enter into an agreement.

      Are you claiming that the record labels who offer these bad contracts are innocent?

  3. Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, accidental heroin overdose? RIP. Feel bad for the young man who clearly had so much to live for.

    1. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Florida. So more than likely cocaine or pills.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GainvillePD tweet said no signs of foul play or suicide. Also, they didn't find any signs of drug use. I'm thinking maybe he had something like an undiagnosed brain aneurysm that ruptured.

    3. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Python?

    4. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cocaine is really difficult to overdose on, especially at such a young age. People who die from cocaine usually have a heart attack and are usually close to having one anyway. "Pills" is overly general. Opiates (oxycontin, heroin, morphene, fentanyl) are 99.9% of the overdoses that affect otherwise healthy people.

      The actual overdose rates don't seem to support that on the surface, unless heroin is almost exclusively being used by healthy people, and cocaine is being used almost exclusively by physically frail individuals. http://www.drugabuse.gov/relat...

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    5. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Florida wouldn't crystal meth be most likely?

    6. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot more cocaine users than heroin..
      2013 stats:
      Heroin : 300000 users, 9000 deaths
      Cocaine : 1.5million, 5000 death
      Rx opioid : no hard number from my source, 17000 death

      Stats from www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

    7. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The recent heroin overdose uptick seems to be caused by massive cutting with fentanyl and other adulterants, so people can't determine a safe dose.

      Short of having generic heroin available at WalMart for five bucks, people are gonna keep dying. But, hey, why else is the US Army guarding the opium fields?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look at that institutional sexist exclusion of women from drug overdose deaths.

    9. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Cocaine is really difficult to overdose on, especially at such a young age.

      Tell that to Len Bias.

    10. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      As an IV drug abuser... I prefer my fentanyl personally extracted and without the nasty heroin in it. Heroin is for wimps.

      I no longer use opiates (or alcohol but that stopped a few years ago - opiates were more recently ceased). No, I am not going to go into the details of how to extract Fentanyl from mylar or jelly patches. The sublingual pills are easy enough but rare as hen's teeth. As always, feel free to do drugs - they are a lot of fun and you can have a great time with them. Practice safe use - you can put more in but you can't take them out. Well, Narcan helps.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Lots of coke in Florida. Lots of cheap pills too - often benzos or opiates. But, really, scads of coke in Florida. Like street prices of $50/g type of amounts. It is usually pretty good comparatively. There is lots of meth but that is mostly up in the northern parts and out on the panhandle.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Dead at 28, no apparent signs of foul play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't say the relative prevalence of usage within the population...
      A quick check of the NIH site suggests that cocaine use is 5x heroin use.
      http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
      With the death rates for 2013 (when the usage stats were taken) ~2x heroin deaths to cocaine deaths, that would suggest you are 10x more likely to die of heroin than cocaine.

      As it goes, I find that fairly surprising, given the fact that most of the mid-30s skilled workers I know almost all do coke at the very least semi-regularly and almost all of them have dealt with it without issue, while all my friends who have got into heroin have struggled desperately to get out. Having said that though, of the heroin users, none have died, so perhaps the story here is that risk of death isn't actually the biggest concern for drug users, but rather the negative implications of possible addiction are...

  4. huh. he just up and died. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    His mother, Lori Greenberg, told the paper that her son was in good health and that police had found no visible injuries or signs of drug use. Moreover, the local police department confirmed in a tweet that there was no evidence of foul play or suicide.

    1. Re:huh. he just up and died. by operagost · · Score: 2

      That's why an autopsy is being employed-- there was no PHYSICAL evidence of suicide. Cops aren't medical experts. Duh.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  5. 28 is a dangerous age by clayshan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should be thinking of the family, especially his parents. My son also died at 28, one-third of a decade ago.

    1. Re:28 is a dangerous age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to hear that. :-( When someone near goes away at old age and natural causes it's all sad for a while but it's at least understandable and you have some chance to be prepared.

    2. Re:28 is a dangerous age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just go ahead and not think about this at all because it doesn't affect me.

    3. Re:28 is a dangerous age by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't imagine the pain of losing a child. My heart goes out to you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:28 is a dangerous age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, have a bit of humanity. Didn't your mother tell you to play nice?

