9 ms·

All Major Labels Are Suing Grooveshark

116 points by igorgue 15y ago

firefoxman1 15y ago
Why doesn't one of the labels just buy Grooveshark? Make an offer they can't resist. The record label would get some fresh talent with actual vision, and worst case scenario would be Grooveshark getting shut down and the founders making a decent exit.
- freehunter 15y ago
  Step 1: Sue Grooveshark. Make it serious, hit them with everything. Step 2: Send them a settlement offer. Make it huge. Billions. Make it something they'd never consider. Step 3: Offer number 2 - Acquisition agreement. We'll drop the lawsuit and on-board your product/talent (letting the leadership duck out with a small token) if you agree to a non-compete contract. Everyone wins.
  - firefoxman1 15y ago
    That is such a beautiful strategy. I truly hope it doesn't come down to that for Grooveshark (I love them), but from a purely strategic point of view for the record labels, that move would be amazing.
  - macspoofing 15y ago
    Labels don't want a service like Grooveshark to exist, which gives away their product for nothing. If they wanted it, they could easily build it themselves.
    - teamonkey 15y ago
      They could build a similar service to Grooveshark that didn't give their products away for nothing. People would pay to stream EMI's entire catalogue, so long as the price was right.
- gcp 15y ago
  Because they don't want to give anyone else the idea that the business idea behind GrooveShark is solid?
  - firefoxman1 15y ago
    Ooh also a very good point. I didn't think of that.
- slackerIII 15y ago
  Buying companies with huge and unknown legal liabilities is generally a bad idea.
  - firefoxman1 15y ago
    Ahh good point.
- zoom 15y ago
  Because then Grooveshark doesn't get punished.
- revdinosaur 15y ago
  It's because the major record labels already chose their strategy when they became record labels. They exist for the purposes of managing and licensing IP and suing those they believe are infringing. Bottom line: what do they want fresh talent for when they've made so much money doing this?
- tibbon 15y ago
  One could buy them, but now that label would be pissing off all the rest and a liability. Unless they all bought a portion, but that will never happen.
- gerggerg 15y ago
  Thats a really great question. The main reason is because the other labels would still want to sue. Now why can't they all just buy grooveshark together? Because we have anti-trust laws that prevent them from working together like that. So why don't they just work with grooveshark to get the licensing deals they want and capitalize on the huge userbase? Because the labels see it in their best interest to keep this grey area dangerous to enter. If they struck up a deal with grooveshark more people might get into the game seeking to grab the music industry by the balls and that's not what the RIAA wants. They want a firm grasp on everyone elses.
ryandvm 15y ago
Good, I guess. For a long time the content companies have been afraid to go very far in court over some of these concepts that push the legal boundaries for fear of an unfavorable precedent. Sadly, they'll probably just end up saddling Grooveshark with a crippling settlement. Or Grooveshark will be bankrupt before it's all done. Or Grooveshark will lose outright. But barring all those outcomes, there's the very small chance that a reasonable decision regarding music IP will occur - which would change everything.
paulhauggis 15y ago
I wish Grooveshark was a legal service. I haven't downloaded any music since I've started using it. It's sad that the labels can't take a hint. The music business is changing (just like the software business). Businesses that don't go with the flow will eventually be left behind.
- Kylekramer 15y ago
  I usually anti-label, but in this case, I don't see the problem. It isn't like the labels are against all you can eat streaming services. They even support "free" ones, like Spotify and Mog. They just want a cut/ownership of the services. The only difference between Grooveshark and Spotify/Mog is a slightly larger library (due to Grooveshark's grey legality), international availability (annoying for the other services, but a weird state the current web has to deal with if they want to stay legal that Grooveshark can ignore), and worse cataloging. Grooveshark doesn't play ball with companies that are willing to play ball, so they get sued for copyright violations. Seems fair to me. Now we test the precedents of DMCA.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    I'm generally against copyright infringement/intellectual property theft. I guess I was just trying to say I want more legal services like this. You have some great points. I haven't had a chance to use spotify.
    - thesis 15y ago
