

Grooveshark makes a stand against the music industry. - robee
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/04/18/grooveshark-stands-up-for-its-service-makes-android-app-available-online-and-sends-out-open-letter-to-the-music-industry/

======
nddrylliog
The title is misleading. Grooveshark has nothing against the music industry
and never had.

They have something against vendors (like Google and Apple) prematurely
pulling out their app from their respective markets/stores because of their
ignorance of the law.

~~~
mathiswrong
I agree... I wrote the damn thing, and I can tell you that it's technology
companies who this is aimed at. The RIAA stands up for what they believe to be
their interests. However, there is no defense for Google -- a company that
owns YouTube and is trying to launch their own competitive music service.

~~~
j2d2j2d2
Maybe Google just doesn't want to fight the RIAA and prefers to fight
Grooveshark. Maybe fighting the RIAA would open up a debate on the legality of
YouTube, which Google also wouldn't want.

~~~
chrislomax
I think the main problem is there are too many grey areas in music streaming.
When Amazon launched their cloud music player a couple weeks ago, it gots
loads of press about the legality of purchasing music in the cloud then it
being streamed to any computer or being able to download it in general.

I personally think we are stuck in a transitional period between traditional
music and digital music. The traditional sense of what Amazon is doing is
completely illegal, when you upload a file you are technically making a copy
of it which technically you could share with others. In a traditional sense
all these services are illegal in some respect.

We need new legislation that has clear guidelines. We need a clear way of
letting these companies legally share music. There should be a clear port of
call for all music providers such as these to try and make a go with their
products.

I think they are spending too much time fighting these companies and telling
them they are wrong rather than guiding them in the right direction.

I may be way off mark here but as a developer I would not touch anything to do
with music licensing again. I really feel for Grooveshark, I have used the
service and it looks like they have put their heart and soul into that product
and instead of a great big "Thanks for helping the music industry", they get
kicked.

~~~
j2d2j2d2
The DMCA provides the clear guidelines you're referring to. Grooveshark also
falls back to the DMCA and their willingness to comply as evidence that they
are legal.

I think the biggest issue for music startups (disclaimer: I used to work for
one) is probably that the startups that try to do it legally and correctly are
still competing against the ones that border on being illegal, or are
straight-up illegal. Users don't care, but startups might get sued.

All of that aside, I agree that Grooveshark has built a great product. But I'd
be kidding myself if I didn't also say the first song I searched for was
Metallica and I got a massive list of songs I could listen to. I'm sure _they_
wouldn't be happy.

~~~
chrislomax
The only thing I find odd about Grooveshark is the same tune but displayed in
different ways. Almost like a group of people have just uploaded their
personal collection. It does feel a little amature in that respect.

I think its hard to make an unbaised decision on the company and how I feel
about this take down decision because I do not know the complete inner
workings, only what Grooveshark tell us. They could tell us they are paying
fees when they are clearly not, they could say all royalties are being
honoured, when again they could not be.

It's all assumption led but I know that whatever is happening is not good for
the end user. I was going to pay for their mobile version and I didn't
question the legality of it either. To the average user, all this messing
around means that when Google or Apple release their own product then every
"normal" user will jump ship for it because they know it's there to stay
rather than being worried it will be dropped at any point. The end user
doesn't generally have any loyalty, they just want to listen to music.

------
chrislomax
I have used Grooveshark for a while now and I do enjoy what they have on
offer. It's companies like Grooveshark that the record industry need. If they
are doing what they say they are doing then they contribute heavily to the
music economy.

I look at the actions of Google in two ways, they have either received a lot
of complaints from the governing body and their hand was forced _or_ they
really are releasing their own cloud music store and they are getting rid of
potential competitors.

I hope its the first reason as I really like Google and their ethics.

I have had personal dealings with the music industry though and how licenses
work. In some cases they do not even check the legality of a music provider
and presume they are acting illegally because their business model looks
illegal. They are going against their own policy of innovation to get them out
the mess they are in.

I hate to say it but I think if/when Apple/Google release their own version of
the cloud music player, the rest are screwed anyway. They will find some way
of making the software so integrated with their phones that it's pointless to
use any 3rd party software like Spotify or Grooveshark.

~~~
yayadarsh
Honestly, I'm surprised it's taken Apple this long to throw a similar feature
packaged in with their iOS devices. My theory is that they are holding onto
their iTunes business model for as long as possible before either purchasing
or mimicking the streaming subscription-based style.

Google on the other hand us HOPEFULLY working on something great for their
Android devices..

------
tintin
Grooveshark did not make a stand against the music industry. They made a stand
against Google and the RIAA. Seems like Google is afraid of the RIAA and just
drops anything from the store the RIAA doesn't like.

~~~
Kylekramer
As much as the RIAA has done terrible stuff and earned their status as a
boogieman, aren't they the main representatives of the music industry? It
isn't like the music labels are not the ones behind the RIAA's actions.

~~~
mdaniel
I believe the subtlety there is that the RIAA represents the interests of
their _corporate_ members, which almost wholly differ from the _artist's_
interests.

I also believe that is one of the main reasons they are labeled as "the
boogieman," in addition to some pretty boneheaded PR moves.

------
bennesvig
I can see why Apple is against Grooveshark...people buy less music. I've been
using Grooveshark for the last 5 months and went from buying about $20 worth
of music a month to maybe $2-3.

~~~
aw3c2
But I stopped pirating so much music because of it (deleted shortly afterwards
if I did not really like it). Surely that means they do not lose any more
revenue because of me. ;-)

------
dcosson
I'm curious what Grooveshark does that allows it to be legal, where as p2p
networks, youtube, megavideo, etc. routinely have to take down their
copyrighted content. Anyone know?

~~~
flipbrad
The answer is: Grooveshark routinely has to take down (unlicenced, non-fair-
use) copyrighted content, just like the others. That's the cost of DMCA safe
harbour compliance.

~~~
stianan
How come they have so much content then? Is it because the copyright holders
can't send them sufficiently detailed take-down notices fast enough?

~~~
kin
Pretty much. You'll see that the aggressive ones are taken down, like the
Beatles, won't find that at Grooveshark. However, you can upload your own
Beatles tracks and label them differently "B34tles" and it'll stay up there
longer, just like the Kazaa days.

------
hnsmurf
I love it when startups at least attempt to drag businesses stuck in the old
way of doing things kicking and screaming into the new reality.

------
robertmrangel
What's stopping Grooveshark from creating an HTML5 webapp compatible with both
iOS and android? Is the technology not ready?

~~~
j2d2j2d2
HTML5 is part of the way there but many browsers still crap out over trivial
stuff. For example, for a long time (still might be true), Chrome would go
nuts if someone tried to play an audio link that produced a 404 error.

So, this isn't a comprehensive answer, but hopefully shines some light on
where HTML5 actually is with regard to providing an experience similar to a
native app.

------
lyime
Could I reach out to someone at Grooveshark here?

~~~
powerslave12r
Maybe, but why not mail them the reply as well?

