6 ms·

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/ar

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
  It's the whole principle behind DMCA, isn't it?
  - wmf 15y ago
    I don't think the DMCA envisioned hosting providers that are specifically designed for infringement.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      > I don't think the DMCA envisioned hosting providers that are specifically designed for infringement. In order to keep their immunity, an online service provider must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity." The provision clearly targets hosting providers that are designed for infringement, indicating that they did envision that.
skore 15y ago
If anybody read that quote and then went on to do something like Grooveshark, I'd guess it's safe to say they need to adjust their reality compass. It may be OK to push the boundaries in certain areas, grow big and make amends later. But if your concept is to break boundaries, have no model for actual growth apart from ripping other companies off and not even a chance of making amends (apart from maybe changing the law in every country of the world, which won't happen), I guess it's very clear you're doomed to failure. I don't like what the record industry is doing in general these days, but grooveshark was always very obviously shady if not illegal.

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
It's the whole principle behind DMCA, isn't it?
- wmf 15y ago
  I don't think the DMCA envisioned hosting providers that are specifically designed for infringement.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > I don't think the DMCA envisioned hosting providers that are specifically designed for infringement. In order to keep their immunity, an online service provider must "not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity." The provision clearly targets hosting providers that are designed for infringement, indicating that they did envision that.

skore 15y ago

If anybody read that quote and then went on to do something like Grooveshark, I'd guess it's safe to say they need to adjust their reality compass. It may be OK to push the boundaries in certain areas, grow big and make amends later. But if your concept is to break boundaries, have no model for actual growth apart from ripping other companies off and not even a chance of making amends (apart from maybe changing the law in every country of the world, which won't happen), I guess it's very clear you're doomed to failure. I don't like what the record industry is doing in general these days, but grooveshark was always very obviously shady if not illegal.