Hacker News Reader

I personally work with hundreds of artists and MANY of them have been treated terribly by customer service when trying to initiate take-downs. When urged to sign licensing deals it's all or nothing, and if they choose nothing the music remains up on the site regardless. Really — having worked with literally every streaming company I've never seen a higher rate of artist and indie label dis-satisfaction. Not an accusation but a blunt observation.

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.

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 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?

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.

> 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.

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.

He edited "shithead executives" down to just "executives." I was responding to the original text.

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.

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 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.)

He was talking about the money, not the content, thus putting it in terms of who owns an iOS app is missing the point. It's about who's profit it is. In which case the discussion is exactly the same.

> 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.

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.

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".

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.

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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA

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.

The original lawsuit brought by Universal is quite a bit more serious: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57332246-261/grooveshark-e...