41–50 of 100 posts
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.
Because they don't want to give anyone else the idea that the business idea behind GrooveShark is solid?
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.
Step 1: Sue Grooveshark. Make it serious, hit them with everything. Step 2: Send them a settlement offer. Make it huge. Billions. Make it something they'd never consider. Step 3: Offer number 2 - Acquisition agreement. We'll drop the lawsuit and on-board your product/talent (letting the leadership duck out with a small token) if you agree to a non-compete contract. Everyone wins.
Paying member here. Its truly a wonderful service that I hope survives, despite these legal challenges. Their value for me is in their 'long tail' catalog, with lesser known or foreign bands.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-dema...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If Grooveshark did something like an artist revenue sharing program, I'd be more sympathetic to them. But they don't. I haven't seen Grooveshark really show interest in changing what is broken in the music industry. I see a company taking copyrighted work and throwing their ads next to them. Furthermore, taking customers' money to access special features related to the infringement. Stolen cars can be bought for chea…
Also I have a suspicion that most people use Grooveshark as a form of radio in such way that it doesn't really feed on artists main source of profit (CDs and concerts).
However don't take this out of context I still dislike lack of any mechanisms for artist reimbursement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 think you've missed the gist of those lawsuits. 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 eit…
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'd also keep an eye on eMusic. It's more geared towards downloads, but they offer a lot of really great editorial content for discovery plus they offer multiple streaming radio stations for members. They've got smart people so I think they might make a surge in features.
A lot of people are into MOG.com as well. I have issues with their CEOs attitude towards licenses and how the money goes to creators, but otherwise the catalog is strong and they offer solid access across multiple platforms.
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.
Step 1: Sue Grooveshark. Make it serious, hit them with everything. Step 2: Send them a settlement offer. Make it huge. Billions. Make it something they'd never consider. Step 3: Offer number 2 - Acquisition agreement. We'll drop the lawsuit and on-board your product/talent (letting the leadership duck out with a small token) if you agree to a non-compete contract. Everyone wins.
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…
> Their staff is rude
You're welcome to form your own opinions, but I can tell you that the people who work at Grooveshark are some of the nicest and most fun-loving individuals you'll ever meet. You have to be humble in this industry. You don't make a whole lot of money and you have to hustle to sign up every act you can. You go to every concert. You meet with every executive. And at the end of the day you give away 70% of your hard-earned money to someone else.
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…
I used to work for Grooveshark and your accusations are pretty unfair. We've always complied with the DMCA and our terms are equal to what you'd find on any other UGC site. GS also signed up hundreds if not thousands of small indie labels that have loved working with us. Have you seen the Featured section or any of the Artist theme promotions? Yea, many of those are unsigned artists that we promote often for no cost.…
As for rude: you just demonstrated it. If you think you're giving away 70% of "your money" you don't get it. You're getting a 40% commission of THEIR MONEY. Your money has been made of the backs of creators, and to turn around and call those indie label executives shitheads doesn't endear you to anyone no matter how many concerts you go to.
The only accusations being made, not by me, are the ones in the lawsuit: which claim that Grooveshark executives were uploading content illegally to their own system. If true this is one of the more offensive things I've ever seen from a startup.
Nice move if what they want is for all of Grooveshark users worldwide start downloading music again when they manage to shut it down.
What's the difference? Grooveshark isn't paying them anyway.
(The logic of streaming being more inconvenient than a file makes less and less sense each year, though as wireless connectivity improves).