3 ms·

Doing what Spotify did isn't that easy. They had years of lawyer negotiations before they got any label to sign up. They had to have some serious dough before t

by ique 16y ago

Doing what Spotify did isn't that easy. They had years of lawyer negotiations before they got any label to sign up. They had to have some serious dough before they could even broadcast the first tune. And that's with the swedish STIM organization that pretty much lets you broadcast any music as long as you pay per listener. Grooveshark is trying to build a business. To build a business on music you have to let people listen to music. Once they have working business-model (if they ever get there) they can get to paying the artists. I agree it's somewhat twisted, but I think that's what is necessary.

citricsquid 16y ago
So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately, you don't do it. Spotify have proven it's possible to do so what on earth gives Grooveshark (or any company) the right to abuse the law and make money from things they don't have the rights to? I don't get it... I must be misunderstanding your argument because that makes no sense on earth to me... couldn't the same lines be used to justify the BP problems ("when we have enough money we'll follow safety regulations") or even drugs ("when we have enough money we'll start a florist")? If you intentions to build a legitimate business at the end, who cares what you do on the way?
- ique 16y ago
  It's just the same old piracy arguments as always. Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations. Grooveshark is not doing anything illegal even if they might be "abusing the law". The fact remains that people want to consume music in a way that the music industry does not allow. If it werent for legal loopholes we wouldn't have YouTube and we wouldn't have tourism in eastern Europe. The world isn't as black and white as you portray it and Grooveshark provides an amazing service of much higher quality than Spotify. We can't all sit on our hands and do nothing because someone in the world thinks we shouldn't. Innovation sometimes requires using loopholes.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    People want to do a lot of things, dude.
  - carussell 16y ago
    "Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations." It's not even a legal loophole; it's straight-up, conscious infringement complete with a wink and nudge.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately, you don't do it. Yeah, we might be a lot better off if people hadn't run to Hollywood to escape enforcement of Edison's patents. Without that city of pirates, things might have turned out very differently.
cletus 16y ago
> Doing what Spotify did isn't that easy. Indeed. The record industry's business model for the internet seems to be this: bleed dry any startup (or any company for that matter) who tries to innovate in this space by making them bleed through the nose in legal fees and lose money on ridiculous royalties until they run out of money.
michael_dorfman 16y ago
Grooveshark is trying to build a business. To build a business on music you have to let people listen to music. Once they have working business-model (if they ever get there) they can get to paying the artists. I agree it's somewhat twisted, but I think that's what is necessary. I disagree completely. Grooveshark is trying to build a business, and to do so without paying the artists is unconscionable. They need to have that in place before launching, and if they can't do that, they shouldn't have a business. Cf Spotify, who did it the right (and difficult) way.

by ique 16y ago

citricsquid 16y ago

So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately, you don't do it. Spotify have proven it's possible to do so what on earth gives Grooveshark (or any company) the right to abuse the law and make money from things they don't have the rights to? I don't get it... I must be misunderstanding your argument because that makes no sense on earth to me... couldn't the same lines be used to justify the BP problems ("when we have enough money we'll follow safety regulations") or even drugs ("when we have enough money we'll start a florist")? If you intentions to build a legitimate business at the end, who cares what you do on the way?

ique 16y ago
It's just the same old piracy arguments as always. Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations. Grooveshark is not doing anything illegal even if they might be "abusing the law". The fact remains that people want to consume music in a way that the music industry does not allow. If it werent for legal loopholes we wouldn't have YouTube and we wouldn't have tourism in eastern Europe. The world isn't as black and white as you portray it and Grooveshark provides an amazing service of much higher quality than Spotify. We can't all sit on our hands and do nothing because someone in the world thinks we shouldn't. Innovation sometimes requires using loopholes.
- tptacek 16y ago
  People want to do a lot of things, dude.
- carussell 16y ago
  "Using a legal loophole is not the same as selling drugs or not follow safety regulations." It's not even a legal loophole; it's straight-up, conscious infringement complete with a wink and nudge.
Natsu 16y ago
> So it's okay to abuse the law while building a business because it's "hard" to do it legitimately? You can't be serious? If it's too hard to do it legitimately, you don't do it. Yeah, we might be a lot better off if people hadn't run to Hollywood to escape enforcement of Edison's patents. Without that city of pirates, things might have turned out very differently.

cletus 16y ago

> Doing what Spotify did isn't that easy. Indeed. The record industry's business model for the internet seems to be this: bleed dry any startup (or any company for that matter) who tries to innovate in this space by making them bleed through the nose in legal fees and lose money on ridiculous royalties until they run out of money.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Grooveshark is trying to build a business. To build a business on music you have to let people listen to music. Once they have working business-model (if they ever get there) they can get to paying the artists. I agree it's somewhat twisted, but I think that's what is necessary. I disagree completely. Grooveshark is trying to build a business, and to do so without paying the artists is unconscionable. They need to have that in place before launching, and if they can't do that, they shouldn't have a business. Cf Spotify, who did it the right (and difficult) way.