It's absurd that they'd have to pay their employees to submit pirated content when there's droves of people online who would willingly submit it for free.

This accusation is as absurd as saying TPB had to pay its employees to upload trackers of pirated content.

I can't resist pointing out that this is exactly what Grooveshark is currently being sued for.

From what I read Grooveshark is being sued by EMI for non-payment of royalties. UMG is suing Grooveshark for uploading music from its pre-1972 catalogue. However this all depends on the wording of the licensing agreement.

This is hardly comparable to uploading DVD screeners and R5s. Grooveshark to be operating legally (as they didn't get raided I'm guessing they're operating way too close to the law - well within counter-suit territory - for the major labels to actively attack them) would have had to be uploading the labels authorized versions, which likely means UMG gave them access to their pre-1972 catalogue without giving them approval to use it.

Don't say it then.

Good point my statement could be taken out of context. Would not have brought it up if it had not been heavily implied by AlexMuir and others, you can read my critical response to such: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3486750

> however I unaware evidence in support of this

Read the indictment. It contains evidence of this (amongst other issues).