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

Grooveshark Shuts Down

grooveshark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 283 posts

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#91

Post by chimeracoder »

zzalpha wrote: post #84
chimeracoder wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, the flipside is, let's face it, their business was pretty darn shady... not much a role model for other up-and-coming entrepreneurs. I'll be frank: I don't see Grooveshark's business as inherently more shady than some of the other "act first, get permission later" startups that are lauded both in the press and on HN on a regular basis. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of those companies either, but I find i…

Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :) That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different. For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But t…

> which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content.

Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a hypothetical deus ex machina?)

> today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience.

I very strongly disagree with this premise, though perhaps that's getting into a different debate.

> Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to

I wasn't referring just to the comments on here, FWIW.

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#92

Post by kleer001 »

physcab wrote: post #80

Grooveshark, I want you to know I loved you. As a user. As an ex-employee. You taught me so much. I remember my task as an intern was to turn Autoplay into something more beyond office employees voting on their favorite genres of music. I remember my first attempt at an algorithm, everyone got Coldplay as their recommended artist. I remember when we discovered Hadoop for the first time and our analysis on TBs of data…

That sounds like a lovely time, would make a great book or movie.

Personally I'd never really even heard of it except a long time ago, let alone used it. Nothing personal. Just one music service in a dense forest of same. That said, I'm of the opinion that a public Radio station and Library should be the model for transmission and curation of works. The shutting down of Grooveshark fills me with sonder, wonder, and sorrowful nostalgia for the earlier years.

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#93

Post by MattyRad »

physcab wrote: post #80

Grooveshark, I want you to know I loved you. As a user. As an ex-employee. You taught me so much. I remember my task as an intern was to turn Autoplay into something more beyond office employees voting on their favorite genres of music. I remember my first attempt at an algorithm, everyone got Coldplay as their recommended artist. I remember when we discovered Hadoop for the first time and our analysis on TBs of data…

Funny side note, I discovered Less Than Jake on Grooveshark many years ago.

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#94

Post by guelo »

zzalpha wrote: post #84
chimeracoder wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, the flipside is, let's face it, their business was pretty darn shady... not much a role model for other up-and-coming entrepreneurs. I'll be frank: I don't see Grooveshark's business as inherently more shady than some of the other "act first, get permission later" startups that are lauded both in the press and on HN on a regular basis. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of those companies either, but I find i…

Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :) That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different. For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But t…

There are laws that protect taxi companies and laws that protect music companies. For whatever reason you sympathize more with the disruption of one vs the other.

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#95

Post by zzalpha »

chimeracoder wrote: post #91
zzalpha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :) That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different. For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But t…

> which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content. Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a hypothetical deus ex m…

Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a deus ex machina?)

That's a good question... I honestly don't know!

I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists.

About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to.

But again, that's my intellectualizing a position I can't honestly explain.

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#96

Post by zzalpha »

guelo wrote: post #94
zzalpha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :) That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different. For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But t…

There are laws that protect taxi companies and laws that protect music companies. For whatever reason you sympathize more with the disruption of one vs the other.

No, there are laws that protect taxi companies and their drivers, and laws that protect music artists.

Don't mistake "big music" as being the only beneficiaries of copyright law. That's simply demagoguery.

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#97

Post by Tunecrew »

As someone who works full time in the music business, I shed no tears for Grooveshark.

The only thing I don't like about this situation is that there appears to be no settlement for the thousands (tens, hundreds?) of indie artists, labels, writers and publishers whose music was on the site.

10% revenue loss for an indie label or publisher has a far greater impact on their viability than 10% loss to .

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#98

Post by chimeracoder »

zzalpha wrote: post #95
chimeracoder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content. Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a hypothetical deus ex m…

Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a deus ex machina?) That's a good question... I honestly don't know! I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists. About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service…

> I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists.

> About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to.

Well, think of it this way: that's exactly what public libraries already do - their funding comes from tax dollars, so they don't need to turn an operating profit

Actually, public libraries are arguably worse, because tax revenues tax not just the consumers, but the artists themselves. Not only do they give artists' work away for free to consumers, but artists are actually forced to pay for others to access their work for free!

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#99

Post by sidcool »

kleer001 wrote: post #92
physcab wrote: post #80

Grooveshark, I want you to know I loved you. As a user. As an ex-employee. You taught me so much. I remember my task as an intern was to turn Autoplay into something more beyond office employees voting on their favorite genres of music. I remember my first attempt at an algorithm, everyone got Coldplay as their recommended artist. I remember when we discovered Hadoop for the first time and our analysis on TBs of data…

That sounds like a lovely time, would make a great book or movie. Personally I'd never really even heard of it except a long time ago, let alone used it. Nothing personal. Just one music service in a dense forest of same. That said, I'm of the opinion that a public Radio station and Library should be the model for transmission and curation of works. The shutting down of Grooveshark fills me with sonder, wonder, and s…

Directed by Martin Scorcese.

Re: Grooveshark Shuts Down

#100

Post by [deleted] »

zzalpha wrote: post #96
guelo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are laws that protect taxi companies and laws that protect music companies. For whatever reason you sympathize more with the disruption of one vs the other.

No, there are laws that protect taxi companies and their drivers, and laws that protect music artists . Don't mistake "big music" as being the only beneficiaries of copyright law. That's simply demagoguery.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN