All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark • Hacker News Board

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#81

Post by rottencupcakes » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 2:32 AM UTC

dorn wrote: post #62

Kylekramer wrote: post #10

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…

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.

> all it ever means is that the US wants to screw the rest of the world out of the deal.

Do you seriously think that? Is that really what you've gleaned from all of this?

The laws around licensing and ownership of content are different in every country. Different people even tend to OWN the same song in different countries. This is very complicated. Just because a company figures out a way to stream in the United States under the provisions of the DMCA and other laws does not mean they know how to stream that content legally in your country.

If no solutions exist for what you want in your country, and the market is lucrative enough to support one, why don't you start one?

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#82

Post by jessevondoom » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 2:52 AM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #74

jessevondoom wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just to clarify...you gave Apple permission to make money off of your work, right?

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#83

Post by runn1ng » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 3:25 AM UTC

physcab wrote: post #56

jessevondoom wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the way, there's also this link up on DMN: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111512 I've spoken with a lot of label heads from the more influential names on the list and they were in no way okay with being listed, some actively upset by Grooveshark providing a bad list. The comments echo that, albeit with too much hostility at times.

Like I said above, feel free to ping me and I'll help connect you with the right people.

DMCA should work without "connecting to right people".

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#84

Post by runn1ng » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 3:27 AM UTC

physcab wrote: post #48

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…

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.…

AFAIK, EMI is suing Grooveshark because they DID make a deal, but didn't get any money anyway

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#85

Post by iamandrus » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 3:31 AM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #36

nextparadigms wrote: post #31

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…

>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.

Didn't Viacom claim something similar?

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#86

Post by pork » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 3:41 AM UTC

dchest wrote: post #79

pork wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]?

No, that too, but the downloading makes the hammer come down heavier.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#87

Post by randomdata » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 4:08 AM UTC

jessevondoom wrote: post #82

randomdata wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Just to clarify...you gave Apple permission to make money off of your work, right?

Ultimately yes, but the only other choice was to not distribute the work at all. Musicians are given the same choice. If you do not want others to use your work, you can keep it private or not create it at all.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#88

Post by skore » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 4:31 AM UTC

kiloaper wrote: post #11

I guess Grooveshark strategy of it being "easier to ask for forgiveness later than it is to ask for permission now" has failed. ( http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/grooveshark-emails-on-l... )

If anybody read that quote and then went on to do something like Grooveshark, I'd guess it's safe to say they need to adjust their reality compass. It may be OK to push the boundaries in certain areas, grow big and make amends later. But if your concept is to break boundaries, have no model for actual growth apart from ripping other companies off and not even a chance of making amends (apart from maybe changing the law in every country of the world, which won't happen), I guess it's very clear you're doomed to failure.

I don't like what the record industry is doing in general these days, but grooveshark was always very obviously shady if not illegal.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#89

Post by physcab » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 4:33 AM UTC

runn1ng wrote: post #83

physcab wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said above, feel free to ping me and I'll help connect you with the right people.

DMCA should work without "connecting to right people".

Miscommunications happen. Its a fact of life and its even moreso when you're dealing with a complex legal matter. I'm offering up my time as an unpaid ex-employee to help someone out who seems to be having difficulty. The offer stands to others but not indefinitely because as time passes, I'll know less and less people who work at the company.

Re: All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

#90

Post by teamonkey » Sat, Jan 07, 2012, 4:54 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #47

freehunter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Labels don't want a service like Grooveshark to exist, which gives away their product for nothing. If they wanted it, they could easily build it themselves.

They could build a similar service to Grooveshark that didn't give their products away for nothing. People would pay to stream EMI's entire catalogue, so long as the price was right.