      If you are going to be a butthead don't do it anonymous coward.... Give us a fighting chance of finding you and firebombing your house....

      I swear, what are kids taught these days....You must be a lot of fun to be around...

    5. Re:28 is a dangerous age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reported to the FBI for threatening arson and murder.

    6. Re:28 is a dangerous age by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      You're right 28 is a dangerous age. It wouldn't actually surprise me if he was an adventurous sort, or did high impact sports or something similar. Three of my friends back ~8 years ago had heart attacks, they were 27, 28, 28. It was directly linked to their lifestyle, one was a marathon runner, the other played high-impact sports, the other was a boxer.

      You have my condolences on your son.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:28 is a dangerous age by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You can consider it as having come out of my mouth if that helps. I have the same sympathy and echo their sentiment. Odd, really. I am not usually all that empathetic but this one just seems to be the one that makes me so. I do not control my feelings (nor do I let them control me). So, yeah, have some empathy or at least be civil enough to keep your opinion to yourself. We do not always have to be assholes.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:28 is a dangerous age by Threni · · Score: 1

      Not as dangerous as 27.

      Also, I thought you're supposed to punch sharks in the back like that Australian guy did?

    9. Re:28 is a dangerous age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop whining. Nobody forced you to read the post and nobody is obligated to think the way you do.

    10. Re:28 is a dangerous age by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      My cousin died at that age. She was beautiful, incredibly smart and was totally fucked up by my aunt. She had to take drugs to shut up the hypercritical voice her mother ingrained into her head.

      Then there are the idiots who do stupid things like race their motorcycles at 160MPH and get killed - like my brother did 10 years ago.

      Then there are the shit happens of cancer and other diseases that you can't help. That's my fate.

      In other words, everybody's family at one time or another has a tragedy so get over yourself.

      You're a fucking retard. Losing a child is the worst thing I can imagine.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    11. Re:28 is a dangerous age by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Why should we be thinking of his parents? It won't help.

  6. Criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, are "several big music labels", going tp be prosecuted for negligent homocide?

  7. pronoun confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I know I'm a heel for pointing out grammar humor at a time time like this:

    From the article -
    "Greenberg's mother is quoted in the Gainesville Sun article saying he was more relieved than upset by the service shutdown"

    I don't think it's nice to use the pronoun 'he' to refer to his mother.

    1. Re:pronoun confusion by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Commas, quotes and antecedents lives matter.... Especially at a time like this...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Reading confusion by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    "he" clearly refers to her son in this sentence.

    You can read it like this:
    "Greenberg's mother is quoted in the Gainesville Sun article saying her son was more relieved than upset by the service shutdown"

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Reading confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "he" clearly refers to her son in this sentence.

      Only if you presume that his mother is female. In this day and age, that is a brash presumption.

    2. Re: Reading confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She may self-identify as his father.

    3. Re: Reading confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce? Is that you? Change your mind again eh?

  10. Re:no surprise by PRMan · · Score: 1

    The man's son died. At least allow him a little poetry in his death....

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  11. Re:no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd off myself as well if i had to hear you spew out that awkward mouthful every time you should have just said 3 years !

    It was three years and four months, learn how fractions work you insensitive clod!

  12. Don't assume the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This young man was under a tremendous amount of pressure. It doesn't matter whether you agree with Groovesharks practices... this isn't supposed to be the end goal.

    Think anyone in the *AA shed a single tear?

    Captcha was "sellout".... unreal

    1. Re:Don't assume the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not part of the *AAs and I still won't shed a tear. In fact, I'm laughing at his beta ass.

    2. Re:Don't assume the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So edgy.

  13. Re:no surprise by clayshan · · Score: 2

    Thank you; I always know exactly how long it's been; one-third of a decade plus three days today; or, if you prefer, 40 months and 3 days.

  14. Re:no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three years, four months...

  15. Re:We can only hope by Spottywot · · Score: 1

    I hope this isn't just some boring suicide and is actually some kind of insane Illuminati cover up shit.

    You hope that bad shit that happens is worse than it first appears so that you can be entertained? That's pretty fucked up.

