
Grooveshark Bites Back: We’ll Fight Universal in Court, Not The Press - Garbage
http://torrentfreak.com/grooveshark-bites-back-well-fight-universal-in-court-not-the-press-111123/
======
hammock
_We use the label's songs till we get a 100m uniques, by which time we can
tell the labels who is listening to their music where, and then turn around
and charge them for the very data we got from them, ensuring that what we pay
them in total for streaming is less than what they pay us for data mining._

This part doesn't quite make sense to me. Besides being news to me that this
is their business model, how could it possibly be that UMG is willing to pay
more for the data about a song play than they charge for that play?

~~~
sliverstorm
I hope you aren't upset about this revelation.The quality of their service is
pretty high, I don't recall ads, nor do I recall having to pay a subscription
fee.

If you _are_ discomfited by it, take comfort knowing that the only reason they
get money for it is they are selling the amalgamation of what thousands
(millions?) of listeners chose; from the sound of it, you are going to be
completely invisible among the masses.

~~~
overcyn
That was from an internal email. I can't find any sources saying that
grooveshark is actually making money from the labels.

------
john2x
"$271,350,000" Wow. And all they had to do was read a comment on a blog post.
If I didn't know any better (I'm not sure I do), I'd say piracy is big
business for the entertainment industry.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I wonder if there's any money to be made in posting comments that companies
can use to file frivolous lawsuits.

For $5, I'll claim that I watched the CEO of Grooveshark waterboard an orphan
while listening to a song he didn't own.

~~~
bookwormAT
See also: "Battling the Internet Water Army: Detection of Hidden Paid Posters"

<http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1111/1111.4297v1.pdf>

------
j_baker
Am I the only one who noticed that Custer claimed he wouldn't fight Universal
in the press... in a statement released to the press including his arguments
as to why Universal is wrong?

I'm willing to support just about anyone who is taking on the record labels,
but don't claim you won't fight Universal in the press right after doing so
_and_ scolding your opponents for doing so as well. That's just hypocritical.

------
yuhong
I still remember the WordPress/Thesis fiasco that involved Twitter, blog
comments and Mixergy interviews.

~~~
siddhant
Do you have a link? Thanks!

~~~
yuhong
Here is some:

[http://wordpress.tv/2010/07/15/mixergy-interview-pearson-
mul...](http://wordpress.tv/2010/07/15/mixergy-interview-pearson-mullenweg/)

<http://mashable.com/2010/07/22/thesis-relents/>

[http://wptechguy.com/2010/07/matt-mullenweg-and-
wordpress-v-...](http://wptechguy.com/2010/07/matt-mullenweg-and-wordpress-v-
chris-pearson-and-thesis/)

<http://jane.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/thesiswp/>

------
harryf
A trial of this nature could end as a fantastic promotion for Grooveshark,
assuming they can survive it.

~~~
paul9290
Sure similar to the lawsuits and trials of Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, Muxtape
and all the others that were sued out of existence.

------
cq
I still think Grooveshark is the best cloud music service there is. I can't
stand spotify or google music.

~~~
paul9290
Are you willing to pay $10 a month for GrooveShark once they are forced to
change their business model?

Pardon the pessimism, but I don't recall any online music service that didn't
negotiate with the labels first surviving these lawsuits. Though maybe I am
forgetting one that is still around and going strong?

~~~
OriginalSyn
If Universal shuts down Grooveshark they set a precedent that can get Youtube
shutdown, because they are run on the same model. Users upload content,
Grooveshark removes content and users when they get DMCA complaints.

~~~
paul9290
I don't think the YouTube analogy works here, because YouTube's main focus was
never to be an online music service. That is Grooveshark's sole purpose and is
marketed as. There are many music services that allowed that same thing and
are no longer around like muxtape for example.

Also the wild west that YouTube was is no longer, as they pay they labels.
Maybe Grooveshark won't go the way of all the other unlicensed music services
& they'll negotiate the proper licenses to remain in business?

If that happens their model will be like Spotify and the others(pay monthly
fee for mobile access). Though will it's users stick around or jump ship to
what service I'm not sure? I don't know of any other Grooveshark like services
as the press only covers Spotify, MOG and Rdio these days.

~~~
samtp
You can make your own music, just like you can make your own videos. I think
the analogy works pretty well

~~~
paul9290
Sure, but the masses are not listening to the unknown bands. They are
listening to the best talent in the world which the labels find, cultivate,
market and create icons out of - ones that the MASSES follow, love and adore.

Further the majority (Grooveshark's users/visitors) are there to listen to the
label's music not the unknowns. Now if the unknowns are really good then
they'll get a record deal because they want to be heard by as many as possible
(become famous).

Just like us entrepreneurs wisely seek out investment to grow our businesses
artist do the same with the labels. Some artists could say "I hate the labels
they will never sign me!" Though once that artist gets a following and a taste
for money/fame they'll change their mind! They'd be foolish not to!

~~~
randomdata
The same could be said for YouTube. It was primarily the Lazy Sunday video
from SNL, along with some other major production videos, that made YouTube
popular. It was only after the service saw success that the user-generated
videos became interesting to the masses. They came for the major label
productions, but stayed for the home movies.

But that is, of course, the fear of Grooveshark. The masses come to hear Lady
Gaga's latest single, but they just might stumble upon an independent that
they enjoy while they are there. That discovery leads to wanting to find more,
and eventually the major labels, like in video today, become even less
relevant. Grooveshark has already started promoting bands I have never heard
of, and I'll usually give them a chance when I am there.

~~~
bri3d
There's a timing game being played here that YouTube already won, and which I
think GrooveShark are about to lose.

Both YouTube and GrooveShark bet that they'd be able to (quasi-illegally) host
major production content without the owners' consent until some derivative (in
YouTube's case, raw audience combined with ad revenue and in GrooveShark's
case apparently metrics) gave them enough value and/or capital to strike deals
with legitimate content owners.

YouTube won; they were able to push enough traffic to entice labels into
partnering with them for a revenue-generating service (VEVO), and were
subsequently able to begin enforcing the DMCA aggressively via automated
tooling combined with an easy takedown process for labels.

I think GrooveShark are about to lose. So far, labels seem less interested in
making deals with them than in destroying them, and I _highly_ doubt they have
enough legitimate content to survive. They didn't make it past the "host
infringing content for long enough to generate value" inflection point quickly
enough.

It's also worth noting that it's possible to host a much wider variety of
independent / user-generated content which is actually interesting on a "video
site" than a "music site." "Video" encompasses an incredible range of content
(including music!), while "music" is a single content type with a much
narrower range of producers. Many more people have cute kids, athletic talent,
cool cars, funny pets, and so on than have musical talent.

