7 ms·
You're not the only one who's been had: much of the music on Grooveshark is shared against artists' wishes.
by gsabo 14y ago
You're not the only one who's been had: much of the music on Grooveshark is shared against artists' wishes.
- adgar 14y agoBut entrepreneurism!
- rogerchucker 14y agoGonna go look for my tiny violin
- citricsquid 14y agoyou don't think it's absolutely unacceptable that Grooveshark makes money off of content they don't have the rights to?
- Volpe 14y agoNo, because it provides a useful service... It's like saying Uber is unacceptable because it may violate (the outdated) laws in New York.
- citricsquid 14y agoare you comparing laws and copyright infringement? Grooveshark takes content created by someone else and then profits from the distribution of that content without permission and without passing back any revenue to the rightful owner of the content. How does that compare to uber?
- Volpe 14y agocopyright infringement is also 'law'... so I'm comparing laws with laws. I'm not comparing the individual actions of the companies. Only that sometimes "the law" is not useful anymore. Which yes, I am saying that copyright needs to change, the notion of a 'rightful owner of content' needs to change. Having laws that are completely contrary to how society operates are generally doomed to fail.
- res0nat0r 14y agoI'm not sure where this type of opinion came from but it definitely has been becoming more prevalent in the last 5 years. I think it is just people are becoming more inclined to think they are entitled to someones else's creative content just because it has been easy to acquire free for years now. Just because it is easy to copy music online doesn't mean all music should be 'free' and every artist should just abandon what many of them rely on to make a living just because you want to save some money on your entertainment.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Volpe 14y agoIf artists couldn't make money on selling people (the right to listen to "their") songs, would they abandon their artistry? Is it a sense of entitlement? or is it a rejection of the monetization of culture?
- res0nat0r 14y agoIt is a sense of being able feed their kids via sustainable work more than "monetization of culture".
- WiseWeasel 14y agoIt should be up to the musician to reject the culture of monetization and distribute their music for free, not you. Musicians shouldn't have to work another job so they can have the privilege of supplying you with music. If you value their music, you should demonstrate it to them, so they make more for you.
- Volpe 14y agoIf no one wants to buy (the right to listen to) a song then it 's price is too high. Given a lot of arts are heavily inspired by the culture around them, who gives the artist the 'right' to own all 'rights' to music they create Poetry is an art that doesn't make money (compared to music), has poetry died? Just because we monetized something doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
- enginous 14y agoIt's not the same. When you consume music for free, you're consuming a product without paying the person that put the largest amount of work into it. Laws aside, where's the ethics in that? In the music business there is certainly a fairness issue of middlemen taking a large cut, but Grooveshark is not solving that.
- cageface 14y agoSo if I hack into your network and steal your source code and release a product of my own based on that code you're cool with that, right?
- Baba_Chaghaloo 14y agoRadio stations don't pay to broadcast music, what's the difference. Grooveshark is just a more confusing kind of radio station. If the labels had any sense they would use their data to figure out what people are actually listening to.