Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvnick | Hacker News Reader

I used to work for Grooveshark. It's an amazing company full of awesome people that are really passionate about music and helping artists. I'm happy they got this win.

View on HN

I'm not sure if helping artists would be a great phrase for it...How about a list of this months top 10 streamed tracks from users in the United States? I'd like to see how many of those tunes in the top 10 list are from actual artists whose music is legally licensed to be on Grooveshark.

Your anti-piracy point is one things, but are you willing to contend that the musicians would be better off if grooveshark didn't exist? Assuming grooveshark couldn't exist if they were required to pay licensing fees for every song that was uploaded and listened to (which, if you've seen their offices or knew how little they paid their developers, isn't farfetched).

The amount of money I spend on concert tickets has gone up drastically since becoming a grooveshark subscriber, and I've seen a few shows absolutely because their music was on the service, whether legally or not.

Here's a suggestion to help artists - for every track downloaded which is not directly assigned to a copyright holder, put an amount equal to the industry average for US DPDs, say 70 cents, into escrow, along with 9.1 cents for the US mechanical license, and hold it there for three years or until the copyright holders come calling for it. In addition, supply the copyright holders with the specific details of the uploader. That would help artists.

What does 'directly assigned' mean? If the uploader sets it then it's going to be set on all the pirate files and your clause never triggers. If Grooveshark sets it then they're going to have to manually inspect every upload. Neither of these helps any artist. Nobody is going to get paid for an $8-per-hour radio. Grooveshark would go out of business and help noone.

By "directly assigned" I mean the case where Grooveshark and a third party rightsholder (record label, artist, etc.) have a deal in place covering the respective track.

But how do you stop artists from signing up and then labeling others' songs as their own?

I really don't see how the 70 cents are ever going to help an artist.

70 cents * # of downloads is how lots of artists make money nowadays.

I don't think many people are going to sign a legal agreement and then purposely claim other people's songs. The legal and financial liability from that is huge and much more direct.

Okay, I guess I haven't made myself clear. If Grooveshark costs eight dollars and hour it's going to be out of business in a day. That doesn't help artists. I only see two scenarios, either the 70 cent tax is avoided in which case no artists are helped, or it's paid on almost every song in which case Grooveshark collapses and no artists are helped.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com