5 ms·
Two thoughts on this. First: I was an occasional user of Grooveshark, and whenever I used the service (which had a brilliant UI, by the way) I found myself wo
by legutierr 11y ago
Two thoughts on this.
First:
I was an occasional user of Grooveshark, and whenever I used the service (which had a brilliant UI, by the way) I found myself wondering how they could still be operating, given that they weren't licensed by the major labels. It felt like Napster in a web app, only more centralized (and thus, easier to take down, one would think).
Well, the answer seems to be that they have been fighting the major labels in the court this whole time (~5 years). Unlike maybe everyone else who has faced up against the major labels, Grooveshark forced them to fight. When the labels didn't give them a licensing deal, and told them to stop operating, Grooveshark responded, "Make us."
They created their tech, built a loyal following, grew their business, all the while fighting this lawsuit. In the end, the only thing that stopped them from pursuing their vision was a judges' order. This settlement seems to be a judge-mediated settlement of only the damages portion of the trial after liability had been established. It seems that the judge ruled against Grooveshark by summary judgement in September, which means they have known for more than 7 months that this was inevitable. They shut down their service 2 days ago.
People have called Grooveshark "shady", and many people believe that their business model was "illegal". Both adjectives may be accurate descriptions. I think the best adjective to describe these guys, however, is "gutsy".
Second:
The front-end system that Grooveshark built, which is the best that I have used for music playback and discovery, is now jointly owned by the major labels. They cannot possibly be short-sighted enough just to throw that away. Will we see Grooveshark resurrected as a label-owed alternative to Spotify, et al? Will they try to maintain any portion of the Grooveshark organization, especially the engineering team? Again, they would be foolish not to try, although maybe I'm giving them too much credit.
- Confusion 11y agoSpotify is effectively label-owned.
- Lazare 11y ago> The front-end system that Grooveshark built [...] is now jointly owned by the major labels. They cannot possibly be short-sighted enough just to throw that away. Uhhh. I'm honestly confused. Is this sarcasm? Because if there's one thing that major labels have demonstrated, it's a willingness to be short-sighted.
- bsbechtel 11y agoHow good was their business model? They survived for 10 years, including financing what I'm sure were expensive legal battles, but how much of that was from revenue and how much from equity/debt financing?
- efuquen 11y agoGrooveshark had a paltry amount of equity/debt financing compared to what's common in the valley. In total they raised a couple million, in the low to mid single digits. Part was equity and part debt financing, which was all paid back and some of the equity was also bought back from investors who wanted out after the lawsuits. Grooveshark was completely self sufficient for a long time, even with the lawyer bills. What really killed it was the pressure from labels to get them kicked off ad networks, mobile app stores (first Apple, then Google), and prevent the more lucrative direct ad deals you need to really survive. Once the summary judgement occurred is when it really started becoming impossible. Disclaimer I was an early employee that worked there for 5 years.
- oldmanjay 11y agoI hope that you're logically consistent and also consider other people who make their money by trampling on rights to be gutsy. for instance, gangsters, fraudsters, spammers... all have a similar business model in that they make money by ignoring the legal framework of their chosen business. certainly does take guts!
- mdorazio 11y agoTo be fair, the same can be said of Uber and Airbnb, both of which are largely praised on HN in the same way.
- whichfawkes 11y agoHow are those services trampling on anyone's rights? Despite loving Grooveshark, I tend to agree that copyright has some meaning and purpose. I don't think taxi companies have a right to business just because they were there first.
- tptacek 11y agoThe subtext is that they're pushing on and in many cases breaking regulations (on carriage service and short-term tenancy), and also externalizing their costs. I happen to believe that's actually true in both cases, but that doesn't make what they're doing equivalent to building a business on someone else's proprietary IP.
- whichfawkes 11y agoI'd argue that they make it easier for individuals to exercise rights they should have. They're merely centralized listings that make it easy to connect buyers and sellers of services in transport/lodging markets. Fundamentally, if I own a property I should be able to allow/disallow access to anyone as I see fit, and charge appropriately. If I make money, I'm still obligated to pay taxes on it (therein, I imagine, lie the problems). So I'd claim that AirBnB and Uber are helping push for more sane regulations which allow free-er markets, while Grooveshark was basically just short of directly-stealing the content of others to profit on themselves. That said, I'd still rather have Grooveshark than not, because I personally don't care so much about the record-companies rights - but certainly the government should be there to help uphold the rights of individuals and businesses, which, alas, means legal trouble for Grooveshark.