5 ms·

Grooveshark makes a stand against the music industry.

124 points by robee 15y ago

tintin 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.
chrislomax 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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..
- powerslave12r 15y ago
  Google must buy Grooveshark. That is the only logical way.
lyime 15y ago
Could I reach out to someone at Grooveshark here?
- powerslave12r 15y ago
  Maybe, but why not mail them the reply as well?
- invisible 15y ago
  support@grooveshark.com
nddrylliog 15y ago
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.
- dhyasama 15y ago
  The app was pulled due to a request from the RIAA which is essentially music labels.
- mathiswrong 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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.
bennesvig 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
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 15y ago
What's stopping Grooveshark from creating an HTML5 webapp compatible with both iOS and android? Is the technology not ready?
- j2d2j2d2 15y ago
  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.

124 points by robee 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.

chrislomax 15y ago

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 15y ago
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..
powerslave12r 15y ago
Google must buy Grooveshark. That is the only logical way.

lyime 15y ago

Could I reach out to someone at Grooveshark here?

powerslave12r 15y ago
Maybe, but why not mail them the reply as well?
invisible 15y ago
support@grooveshark.com

nddrylliog 15y ago

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.

dhyasama 15y ago
The app was pulled due to a request from the RIAA which is essentially music labels.
mathiswrong 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.

bennesvig 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago

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 15y ago

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

j2d2j2d2 15y ago
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.