3 ms·
One wonders how Spotify is succeeding where Grooveshark is failing.
by betterth 15y ago
One wonders how Spotify is succeeding where Grooveshark is failing.
- ethank 15y agoThey have legal agreements (deals) and equity incentive for the labels.
- adamcw 15y agoGrooveshark did this without inking the necessary deals. If I understand correctly, their library is provided by their users uploading.
- cookiecaper 15y agoRight, Grooveshark's entire business model is centered around DMCA protections. Only "user-generated content" affords a DMCA safe harbor defense, so all the copyrighted music they host has to be uploaded by individual users who each assert that they have the rights to distribute the song.
- jessriedel 15y agoWhy can't the labels just send mass DMCA takedown letters? Are users really uploading songs faster than they can be taken down?
- ethank 15y agoThey have and the tracks pop back up* *According to the leaked emails.
- jessriedel 15y agoDo you have a link to the full story? DevX101's link doesn't say anything about DMCA takedown notices.
- v21 15y agoI think one reason they've been luckier legally is that they sold a fair fraction of the company to record labels for a pittance early on.
- bookwormAT 15y agoSpotify is opt-in while Grooveshark is opt-out. Both Spotify and Grooveshark pay royalties to labels that they have a license agreement with. But if you don't want your stuff on a streaming service, users will upload it to Grooveshark anyway. This is also the reason why there is so much cool stuff on Grooveshark that is not on Spotify. Forgotten albums, bootlegs, remixes and mainstream music from certain bands. Grooveshark will also never show you a "this song is not available in your region" message.