      I like Spotify a lot more regardless of the copyright issues. The added bonus is that Spotify is okay in the eyes of the people who own the music I'm listening too. You should really try it out.
      - tripzilch 15y ago
        Every time I give it another try, so far, it's been missing about half the songs I'd like to listen to. Additionally, on my last tryout, they required a Facebook ID for the free demo--not having Facebook, that's where the experiment ended.
kiloaper 15y ago
I guess Grooveshark strategy of it being "easier to ask for forgiveness later than it is to ask for permission now" has failed. (http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/grooveshark-emails-on-label-deals-its-easier-to-ask-for-forgiveness-later-than-it-is-to-ask-for-permission-now/ http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/grooveshark-emails-on-l...)
- wmf 15y ago
  Did that strategy work for any music startup?
  - lubos 15y ago
    it worked for youtube/google
    - r00fus 15y ago
      You mean the same youtube where the Viacom sued them for videos uploaded by employees of Viacom [1]? [1] http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-punches-in-copyright-lawsuit.html http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-pu...
      - JeremyBanks 15y ago
        How is that relevant?
      - tptacek 15y ago
        ... and Google bought them and made the team millions of dollars? Yeah, that YouTube.
      - plorkyeran 15y ago
        Yes, the same Youtube that sold for $1.65 billion several years before an unsuccessful lawsuit.
  - ScottWhigham 15y ago
peudoscienceped 15y ago
Paying member here. Its truly a wonderful service that I hope survives, despite these legal challenges. Their value for me is in their 'long tail' catalog, with lesser known or foreign bands.
- yread 15y ago
  I also wanted to moan about other services missing my favorite songs but I checked wiki [1]. Perhaps when you go through the list you'll find your 'foreign' bands as well :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-demand_streaming_music_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-dema...
jessevondoom 15y ago
I work in music, with a lot of indie labels and musicians, and for once the ENTIRE industry is inline on something. Grooveshark has been actively hostile to artists requesting their music be removed from the service, their terms are unfriendly and their staff is rude, and if even a fraction of the allegations against their management are true they should be held personally accountable. Everyone in this industry understands playing fast and loose with regulations but Grooveshark repeatedly crossed the line and has made only hollow attempts at seeing artists compensated. For once this isn't RIAA greed, it's acceptable and appropriate action.
- slouch 15y ago
  If grooveshark gets shut down tomorrow and I don't get a refund for the rest of 2012, it is still worth what I've paid for this year in advance. I don't work in music. I don't want to download desktop software or mp3s. Does anyone offer a comparable service?
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    Rhapsody and Rdio are pretty close. They're like Spotify but I believe both have browser based access. Catalog is a little smaller but I hear plenty of people say they prefer them over Spotify. None of them competes with Grooveshark's catalog, because a huge chunk of Grooveshark's catalog is not there legally.
    - leak 15y ago
      I use Rhapsody (piror Yahoo Music) and I love it. I also use MuvAudio.
    - jessevondoom 15y ago
      Yeah Rdio is pretty great, and they give artists access to an under-publicised affiliate program allowing them to earn money off the audience they drive to the platform. Solid iOS app. Personally my favorite of the streaming services. I'd also keep an eye on eMusic. It's more geared towards downloads, but they offer a lot of really great editorial content for discovery plus they offer multiple streaming radio stations for members. They've got smart people so I think they might make a surge in features. A lot of people are into MOG.com as well. I have issues with their CEOs attitude towards licenses and how the money goes to creators, but otherwise the catalog is strong and they offer solid access across multiple platforms.
gldalmaso 15y ago
Nice move if what they want is for all of Grooveshark users worldwide start downloading music again when they manage to shut it down.
- mikeryan 15y ago
  From my understanding (could be wrong) the label's aren't getting paid for their music through Grooveshark, so if they're not getting paid they'd likely prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music then from using a service such as Grooveshark. (actually they'd prefer you use a free service like Spotify which pays for the music rights).
  - gldalmaso 15y ago