    --
    In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
  16. In his honor... by Tx · · Score: 5, Funny

    In his honor, I plan to launch a streaming burials site, where you can watch people being laid to rest 24/7. No, I will not pay any royalties to the families of the deceased.

    I plan to call the site "GraveShark".

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
    1. Re:In his honor... by Lagmo · · Score: 1

      In his honor, I plan to launch a streaming burials site, where you can watch people being laid to rest 24/7. No, I will not pay any royalties to the families of the deceased.

      I plan to call the site "GraveShark".

      Definitely puts 'Shark Week' into a whole new perspective..

      Your ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:In his honor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you will find the funeral videos a lot tougher to pirate than the music. There just aren't that many seeds :O

      I wonder if they even bother with DRM? Probably since funerals, like everything now, are mostly by national megacorps :(

    3. Re:In his honor... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Never understood Shark Week. I mean, I like Greg Norman as well as the next guy, but a whole week of him...?

  17. disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's like the death of aaaron swartz

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    these fucking companies have a business model which depends upon an outdated understanding of how information is shared, then they utterly destroy the financial lives, or actually jail, young entrepreneurs who see the future. they could make deals with these guys and take over their companies for their "crimes", and benefit thataways

    instead we have these pigheaded, shortsighted, cruel "punishments" for the crime of showing ignorant old fossils that their business models suck in the internet age

    this is the worst of lawyers, corporations, and the legal status quo, and i hope these judges, lawyers, and corporate sycophants can sleep at night, because blood is on their hands

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As dirty as the legal system treated Aaron, that kid seemed a little 'off' - seems like anything a little stressful may have put him over the edge (not just the legal system). Not defending the legal system in anyway here, just saying that kid didn't seem too stable. Do I know him?.... no. I've only got to go on what I've seen/read - just my take on him. Sad (both what happened to him legally, suicide and my outlook on it).

    2. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      we all can have our buttons pushed and sent over the edge. it doesn't matter how frail or unstable aaron was, the morally corrupt legal system that serves the bottom line of some fossilized ignorant corporate counsel and some asshole DA with something to prove: their moral bankruptcy, is the culprit that pushed him over the edge

      if you're on the edge of a cliff and a guy pushes you slightly and you fall, is he somehow less culpable than a guy who has to pick you up and drag you kicking and screaming and throw you over the cliff? the malice is the same in both cases, even if the effort is less in one

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you voted twice for the guy the industry bought into the government to introduce heavy prison times and such for these "violations" which ckilled Swartz. While you knew: http://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-record/
      Asshole.

    4. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you do realize that while yes, one party is deep throating plutocrat cock, the other is taking it in all 3 holes

      you vote strategically, not idealistically

      which means you steer your country in the better direction. not stand there like an air head and refuse to participate until the entire political establishment matches your ideology perfectly

      or vote for the party that has no chance and only serves to rob votes from the party closer to you ideologically that actually has a chance, thereby making sure the even worse party wins. see: nader, bush, and gore in 2000

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bad example. The right guy won in 2000. Fuck Manbearpig.

    6. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the left won the popular vote. moron gw bush who got us in a stupid war gore would not have won with florida cheats and the electoral college bullshit that should be abolished

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't the President and members of the administration, 535 members of Congress and the nine Supreme Court justices spend more time reading Slashdot, then they'll know how we feel about copyright and how everything should be free and widely shared. Except for our private communications of course, that has to be private, private, private! This is totally how we evaluate how good a job you guys are doing (and I did say "guys", none of this goddam PC "men and women" business that the SJWs are shoving down our throats). And better make sure you don't violate the terms of the GPL you greedy fucking asshole corporations. Oh, and not our purchases, criminal records and web surfing history! That's ours and ours alone and it's completely up to us individuals to decide whether and how we want to share it. Like I was saying, information wants to be free! But make sure you prosecute the email spammers and lock them up, OK?

    8. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      straw

      man

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you vote strategically, not idealistically

      Voting strategically means voting for the lesser evil because the third party that represents you better won't win.
      As a result neither major party benefits from catering to the voters that vote for the lesser evil, they are already on board. Instead they try to get the voters that are between them ideologically.
      This has led to a situation where the two major parties differs mostly only in name, color and lip service.

      Strategic voting rather than ideological is short sighted and have more or less ruined the current democratic system by creating a two-headed one party system.

