Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#61

Post by drv »

Kylekramer wrote: post #37
tomjen3 wrote: post #22

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…

Techies like DMCA? I hope not.

The anti-circumvention provisions are ridiculous. Decrypting a DVD you own is illegal - even posting a link to circumvention software is enough to violate the DMCA. Web sites got C&D orders for hosting a number. Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested for writing software. If those examples don't seem ludicrous enough, there are plenty more.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#62

Post by dorn »

Kylekramer wrote: post #10
paulhauggis wrote: post #7

I wish Grooveshark was a legal service. I haven't downloaded any music since I've started using it. It's sad that the labels can't take a hint. The music business is changing (just like the software business). Businesses that don't go with the flow will eventually be left behind.

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…

spotify - not available in most of the world. rdio - not available in most of the world mog - not available in most of the world other online streaming services mentioned here - not available in most of the world

grooveshark - available everywhere

that says it all for me. fuck licensing. all it ever means is that the US wants to screw the rest of the world out of the deal.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#63

Post by VMG »

slouch wrote: post #27
jessevondoom wrote: post #16

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?

... that are also available outside the US/Canada (German here)

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#64

Post by sukuriant »

mikeryan wrote: post #19
gldalmaso wrote: post #17

Nice move if what they want is for all of Grooveshark users worldwide start downloading music again when they manage to shut it down.

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 I didn't have to be a FB member for Spotify.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#65

Post by r00fus »

lubos wrote: post #30
wmf wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did that strategy work for any music startup?

it worked for youtube/google

You mean the same youtube where the Viacom sued them for videos uploaded by employees of Viacom [1]?

[1] http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-pu...

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#66

Post by jessevondoom »

sjs wrote: post #58
jessevondoom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally work with hundreds of artists and MANY of them have been treated terribly by customer service when trying to initiate take-downs. When urged to sign licensing deals it's all or nothing, and if they choose nothing the music remains up on the site regardless. Really — having worked with literally every streaming company I've never seen a higher rate of artist and indie label dis-satisfaction. Not an accusa…

> 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. Absolutely not. Both parties need each other. It collectively belongs to both of them. > 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 concer…

He edited "shithead executives" down to just "executives." I was responding to the original text.

And yes, some labels make money off of the backs of artists, some are really great and make money with artists. Just like some streaming services work out licensing deals before launching a service and others don't.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#67

Post by jessevondoom »

sjs wrote: post #58
jessevondoom wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally work with hundreds of artists and MANY of them have been treated terribly by customer service when trying to initiate take-downs. When urged to sign licensing deals it's all or nothing, and if they choose nothing the music remains up on the site regardless. Really — having worked with literally every streaming company I've never seen a higher rate of artist and indie label dis-satisfaction. Not an accusa…

> 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. Absolutely not. Both parties need each other. It collectively belongs to both of them. > 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 concer…

And I'm curious — really asking not being passive agressive — do you see an iOS app developed by an independent developer as belonging to both the developer and to Apple?

I'd say that Apple's 30% is a commission based on the sales and service they offer, and yes it's worth it...especially given the market position and the fact that there's verification of IP ownership, etc. But in the end the app itself belongs to the creator, just as the music belongs to the artist (or label, depending on the deal.)

Seems a bit like perspective, but it goes deeper: if the music belongs to the artist who created it then they should have the right to pull it from a service and expect reasonable effort to keep it out of the service — YouTube's content ID does a commendable job. (Though it is abused by some of the majors...but the algorithm itself is really solid.)

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#68

Post by dchest »

pork wrote: post #35

All the arguments for the legality of Grooveshark aside, it is ridiculously (read: Napster-like) easy to download high-quality MP3s from the service for free. Yes, there are rippers for Youtube and other services, but the quality of downloads is so spotty. 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 re…

How the story about your friend doing something (supposedly) illegal leads to conclusion that "all the arguments for their legality are largely moot"?

Especially after you tell in the very first sentence of your comment to leave arguments about legality aside.

Is this how you propose to judge the legality of a service?

            Can overcome technological restrictions
            to save music into a file instead of letting
            the browser download and play it immediately?
                |                            |
                |                            |
               Yes                           No
                |                            |
                |                            |
            Is the resulting MP3 ---- No ----+---> Legal   
            of high quality? 
                |
                |
               Yes
                |
                +--------------------------------> Illegal!

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#69

Post by pork »

dchest wrote: post #68
pork wrote: post #35

All the arguments for the legality of Grooveshark aside, it is ridiculously (read: Napster-like) easy to download high-quality MP3s from the service for free. Yes, there are rippers for Youtube and other services, but the quality of downloads is so spotty. 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 re…

How the story about your friend doing something (supposedly) illegal leads to conclusion that "all the arguments for their legality are largely moot"? Especially after you tell in the very first sentence of your comment to leave arguments about legality aside. Is this how you propose to judge the legality of a service? Can overcome technological restrictions to save music into a file instead of letting the browser do…

Try not to be so literal. My implication was that any service that lets a user download copyrighted material for free is bound to be terminated by the labels, and that is largely what is happening.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#70

Post by Arelius »

jessevondoom wrote: post #67
sjs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Absolutely not. Both parties need each other. It collectively belongs to both of them. > 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 concer…

And I'm curious — really asking not being passive agressive — do you see an iOS app developed by an independent developer as belonging to both the developer and to Apple? I'd say that Apple's 30% is a commission based on the sales and service they offer, and yes it's worth it...especially given the market position and the fact that there's verification of IP ownership, etc. But in the end the app itself belongs to th…

He was talking about the money, not the content, thus putting it in terms of who owns an iOS app is missing the point. It's about who's profit it is. In which case the discussion is exactly the same.
Post reply on HN