    But it would be much more viable to elaborate deals and get paid through Grooveshark. What I'm saying is that they would benefit a lot more from having Grooveshark as an ally (even if not entirely on their terms) then defeating it and getting back to square zero in the anti-piracy effort.
  - goblin89 15y ago
    I would, if Spotify was available in my country. > they'd likely prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music A side effect of which probably would be more users becoming “torrent-educated”. Also, there's a huge difference between listening to music only on Grooveshark, and having the tracks (CD) bought and lying around on your drive. In the first case you don't own the music. If you're downloading it, however, the difference almost vanishes, and you have much less reason to pay. You have the files already—so are able to listen without the connection, put it on your player, etc. Like you've bought the music, but without the money.
    - moe 15y ago
      A side effect of which probably would be more users becoming “torrent-educated”. Agree. Grooveshark is a top1000 site. I don't think the MI realizes the temperature of the fire that they're playing with here, the media backlash will be significant. And more importantly they're actively tingling the senses of countless hackers to build a free spotify on top of a P2P network. Good luck putting that cat back into its bag...
AllenKids 15y ago
I think what Grooveshark is doing is clearly illegal. Whether the law is just or current, that is up to debate.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  What part do you think is illegal? The part where the users upload their own songs? Isn't that much like Youtube? Youtube won against Viacom in a similar case.
  - slouch 15y ago
    They also have a DMCA section of their site for claims: http://www.grooveshark.com/dmca http://www.grooveshark.com/dmca
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    I think you've missed the gist of those lawsuits. The other labels are contending that Grooveshark employees uploaded the songs and were asked to by management. They claim to have leaked internal documents to prove it. YouTube didn't upload the content themselves, their users did. The latter is legal if you comply with DMCA take down, the former is illegal. This case outlined in the article has nothing to do with either, basically Grooveshark haven't paid a penny to their only major legal avenue to music. TLDR; Youtube case is nothing like the Grooveshark ones.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      They've claimed a lot of things that weren't true in the past. I'd withhold judgement until I can see the evidence for myself.
    - iamandrus 15y ago
      >The other labels are contending that Grooveshark employees uploaded the songs and were asked to by management. They claim to have leaked internal documents to prove it. Didn't Viacom claim something similar?
pork 15y ago
All the arguments for the legality of Grooveshark aside, it is ridiculously (read: Napster-like) easy to download high-quality MP3s from the service for free. Yes, there are rippers for Youtube and other services, but the quality of downloads is so spotty. I watched a friend used GrooveShredder [1] the other day, which is a simple Firefox add-on. In 10 minutes, he had downloaded about 50 tracks. That alone made me realize that they were on their way out, so all the arguments for their legality are largely moot. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/grooveshredder/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/grooveshredde...
- dchest 15y ago
  How the story about your friend doing something (supposedly) illegal leads to conclusion that "all the arguments for their legality are largely moot"? Especially after you tell in the very first sentence of your comment to leave arguments about legality aside. Is this how you propose to judge the legality of a service? Can overcome technological restrictions to save music into a file instead of letting the browser download and play it immediately? | | | | Yes No | | | | Is the resulting MP3 ---- No ----+---> Legal of high quality? | | Yes | +--------------------------------> Illegal!
  - pork 15y ago
    Try not to be so literal. My implication was that any service that lets a user download copyrighted material for free is bound to be terminated by the labels, and that is largely what is happening.
    - dchest 15y ago
      As opposed to just listen to copyrighted material [for which they have no license to distribute]?
dgurney 15y ago
One word: Karma. Grooveshark has said repeatedly that they're trying to help artists, but when you look at their business model (upload a bunch of songs illegally, get eyeballs, then charge labels for data), it's been clear all along that the only party they care about is themselves. Bad karma will always, always come back and bite you.

