All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark
mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com
mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com
Everyone in this industry understands playing fast and loose with regulations but Grooveshark repeatedly crossed the line and has made only hollow attempts at seeing artists compensated. For once this isn't RIAA greed, it's acceptable and appropriate action.
I don't work in music. I don't want to download desktop software or mp3s. Does anyone offer a comparable service?
I'd also keep an eye on eMusic. It's more geared towards downloads, but they offer a lot of really great editorial content for discovery plus they offer multiple streaming radio stations for members. They've got smart people so I think they might make a surge in features.
A lot of people are into MOG.com as well. I have issues with their CEOs attitude towards licenses and how the money goes to creators, but otherwise the catalog is strong and they offer solid access across multiple platforms.
> Their staff is rude
You're welcome to form your own opinions, but I can tell you that the people who work at Grooveshark are some of the nicest and most fun-loving individuals you'll ever meet. You have to be humble in this industry. You don't make a whole lot of money and you have to hustle to sign up every act you can. You go to every concert. You meet with every executive. And at the end of the day you give away 70% of your hard-earned money to someone else.
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. 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 concerts you go to.
The only accusations being made, not by me, are the ones in the lawsuit: which claim that Grooveshark executives were uploading content illegally to their own system. If true this is one of the more offensive things I've ever seen from a startup.
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 fully agree. But Grooveshark brings the audience, the user experience, the hosting, and the analytics. These services aren't free. Do you get mad when people sell you tap water in a bottle and demand $3.00 for something that costs $0.25?
Fresh water is a limited physical resource, whereas digital products can be infinitely duplicated at little-to-no cost.
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 concerts you go to.
I didn't see him call anyone a shithead. And you could just as easily say that the labels make money on the backs of artists. If you want to be rude and dismissive of others.
And yes, some labels make money off of the backs of artists, some are really great and make money with artists. Just like some streaming services work out licensing deals before launching a service and others don't.
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 the creator, just as the music belongs to the artist (or label, depending on the deal.)
Seems a bit like perspective, but it goes deeper: if the music belongs to the artist who created it then they should have the right to pull it from a service and expect reasonable effort to keep it out of the service — YouTube's content ID does a commendable job. (Though it is abused by some of the majors...but the algorithm itself is really solid.)
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.
Wrong. Musicians can choose to distribute the music themselves or through a variety other third parties. iOS developers have no other meaningful choice.
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.
"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."
The original lawsuit brought by Universal is quite a bit more serious: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57332246-261/grooveshark-e...
Grooveshark has said repeatedly that they're trying to help artists, but when you look at their business model (upload a bunch of songs illegally, get eyeballs, then charge labels for data), it's been clear all along that the only party they care about is themselves.
Bad karma will always, always come back and bite you.
Sadly, they'll probably just end up saddling Grooveshark with a crippling settlement. Or Grooveshark will be bankrupt before it's all done. Or Grooveshark will lose outright. But barring all those outcomes, there's the very small chance that a reasonable decision regarding music IP will occur - which would change everything.
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 realize that they were on their way out, so all the arguments for their legality are largely moot.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/grooveshredde...
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 download and play it immediately?
| |
| |
Yes No
| |
| |
Is the resulting MP3 ---- No ----+---> Legal
of high quality?
|
|
Yes
|
+--------------------------------> Illegal![1] http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-pu...
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 don't like what the record industry is doing in general these days, but grooveshark was always very obviously shady if not illegal.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-dema...
Whether the law is just or current, that is up to debate.
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 either, basically Grooveshark haven't paid a penny to their only major legal avenue to music.
TLDR; Youtube case is nothing like the Grooveshark ones.
Didn't Viacom claim something similar?
What I'm saying is that they would benefit a lot more from having Grooveshark as an ally (even if not entirely on their terms) then defeating it and getting back to square zero in the anti-piracy effort.
> they'd likely prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music
A side effect of which probably would be more users becoming “torrent-educated”.
Also, there's a huge difference between listening to music only on Grooveshark, and having the tracks (CD) bought and lying around on your drive. In the first case you don't own the music.
If you're downloading it, however, the difference almost vanishes, and you have much less reason to pay. You have the files already—so are able to listen without the connection, put it on your player, etc. Like you've bought the music, but without the money.
Agree. Grooveshark is a top1000 site. I don't think the MI realizes the temperature of the fire that they're playing with here, the media backlash will be significant.
And more importantly they're actively tingling the senses of countless hackers to build a free spotify on top of a P2P network.
Good luck putting that cat back into its bag...
(The logic of streaming being more inconvenient than a file makes less and less sense each year, though as wireless connectivity improves).
this stuff should do the trick : javascript: $('div .grid-canvas .slick-row').each(function(index) { console.log($(this).find('div.song').text() + '- ' + $(this).find('div.album').text()); });
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.
The main reason is because the other labels would still want to sue.
Now why can't they all just buy grooveshark together? Because we have anti-trust laws that prevent them from working together like that.
So why don't they just work with grooveshark to get the licensing deals they want and capitalize on the huge userbase? Because the labels see it in their best interest to keep this grey area dangerous to enter. If they struck up a deal with grooveshark more people might get into the game seeking to grab the music industry by the balls and that's not what the RIAA wants. They want a firm grasp on everyone elses.
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.
You have some great points. I haven't had a chance to use spotify.
You should really try it out.
Additionally, on my last tryout, they required a Facebook ID for the free demo--not having Facebook, that's where the experiment ended.
Yes I said paying for. I have been a subscriber for ages. Get with the program and get some revenue sharing system set up -- one where the money goes to the artists and not to RIAAs laywers.
With the current state of Washingtonian corruption there is no hope in hell to update the laws legally. Is it really so bad that the laws are being updated illegally?
I have to think he meant it in a different way, but it's still something I believe to be true. The laws regarding IP and copyright are obviously broken. I hope the record labels are missing out on enough money to go bankrupt, they've certainly worn out their good will and outgrown their usefulness in this digital world.
Stolen cars can be bought for cheaper and with less paperwork. Ignoring laws does improve the Grooveshark experience. You say the laws need to be updated, but I honestly don't see what is wrong with a company holding rights to the music they produce. Grooveshark makes money off of copyright they don't own. Their own "Popular" featured section is chock full of infringement. They claim DMCA (a law I thought most techies liked), which is fine and well. Worked for YouTube. But they are going to have to defend that in court, and I have my suspicions that they might not be following the letter nor the spirit of DMCA.
Also I have a suspicion that most people use Grooveshark as a form of radio in such way that it doesn't really feed on artists main source of profit (CDs and concerts).
However don't take this out of context I still dislike lack of any mechanisms for artist reimbursement.
The anti-circumvention provisions are ridiculous. Decrypting a DVD you own is illegal - even posting a link to circumvention software is enough to violate the DMCA. Web sites got C&D orders for hosting a number. Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested for writing software. If those examples don't seem ludicrous enough, there are plenty more.
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.
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?