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
Yeah that's right. It's a little over-reported. It's also EMI publishing not the label.
What's the difference? Grooveshark isn't paying them anyway.
Labels prefer people streaming over downloading, correct? AsI understand their reasoning, streaming is more inconvenient than a downloaded song, so the incentive to purchase the tracks remains. (The logic of streaming being more inconvenient than a file makes less and less sense each year, though as wireless connectivity improves).
What is the end game though, hope that the service is successful enough that they will start handing over a cut to the labels? The streaming model is looking fairly broken if the only way for it to work is to operate in a legal grey area.
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The problem is that the labels (much like Hollywood film studios) are clinging to an outdated business model and screwing us all in the process.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 bu…
I may be wrong, but at least here in Germany I'm pretty sure the unavailability of spotify, rdio and so on can't be explained with major labels refusing to allow those service here. No, when it comes to germany you have to look at the media right organisation GEMA that seems to demand unreasonable high fees from streaming services. There is an ongoing dispute between the GEMA and Google concerning Youtube, which is why you will see a lot of videos that are "unavailable in your region".
It seems as if at this point these companies aren't even bothering to negogiate with the GEMA anymore. I can't see why labels would refuse to offer their content here.
Please ping me personally on my email and I'll be happy to connect you with the right people. More often than not, these matters are simple communication issues that can be resolved. Even though I don't work there anymore, I'd be thrilled to help out the community any way I can. Re:"money" issue. Everyone has a hand in making an artist successful. Yes the artist produces the content and should be compensated for such…
I'd be pretty mad if my friends and neighbors were taking five-gallon buckets of my water, bringing it to an Aquafina factory, and then an Aquafina sales rep was ringing my doorbell trying to sell me $3 bottles of water.
Not taking sides (never used Grooveshark etc), but real world analogies of virtual products don't really work.
Fresh water is a limited physical resource, whereas digital products can be infinitely duplicated at little-to-no cost.
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".
That is incorrect. You're supposed to send a valid notice to the registered DMCA agent. Here's the sort of ruling you get when you send out defective notices:
"In Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, the Ninth Circuit held that the properly constructed notice must exist in one communication.[16] A copyright owner cannot “cobble together adequate notice from separately defective notices” because that would unduly burden the OSP."
I don't think the DMCA envisioned hosting providers that are specifically designed for infringement.
> I don't think the DMCA envisioned hosting providers that are specifically designed for infringement.
In order to keep their immunity, an online service provider must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity." The provision clearly targets hosting providers that are designed for infringement, indicating that they did envision that.
I'm generally against copyright infringement/intellectual property theft. I guess I was just trying to say I want more legal services like this. You have some great points. I haven't had a chance to use spotify.
I like Spotify a lot more regardless of the copyright issues. The added bonus is that Spotify is okay in the eyes of the people who own the music I'm listening too. You should really try it out.
Every time I give it another try, so far, it's been missing about half the songs I'd like to listen to.
Additionally, on my last tryout, they required a Facebook ID for the free demo--not having Facebook, that's where the experiment ended.
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.
I primarily use Grooveshark to listen to small-time Canadian acts that are quite difficult to find elsewhere (online and physically). Does Rdio cover that kind of content?
Enough to satisfy my Radio 3 listening ways. The only big hole in their repertoire is big group back catalogue. For example, there is no Led Zepplin, Beatles, etc)
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.
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.*
Wrong. Musicians can choose to distribute the music themselves or through a variety other third parties. iOS developers have no other meaningful choice.