116 points by igorgue 15y ago

Why doesn't one of the labels just buy Grooveshark? Make an offer they can't resist. The record label would get some fresh talent with actual vision, and worst case scenario would be Grooveshark getting shut down and the founders making a decent exit.

freehunter 15y ago
Step 1: Sue Grooveshark. Make it serious, hit them with everything. Step 2: Send them a settlement offer. Make it huge. Billions. Make it something they'd never consider. Step 3: Offer number 2 - Acquisition agreement. We'll drop the lawsuit and on-board your product/talent (letting the leadership duck out with a small token) if you agree to a non-compete contract. Everyone wins.
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  That is such a beautiful strategy. I truly hope it doesn't come down to that for Grooveshark (I love them), but from a purely strategic point of view for the record labels, that move would be amazing.
- macspoofing 15y ago
  Labels don't want a service like Grooveshark to exist, which gives away their product for nothing. If they wanted it, they could easily build it themselves.
  - teamonkey 15y ago
    They could build a similar service to Grooveshark that didn't give their products away for nothing. People would pay to stream EMI's entire catalogue, so long as the price was right.
gcp 15y ago
Because they don't want to give anyone else the idea that the business idea behind GrooveShark is solid?
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  Ooh also a very good point. I didn't think of that.
slackerIII 15y ago
Buying companies with huge and unknown legal liabilities is generally a bad idea.
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  Ahh good point.
zoom 15y ago
Because then Grooveshark doesn't get punished.
revdinosaur 15y ago
It's because the major record labels already chose their strategy when they became record labels. They exist for the purposes of managing and licensing IP and suing those they believe are infringing. Bottom line: what do they want fresh talent for when they've made so much money doing this?
tibbon 15y ago
One could buy them, but now that label would be pissing off all the rest and a liability. Unless they all bought a portion, but that will never happen.
gerggerg 15y ago
Thats a really great question. The main reason is because the other labels would still want to sue. Now why can't they all just buy grooveshark together? Because we have anti-trust laws that prevent them from working together like that. So why don't they just work with grooveshark to get the licensing deals they want and capitalize on the huge userbase? Because the labels see it in their best interest to keep this grey area dangerous to enter. If they struck up a deal with grooveshark more people might get into the game seeking to grab the music industry by the balls and that's not what the RIAA wants. They want a firm grasp on everyone elses.

ryandvm 15y ago

Good, I guess. For a long time the content companies have been afraid to go very far in court over some of these concepts that push the legal boundaries for fear of an unfavorable precedent. Sadly, they'll probably just end up saddling Grooveshark with a crippling settlement. Or Grooveshark will be bankrupt before it's all done. Or Grooveshark will lose outright. But barring all those outcomes, there's the very small chance that a reasonable decision regarding music IP will occur - which would change everything.

paulhauggis 15y ago

I wish Grooveshark was a legal service. I haven't downloaded any music since I've started using it. It's sad that the labels can't take a hint. The music business is changing (just like the software business). Businesses that don't go with the flow will eventually be left behind.

Kylekramer 15y ago
I usually anti-label, but in this case, I don't see the problem. It isn't like the labels are against all you can eat streaming services. They even support "free" ones, like Spotify and Mog. They just want a cut/ownership of the services. The only difference between Grooveshark and Spotify/Mog is a slightly larger library (due to Grooveshark's grey legality), international availability (annoying for the other services, but a weird state the current web has to deal with if they want to stay legal that Grooveshark can ignore), and worse cataloging. Grooveshark doesn't play ball with companies that are willing to play ball, so they get sued for copyright violations. Seems fair to me. Now we test the precedents of DMCA.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  I'm generally against copyright infringement/intellectual property theft. I guess I was just trying to say I want more legal services like this. You have some great points. I haven't had a chance to use spotify.
  - thesis 15y ago
    I like Spotify a lot more regardless of the copyright issues. The added bonus is that Spotify is okay in the eyes of the people who own the music I'm listening too. You should really try it out.
    - tripzilch 15y ago
      Every time I give it another try, so far, it's been missing about half the songs I'd like to listen to. Additionally, on my last tryout, they required a Facebook ID for the free demo--not having Facebook, that's where the experiment ended.

