21–30 of 54 posts
The message they posted a day before this settlement - http://grooveshark.com/ I'm confused, didn't Grooveshark just provided aggregation and a streaming player with playlist management? The music was not hosted by Grooveshark right?
I thought you could upload to Grooveshark.
Two thoughts on this. First: I was an occasional user of Grooveshark, and whenever I used the service (which had a brilliant UI, by the way) I found myself wondering how they could still be operating, given that they weren't licensed by the major labels. It felt like Napster in a web app, only more centralized (and thus, easier to take down, one would think). Well, the answer seems to be that they have been fighting…
I hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!
Two thoughts on this. First: I was an occasional user of Grooveshark, and whenever I used the service (which had a brilliant UI, by the way) I found myself wondering how they could still be operating, given that they weren't licensed by the major labels. It felt like Napster in a web app, only more centralized (and thus, easier to take down, one would think). Well, the answer seems to be that they have been fighting…
I hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!
Without commenting on whether I think "gutsy" is good or accurate in this instance, it's worth saying that copyright is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. AFAIK, the people at Grooveshark haven't been threatening to break anyone's kneecaps...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!
To be fair, the same can be said of Uber and Airbnb, both of which are largely praised on HN in the same way.
Despite loving Grooveshark, I tend to agree that copyright has some meaning and purpose. I don't think taxi companies have a right to business just because they were there first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!
To be fair, the same can be said of Uber and Airbnb, both of which are largely praised on HN in the same way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the same can be said of Uber and Airbnb, both of which are largely praised on HN in the same way.
How are those services trampling on anyone's rights? Despite loving Grooveshark, I tend to agree that copyright has some meaning and purpose. I don't think taxi companies have a right to business just because they were there first.
It's really unfortunate that they were taken down. Sure, there exist paid services like Spotify, but when there's only licensable content you miss out on all weird obscure stuff that Grooveshark had, like video game soundtracks, chiptunes, and international music not licensed abroad. If only every one of these large record labels could just instantly go out of business, simultaneously. That would be wonderful...
Unfortunately, I don't think it's very likely that a paid service which behaves in a more legitimate way than Grooveshark can really have all of the content in one place, because of all of the agreements necessary.
For some reason I don't mind Netflix having only a subset of TV shows and movies, but I would mind a music service that doesn't have a nearly-complete catalog of everything I might want. I don't want to have to care what label owns the tracks. Perhaps I'm just spoiled by having Grooveshark for so long.
It's really unfortunate that they were taken down. Sure, there exist paid services like Spotify, but when there's only licensable content you miss out on all weird obscure stuff that Grooveshark had, like video game soundtracks, chiptunes, and international music not licensed abroad. If only every one of these large record labels could just instantly go out of business, simultaneously. That would be wonderful...
I'd be perfectly happy to pay for music streaming like I pay for Netflix: unlimited access for a flat monthly fee. However, I'm not willing to pay for a monthly service from every individual record label I want to listen to, and still miss out on content I want. Unfortunately, I don't think it's very likely that a paid service which behaves in a more legitimate way than Grooveshark can really have all of the content…
The difference in entitlement (I don't mean that as a loaded term) between music and video services is interesting to me.
The message they posted a day before this settlement - http://grooveshark.com/ I'm confused, didn't Grooveshark just provided aggregation and a streaming player with playlist management? The music was not hosted by Grooveshark right?