    10. Re:disgusting by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that you would have been just happy as a clam if the decision had gone the other way...

      Something also tells me that you are mentally unstable and willing to use this guy's death as an excuse to further your agenda. Good luck with that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny because that's probably the type of company Grooveshark wanted to become anyways and Josh was banking on it, probably licking his chops every night as the $ piled up. I think this is a #andnothingofvaluewaslost

    12. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if that's what you get from my words, you're not an intelligent nor perceptive person

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    13. Re:disgusting by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      it's like the death of aaaron swartz

      Or not. Apparently he was looking forward to soon putting the legal issues behind him and did not appear to have any particular suicidal tendencies.

    14. Re:disgusting by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That is one way to ignore the observations. Anything that helps you justify your rage, I suppose.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:disgusting by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      God people like you are such ignorant douches.

      Swartz was a douche who broke the law, repeatedly, and clearly and deserved to go to jail. He couldn't cope with paying for his crimes so he offed himself. He's a criminal, not a hero. He had nothing about what happened that made him somehow deserve your sympathy and ABSOLUTELY was a criminal.

      This guy started a business where he stole other peoples work and gave it away for free. His business model is the same as a common thief, you ignorant prick. Stop acting like what he was doing was new and innovative. It was no different than stealing all the CDs they pressed for the songs and playing them, the only difference is he downloaded them illegally rather than breaking and entering. He's still a fucking thief, and last I checked, no sane person considered that a viable 'business model'.

      These people aren't innocent people who got targeted, BOTH OF THEM ARE CRIMINALS in EVERY sense of the word acting like they aren't is for 20 somethings too stupid to know better, looking at your UID you should be old enough not to say things so ignorant.

      Its mind blowing that people like you can blame EVERYONE ELSE for someones actions except the person that took those actions.

      People like you are the problem with the world today, you think you deserve everything and have to work for nothing, your sense of entitlement actually gets you and people like this killed and you're just too stupid to recognize it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re:disgusting by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Swartz killed himself. Trying to blame the system for a guy who committed suicide before even going to jail just makes it clear you're completely out of touch with reality.

      If you want to call someone an asshole, look in the mirror, its you.

      And for the record, Swartz crime had nothing at all to do with the data he stole and everything to to with basic breaking and entering, your an idiot who would be fine with it because omg techie guy .... right up until it was your house he broke into to steal a connection.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re: disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The future? I'm not sure what part of intentionally abusing copyright law to the point where even indie artists have to resubmit a DMCA takedown every five days to keep their music off the service is the future. I know everyone is excited to stick it to the man, but Grooveshark's business model was to capitalize on consumer ignorance regarding the legitimacy of their right to offer that music.

    18. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the completely off topic ignorant comments of a moron are not valid observations to consider

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    19. Re: disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      so you work out a deal. you don't bury the guy in financial ruin. societies where punishments are worse than the crimes are brutal societies that fail. like cutting off hands for stealing under sharia law. "well he was a thief so he deserved it." that's your level of legal and moral "thinking" on this topic

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    20. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      legality is not necessarily morality

      they mostly overlap, but where the two have the most problems is disproportionate punishment: massive jailtime for smoking marijuana cigarette or crushing financial ruin for downloading a file for example

      it was illegal for a black person to ride in a section reserved for white people. until last week it was illegal for gays to marry. it is illegal to smoke marijuana in most of the usa, but that will change soon too

      aaron swartz downloaded files. grooveshark shared files

      for this they are treated with more severity than actual murders

      this is not morality and not a legal status quo that requires your respect nor ensures your compliance

      where the punishments are massively more brutal than the crimes, you have a legal area itself which is immoral. for example (i'm not saying they are same, it's an analogy for you to understand the topic) in some places that practice sharia law, you chop off a person's hand for stealing, or stone them to death for adultery. this brutality means the legal status quo in that society is actually more immoral than the crimes they are punishing, and such societies do not actually prevent immoral and illegal acts. in fact, they simply convince citizens to treat each other and the authorities with as much cruelty as the authorities deliver to its citizens. we see areas of the world where brutality is proscirbed by authorities creating societies where violence and brutality reign as normal