kiloaper 15y ago

I guess Grooveshark strategy of it being "easier to ask for forgiveness later than it is to ask for permission now" has failed. (http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/grooveshark-emails-on-label-deals-its-easier-to-ask-for-forgiveness-later-than-it-is-to-ask-for-permission-now/ http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/grooveshark-emails-on-l...)

wmf 15y ago
Did that strategy work for any music startup?
- lubos 15y ago
  it worked for youtube/google
  - r00fus 15y ago
    You mean the same youtube where the Viacom sued them for videos uploaded by employees of Viacom [1]? [1] http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-punches-in-copyright-lawsuit.html http://consumerist.com/2010/03/viacom-youtube-throw-legal-pu...
    - JeremyBanks 15y ago
      How is that relevant?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      ... and Google bought them and made the team millions of dollars? Yeah, that YouTube.
    - plorkyeran 15y ago
      Yes, the same Youtube that sold for $1.65 billion several years before an unsuccessful lawsuit.
- ScottWhigham 15y ago

peudoscienceped 15y ago

Paying member here. Its truly a wonderful service that I hope survives, despite these legal challenges. Their value for me is in their 'long tail' catalog, with lesser known or foreign bands.

yread 15y ago
I also wanted to moan about other services missing my favorite songs but I checked wiki [1]. Perhaps when you go through the list you'll find your 'foreign' bands as well :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-demand_streaming_music_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_streaming_service#On-dema...

jessevondoom 15y ago

I work in music, with a lot of indie labels and musicians, and for once the ENTIRE industry is inline on something. Grooveshark has been actively hostile to artists requesting their music be removed from the service, their terms are unfriendly and their staff is rude, and if even a fraction of the allegations against their management are true they should be held personally accountable. Everyone in this industry understands playing fast and loose with regulations but Grooveshark repeatedly crossed the line and has made only hollow attempts at seeing artists compensated. For once this isn't RIAA greed, it's acceptable and appropriate action.

slouch 15y ago
If grooveshark gets shut down tomorrow and I don't get a refund for the rest of 2012, it is still worth what I've paid for this year in advance. I don't work in music. I don't want to download desktop software or mp3s. Does anyone offer a comparable service?
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Rhapsody and Rdio are pretty close. They're like Spotify but I believe both have browser based access. Catalog is a little smaller but I hear plenty of people say they prefer them over Spotify. None of them competes with Grooveshark's catalog, because a huge chunk of Grooveshark's catalog is not there legally.
  - leak 15y ago
    I use Rhapsody (piror Yahoo Music) and I love it. I also use MuvAudio.
  - jessevondoom 15y ago
    Yeah Rdio is pretty great, and they give artists access to an under-publicised affiliate program allowing them to earn money off the audience they drive to the platform. Solid iOS app. Personally my favorite of the streaming services. I'd also keep an eye on eMusic. It's more geared towards downloads, but they offer a lot of really great editorial content for discovery plus they offer multiple streaming radio stations for members. They've got smart people so I think they might make a surge in features. A lot of people are into MOG.com as well. I have issues with their CEOs attitude towards licenses and how the money goes to creators, but otherwise the catalog is strong and they offer solid access across multiple platforms.

gldalmaso 15y ago

Nice move if what they want is for all of Grooveshark users worldwide start downloading music again when they manage to shut it down.

