What about the judgment MGM v. Grokster?

“We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.”

I understand there may be some differences between P2P software and a search engine, but when you break it down, all of the sites listed are acting in the same manner as P2P networks such as Grokster.

I found the Perfect 10 v. Google case that you outlined interesting, but there is a fundamental difference between that scenario and this one. In the case of Google, they are scraping sites and displaying content with direct links to the content OWNERS website. This type of search is beneficial for all parties involved and contributes to the distribution of information. In the case of these music services, they are scraping sites and displaying content from and linking to, what I imagine in most cases to be, ILLEGAL websites. This seems to be a clear promotion of copyright infringement and thus, seems to fall under the MGM v. Grokster judgment. I’m not a lawyer though.

Personally, while I think free music is great, I feel these services are illegal and will harm the music industry.

Here is an interesting option for those wanting to save convert their YouTube favs to MP3s

http://blogosco...rum/110091.html
________________________________________________

http://songerize.com/

It would be nice if SeeqPod somehow had its users tag the quality of the files, but nevertheless, it is a very powerful API, and it’s remarkable that it’s 100% free.