31–40 of 100 posts
I think what Grooveshark is doing is clearly illegal. Whether the law is just or current, that is up to debate.
I work in music, with a lot of indie labels and musicians, and for once the ENTIRE industry is inline on something. Grooveshark has been actively hostile to artists requesting their music be removed from the service, their terms are unfriendly and their staff is rude, and if even a fraction of the allegations against their management are true they should be held personally accountable. Everyone in this industry under…
If grooveshark gets shut down tomorrow and I don't get a refund for the rest of 2012, it is still worth what I've paid for this year in advance. I don't work in music. I don't want to download desktop software or mp3s. Does anyone offer a comparable service?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If grooveshark gets shut down tomorrow and I don't get a refund for the rest of 2012, it is still worth what I've paid for this year in advance. I don't work in music. I don't want to download desktop software or mp3s. Does anyone offer a comparable service?
Rhapsody and Rdio are pretty close. They're like Spotify but I believe both have browser based access. Catalog is a little smaller but I hear plenty of people say they prefer them over Spotify. None of them competes with Grooveshark's catalog, because a huge chunk of Grooveshark's catalog is not there legally.
I think what Grooveshark is doing is clearly illegal. Whether the law is just or current, that is up to debate.
What part do you think is illegal? The part where the users upload their own songs? Isn't that much like Youtube? Youtube won against Viacom in a similar case.
I watched a friend used GrooveShredder [1] the other day, which is a simple Firefox add-on. In 10 minutes, he had downloaded about 50 tracks. That alone made me realize that they were on their way out, so all the arguments for their legality are largely moot.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/grooveshredde...
I think what Grooveshark is doing is clearly illegal. Whether the law is just or current, that is up to debate.
What part do you think is illegal? The part where the users upload their own songs? Isn't that much like Youtube? Youtube won against Viacom in a similar case.
The other labels are contending that Grooveshark employees uploaded the songs and were asked to by management. They claim to have leaked internal documents to prove it.
YouTube didn't upload the content themselves, their users did.
The latter is legal if you comply with DMCA take down, the former is illegal.
This case outlined in the article has nothing to do with either, basically Grooveshark haven't paid a penny to their only major legal avenue to music.
TLDR; Youtube case is nothing like the Grooveshark ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually anti-label, but in this case, I don't see the problem. It isn't like the labels are against all you can eat streaming services. They even support "free" ones, like Spotify and Mog. They just want a cut/ownership of the services. The only difference between Grooveshark and Spotify/Mog is a slightly larger library (due to Grooveshark's grey legality), international availability (annoying for the other service…
But if it wasn't for these 'small' differences Grooveshark wouldn't be a service worth paying for. Yes I said paying for. I have been a subscriber for ages. Get with the program and get some revenue sharing system set up -- one where the money goes to the artists and not to RIAAs laywers. With the current state of Washingtonian corruption there is no hope in hell to update the laws legally. Is it really so bad that t…
Stolen cars can be bought for cheaper and with less paperwork. Ignoring laws does improve the Grooveshark experience. You say the laws need to be updated, but I honestly don't see what is wrong with a company holding rights to the music they produce. Grooveshark makes money off of copyright they don't own. Their own "Popular" featured section is chock full of infringement. They claim DMCA (a law I thought most techies liked), which is fine and well. Worked for YouTube. But they are going to have to defend that in court, and I have my suspicions that they might not be following the letter nor the spirit of DMCA.
Grooveshark has said repeatedly that they're trying to help artists, but when you look at their business model (upload a bunch of songs illegally, get eyeballs, then charge labels for data), it's been clear all along that the only party they care about is themselves.
Bad karma will always, always come back and bite you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding (could be wrong) the label's aren't getting paid for their music through Grooveshark, so if they're not getting paid they'd likely prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music then from using a service such as Grooveshark. (actually they'd prefer you use a free service like Spotify which pays for the music rights).
I would, if Spotify was available in my country. > they'd likely prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music A side effect of which probably would be more users becoming “torrent-educated”. Also, there's a huge difference between listening to music only on Grooveshark, and having the tracks (CD) bought and lying around on your drive. In the first case you don't own the music. If you're downloadi…
Agree. Grooveshark is a top1000 site. I don't think the MI realizes the temperature of the fire that they're playing with here, the media backlash will be significant.
And more importantly they're actively tingling the senses of countless hackers to build a free spotify on top of a P2P network.
Good luck putting that cat back into its bag...
Why doesn't one of the labels just buy Grooveshark? Make an offer they can't resist. The record label would get some fresh talent with actual vision, and worst case scenario would be Grooveshark getting shut down and the founders making a decent exit.
Buying companies with huge and unknown legal liabilities is generally a bad idea.