Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did that strategy work for any music startup?
It's the whole principle behind DMCA, isn't it?
I don't think the DMCA envisioned hosting providers that are specifically designed for infringement.
All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
71–80 of 100 posts
Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#72I 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?
I find Jango[1] to be pretty convenient. As a bonus, I've found I like their music suggestions (based on your existing playlist) better than GrooveShark's.
Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#73I 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…
The problem is that the labels (much like Hollywood film studios) are clinging to an outdated business model and screwing us all in the process. There might have been a time when licensing content based on geographical region made sense; That time is long gone. When I go to a streaming website and am told I can't use it because of my IP prefix, I don't see a rights-holder making a fair licensing agreement, I see a bunch of clueless old rich dudes mumbling about "kids these days, with their digital doo-hickeys and global mumbo-jumbo."
Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#74Earlier 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…
> do you see an iOS app developed by an independent developer as belonging to both the developer and to Apple?
I've develop a few iOS apps. The money is Apple's until they pay me. I'm entitled to that money under the payment schedule we agreed upon, but Apple can do whatever they want with it in the meantime. I'm sure they do make use of it.
Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#75Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#76Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
... and Google bought them and made the team millions of dollars? Yeah, that YouTube.
Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Yes, the same Youtube that sold for $1.65 billion several years before an unsuccessful lawsuit.
Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As opposed to just listen to copyrighted material [for which they have no license to distribute]?
Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
#80All 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…
I'm pretty sure he actually meant to put all arguments about legality aside. Any service, no matter how legal, that enables you to easily download high quality label music, no matter how illegal that process is, will be intolerable.