Why should Grooveshark be penalized for trying to build a company under the law and license content in the process? Do you think that you just create a startup one day and walk into a huge label the next? It does not work that way in this business. To address some of your inaccuracies (are you making this stuff up?):
- Universal is suing specifically for a few bands not covered under the DMCA. We actually do a better job of filtering those bands than Youtube. Source: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/uploads/fb/32/fb32701d5d705b...
- Licensing for a single artist can be owned by multiple labels for different albums. This licensing also varies based on country as well. To say we can simply check for an artist name in an upload isn't true when you are talking about the breadth of possible content. Plus, if we filter uploaded content inaccurately we could be liable from both sides of the coin (those wanting the content on, and those not wanting it on).
- Grooveshark has licensed EMI's content since Oct 2009. Merlin was licensed on Aug 2010. We are actively trying to get more licensing deals setup. (Also, some past deals have involved paying licensing for past streams as well.)
- The DMCA's safe harbor clause was enacted to help encourage technological innovation. Uploads to Grooveshark are similar to uploads to youtube. If you feel otherwise you are gravely mistaken. Creating and sharing music as an artist should be simple and we believe indie artists are as important as signed artists - in fact, we're trying to work with indie artists to make them money and get them tour gigs.