      again, i'm not saying that file downloading is exactly like daesh, i am trying to make you understand how brutal punishments are not respectable and in fact result in worse social conditions

      in the same way, there is no respect due to the punishments that western countries like the usa proscribe for file sharing on the internet

      the proper response to the legal status quo is to defy and defile the illegitimate and immoral laws wherever and whenever you can, until there is enough of a fire that society demands a rethinking of the laws to be proportional to the actual moral severity of the crimes in question

      rather than the agenda of the corporations who have bribed the government to make the punishments so cruel, which is what you are really defending with your words: not morality, but corporate corruption

      now call me a douche. just like the guy who says "maybe we shouldn't chop people's hands off for stealing" can be called a douche by the type of people who think like you

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    21. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      your level of moral "thinking" is particularly brutal and ignorant. you shouldn't talk on topics you lack the reasoning abilities so say intelligent things on. there is obviously a connection between his suicide and the completely out of proportion charges against him. to deny it or dismiss that is purposeful intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity

      we get it: "bad people deserve horrible treatment" completely out of proportion to their "crimes". you should go for vigilante justice, sharia law, and mob lynching. that's more you style. you're just a cruel douchebag with a chip on your shoulder

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    22. Re:disgusting by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      "let me judge someone on an imaginative hypothetical rather than judge someone else on the truthful reality"

      you're a moron

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  18. Re:That's OK by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Somewhere a hipster is sad that you don't care.

  19. The Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was MOIDER!

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Re:That's OK by frovingslosh · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    My first comment wasn't well received. And the majority of the community seems to disagree with me and speculate that it was a drug overdoes. So let me be helpful and suggest that those drugs should be made illegal.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  22. Re:That's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere a hipster is sad that you don't care.

    Screw the hipsters, a good music site and its founder are dead because of the !#$&ing RIAA and crap artists like Taylor Swift. May they burn in hell...

  23. Re: That's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are illegal you idiot. Even OTC drugs are illegal if misused.

  24. Re: That's OK by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    We don't know why the cofounder is dead, but the site is dead because it was a hotbed of blatant piracy. Honest people who enjoyed the service should be able to admit that.

  25. Re: That's OK by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    So you're saying that this guy who thought he was entitled to make a lot of money ripping off the music industry was also committing drug crimes? You're kind of making my point for me.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  26. Re:no surprise by KGIII · · Score: 1

    That really has to suck. No need for you to explain, really. I just know it must suck. I can not possibly imagine the pain it must be like to lose a child. You're supposed to die before that happens. I am not sure what I would do if it happened to me. I honestly do not know. I may well off myself because I am unable to deal with the pain. I simply do not know. Shit, it is hard to think about even.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  27. He was either pushed or killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe it was a natural death, no matter what any coroner will say. Not in this wake.

  28. No foul play? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then tell us how he died. Choking on peanut butter? Slipped and hit his head? Alcohol poisoning?

    A 28 year old doesn't just suddenly die. Especially not in their own home without any sort of warning or symptoms.

    1. Re:No foul play? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he got shot through the door of his bathroom. -- Oscar

    2. Re:No foul play? by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      That's usually what an autopsy is for. It's already been announced that there wasn't any signs of foul play, obvious drug use, or known suicidal thoughts. Toxicology results usually take some time so unless the examiner finds something really quick and really obvious, they probably can't tell you yet how he died.

  29. Another criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who couldn't take the heat.
    another criminal
    like aaron swartz

  30. Re: That's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hotbed of blatant piracy - you are seemingly using the term in negative context. honest anonymous cowards if counted as people, would admit that is one of the reasons they enjoyed the site so much.

  31. Re: That's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Face palm... let me guess, English isn't your first language

  32. Re: That's OK by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    me speak seven languages but me speak english the goodest.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  33. Re: That's OK by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, no honest people used the site.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  34. Re: That's OK by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

    I did sometimes, that's why I admitted that it was a hotbed of blatant piracy.

  35. Re: Perfectly Free by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I think the "Blurred Lines" case has shown us that we aren't perfectly free to make our own software, music or movies.

  36. Re:Another stupid piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumbass

    Downloading papers paid for with taxpayer money is a criminal act?

  37. anyone no ho e die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smllz o illuminati