mikeryan 15y ago
From my understanding (could be wrong) the label's aren't getting paid for their music through Grooveshark, so if they're not getting paid they'd likely prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music then from using a service such as Grooveshark. (actually they'd prefer you use a free service like Spotify which pays for the music rights).
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  But it would be much more viable to elaborate deals and get paid through Grooveshark. What I'm saying is that they would benefit a lot more from having Grooveshark as an ally (even if not entirely on their terms) then defeating it and getting back to square zero in the anti-piracy effort.
- goblin89 15y ago
  I would, if Spotify was available in my country. > they'd likely prefer to force users to jump through the hoops of pirating music A side effect of which probably would be more users becoming “torrent-educated”. Also, there's a huge difference between listening to music only on Grooveshark, and having the tracks (CD) bought and lying around on your drive. In the first case you don't own the music. If you're downloading it, however, the difference almost vanishes, and you have much less reason to pay. You have the files already—so are able to listen without the connection, put it on your player, etc. Like you've bought the music, but without the money.
  - moe 15y ago
    A side effect of which probably would be more users becoming “torrent-educated”. Agree. Grooveshark is a top1000 site. I don't think the MI realizes the temperature of the fire that they're playing with here, the media backlash will be significant. And more importantly they're actively tingling the senses of countless hackers to build a free spotify on top of a P2P network. Good luck putting that cat back into its bag...

AllenKids 15y ago

I think what Grooveshark is doing is clearly illegal. Whether the law is just or current, that is up to debate.

nextparadigms 15y ago
What part do you think is illegal? The part where the users upload their own songs? Isn't that much like Youtube? Youtube won against Viacom in a similar case.
- slouch 15y ago
  They also have a DMCA section of their site for claims: http://www.grooveshark.com/dmca http://www.grooveshark.com/dmca
- mattmanser 15y ago
  I think you've missed the gist of those lawsuits. The other labels are contending that Grooveshark employees uploaded the songs and were asked to by management. They claim to have leaked internal documents to prove it. YouTube didn't upload the content themselves, their users did. The latter is legal if you comply with DMCA take down, the former is illegal. This case outlined in the article has nothing to do with either, basically Grooveshark haven't paid a penny to their only major legal avenue to music. TLDR; Youtube case is nothing like the Grooveshark ones.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    They've claimed a lot of things that weren't true in the past. I'd withhold judgement until I can see the evidence for myself.
  - iamandrus 15y ago
    >The other labels are contending that Grooveshark employees uploaded the songs and were asked to by management. They claim to have leaked internal documents to prove it. Didn't Viacom claim something similar?

pork 15y ago

All the arguments for the legality of Grooveshark aside, it is ridiculously (read: Napster-like) easy to download high-quality MP3s from the service for free. Yes, there are rippers for Youtube and other services, but the quality of downloads is so spotty. I watched a friend used GrooveShredder [1] the other day, which is a simple Firefox add-on. In 10 minutes, he had downloaded about 50 tracks. That alone made me realize that they were on their way out, so all the arguments for their legality are largely moot. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/grooveshredder/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/grooveshredde...

dchest 15y ago
How the story about your friend doing something (supposedly) illegal leads to conclusion that "all the arguments for their legality are largely moot"? Especially after you tell in the very first sentence of your comment to leave arguments about legality aside. Is this how you propose to judge the legality of a service? Can overcome technological restrictions to save music into a file instead of letting the browser download and play it immediately? | | | | Yes No | | | | Is the resulting MP3 ---- No ----+---> Legal of high quality? | | Yes | +--------------------------------> Illegal!
- pork 15y ago
  Try not to be so literal. My implication was that any service that lets a user download copyrighted material for free is bound to be terminated by the labels, and that is largely what is happening.
  - dchest 15y ago
    As opposed to just listen to copyrighted material [for which they have no license to distribute]?

dgurney 15y ago

One word: Karma. Grooveshark has said repeatedly that they're trying to help artists, but when you look at their business model (upload a bunch of songs illegally, get eyeballs, then charge labels for data), it's been clear all along that the only party they care about is themselves. Bad karma will always, always come back and bite you.