

All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark - igorgue
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/new-lawsuit-means-all-major-labels-are-suing-grooveshark/

======
jessevondoom
I work in music, with a lot of indie labels and musicians, and for once the
ENTIRE industry is inline on something. Grooveshark has been actively hostile
to artists requesting their music be removed from the service, their terms are
unfriendly and their staff is rude, and if even a fraction of the allegations
against their management are true they should be held personally accountable.

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.

~~~
slouch
If grooveshark gets shut down tomorrow and I don't get a refund for the rest
of 2012, it is still worth what I've paid for this year in advance.

I don't work in music. I don't want to download desktop software or mp3s. Does
anyone offer a comparable service?

~~~
earbitscom
Rhapsody and Rdio are pretty close. They're like Spotify but I believe both
have browser based access. Catalog is a little smaller but I hear plenty of
people say they prefer them over Spotify. None of them competes with
Grooveshark's catalog, because a huge chunk of Grooveshark's catalog is not
there legally.

~~~
jessevondoom
Yeah Rdio is pretty great, and they give artists access to an under-publicised
affiliate program allowing them to earn money off the audience they drive to
the platform. Solid iOS app. Personally my favorite of the streaming services.

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.

------
dgurney
One word: Karma.

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.

------
ryandvm
Good, I guess. For a long time the content companies have been afraid to go
very far in court over some of these concepts that push the legal boundaries
for fear of an unfavorable precedent.

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_.

------
pork
All the arguments for the legality of Grooveshark aside, it _is_ ridiculously
(read: Napster-like) easy to download high-quality MP3s from the service for
free. Yes, there are rippers for Youtube and other services, but the quality
of downloads is so spotty.

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...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/grooveshredder/)

~~~
dchest
How the story about your friend doing something (supposedly) illegal leads to
conclusion that "all the arguments for their legality are largely moot"?

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!

~~~
pork
Try not to be so literal. My implication was that _any_ service that lets a
user download copyrighted material for free is bound to be terminated by the
labels, and that is largely what is happening.

~~~
dchest
As opposed to just _listen to_ copyrighted material [for which they have no
license to distribute]?

~~~
pork
No, that too, but the downloading makes the hammer come down heavier.

------
kiloaper
I guess Grooveshark strategy of it being "easier to ask for forgiveness later
than it is to ask for permission now" has failed.
([http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/grooveshark-emails-
on-l...](http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/grooveshark-emails-on-label-
deals-its-easier-to-ask-for-forgiveness-later-than-it-is-to-ask-for-
permission-now/))

~~~
wmf
Did that strategy work for any music startup?

~~~
lubos
it worked for youtube/google

~~~
r00fus
You mean the same youtube where the Viacom sued them for videos uploaded by
employees of Viacom [1]?

[1] [http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-
pu...](http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-punches-in-
copyright-lawsuit.html)

~~~
tptacek
... and Google bought them and made the team millions of dollars? Yeah, that
YouTube.

------
paulhauggis
I wish Grooveshark was a legal service. I haven't downloaded any music since
I've started using it.

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.

~~~
Kylekramer
I usually anti-label, but in this case, I don't see the problem. It isn't like
the labels are against all you can eat streaming services. They even support
"free" ones, like Spotify and Mog. They just want a cut/ownership of the
services. The only difference between Grooveshark and Spotify/Mog is a
slightly larger library (due to Grooveshark's grey legality), international
availability (annoying for the other services, but a weird state the current
web has to deal with if they want to stay legal that Grooveshark can ignore),
and worse cataloging. Grooveshark doesn't play ball with companies that are
willing to play ball, so they get sued for copyright violations. Seems fair to
me. Now we test the precedents of DMCA.

~~~
tomjen3
But if it wasn't for these 'small' differences Grooveshark wouldn't be a
service worth paying for.

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?

~~~
Kylekramer
If Grooveshark did something like an artist revenue sharing program, I'd be
more sympathetic to them. But they don't. I haven't seen Grooveshark really
show interest in changing what is broken in the music industry. I see a
company taking copyrighted work and throwing their ads next to them.
Furthermore, taking customers' money to access special features related to the
infringement.

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.

~~~
_Y_
I'd say plethora is wrong at least in US. Ridiculous retroactive copyright
extensions would be my main gripe (though I doubt Grooveshark has any works
that are about to become public domain). Or creative accounting that makes
artist indebted even if their song is sold in millions.

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.

------
peudoscienceped
Paying member here. Its truly a wonderful service that I hope survives,
despite these legal challenges. Their value for me is in their 'long tail'
catalog, with lesser known or foreign bands.

~~~
yread
I also wanted to moan about other services missing my favorite songs but I
checked wiki [1]. Perhaps when you go through the list you'll find your
'foreign' bands as well :)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-
dema...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-
demand_streaming_music_services)

------
AllenKids
I think what Grooveshark is doing is clearly illegal.

Whether the law is just or current, that is up to debate.

~~~
nextparadigms
What part do you think is illegal? The part where the users upload their own
songs? Isn't that much like Youtube? Youtube won against Viacom in a similar
case.

~~~
mattmanser
I think you've missed the gist of those lawsuits.

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.

~~~
Natsu
They've claimed a lot of things that weren't true in the past. I'd withhold
judgement until I can see the evidence for myself.

------
gldalmaso
Nice move if what they want is for all of Grooveshark users worldwide start
downloading music again when they manage to shut it down.

~~~
mikeryan
From my understanding (could be wrong) the label's aren't getting paid for
their music through Grooveshark, so if they're not getting paid they'd likely
prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music then from
using a service such as Grooveshark. (actually they'd prefer you use a free
service like Spotify which pays for the music rights).

~~~
goblin89
I would, if Spotify was available in my country.

> 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.

~~~
moe
_A side effect of which probably would be more users becoming “torrent-
educated”._

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...

------
firefoxman1
Why doesn't one of the labels just buy Grooveshark? Make an offer they can't
resist. The record label would get some fresh talent with actual vision, and
worst case scenario would be Grooveshark getting shut down and the founders
making a decent exit.

~~~
freehunter
Step 1: Sue Grooveshark. Make it serious, hit them with everything.

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.

~~~
macspoofing
Labels don't want a service like Grooveshark to exist, which gives away their
product for nothing. If they wanted it, they could easily build it themselves.

~~~
teamonkey
They could build a _similar_ service to Grooveshark that didn't give their
products away for nothing. People would pay to stream EMI's entire catalogue,
so long as the price was right.

