The following is an open letter to the music industry from Grooveshark, shared exclusively with Digital Music News. The letter was prompted by the recent removal of the Grooveshark app from the Android Market, though it also addresses broader concerns and challenges.
Google hasn't specified what it was in their "Terms of Service" that we allegedly violated, but there does appear to be some confusion about whether Grooveshark is a legal service. So let's set the record straight: there is nothing illegal about what Grooveshark offers to consumers.
Yet some are confused as to how we are legal. First, there is a distinction between legal and licensed. Laws come from Congress. Licenses come from businesses. Grooveshark is completely legal because we comply with the laws passed by Congress, but we are not licensed by every label (yet). We are a technology company, and we operate within the boundaries of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Some would have you believe that those of us who use the DMCA to innovate are inherently infringers and that claiming Safe Harbor under the DMCA is as good as admitting guilt. Not so.
The DMCA's Safe Harbor component encourages technology
companies to innovate in hopes that they will eventually solve some of the problems that are plaguing content producers today. The Safe Harbor provision reads like it was written specifically for YouTube and Grooveshark, and its necessity continues to be illustrated every day. If it weren't for this notion, many of the products and services that are now taking a bite out of piracy would never have been born.
With that said, Grooveshark doesn't just rely on the protection of the law. We have worldwide licensing from over a thousand labels — large and small. We pay the three major U.S. performing rights organizations, as well as some international bodies, and are actively pursuing agreements with those that we don't. We recently signed Merlin, which included the Merge catalog. This was a particularly happy day for us because it brought The Arcade Fire into the family. We pay for our streams, and we actively negotiate with virtually every single content owner. We've taken down over 1.76 million files and suspended upload privileges to 22,274 users. These are not the characteristics of a company "dedicated to copyright infringement". As we work with artists and labels to make more content available to our users, Grooveshark becomes more competitive as an alternative to piracy.
Content partners use Grooveshark to make targeted marketing spends, support tours and sales, and test singles and high-ticket merchandise with surveys and exclusive panels. The Grooveshark model puts us in a unique position as the only source for unadulterated consumption data from over twenty-five million unique monthly users in more than 150 countries. We are translated into 24 languages, which helps us monetize developing economies and deliver revenues to content owners from territories where extracting revenue formerly proved too difficult. Labels, managers, and artists that take advantage of our full gamut of services know how effectively Grooveshark's application can streamline expenses and generate revenue.
In light of the recent misleading press concerning Grooveshark's application, it is important to make clear that we will defend our service, and the letter and the spirit of the law, in court and in Congress. We will defend our name and our ideals for the sake of our users who expect modern delivery systems and comprehensive access across devices, for the sake of artists and content owners who fear another decade of decline, and for other innovators who continue to bring new ideas to market through the expression of creativity in the form of technology.
We ask that Google and Apple, embrace the spirit of competition and do right by users in making our applications available to consumers immediately.
—Paul Geller, Grooveshark.com

Comments Closed
@lopsidedstephen Monday, April 18, 2011
Stephen Jenkins
This could get ugly...

comical Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I'd like to ask the esteemed Mr. Gellar how Grooveshark is legally following the DMCA by providing unlicensed ONDEMAND streams. It's clearly illegal, not just unlicensed, illegal.
The Grooveshark operation is just a bunch of inexperienced twentysomethings with more attitude than business aptitude. When can we politely request they go back to the kid's table?

MD Tuesday, April 19, 2011
You mean like YouTube is doing? If YT is legal then why isn't Grooveshark?

inexperiencedtwentysomething Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What section of the DMCA do you think it violates? Users upload content and there is an active Notice & Take Down policy in place.

DickWilhelm Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Trollolol

@jordynreese Monday, April 18, 2011
Jordyn Reese
EPIC.

D= Saturday, April 30, 2011
The word "epic" when used like that sounds so stupid. Also "fail" or "win" or any combination of those words.

dave Tuesday, May 03, 2011
grooveshark exploits the indie artist as much as it does the majors. At least the majors get enough plays that they might see some money. Whereas indies will never see a cent, just like with Spotify.
Stop telling yourselves that companies like these are revolutionaries. They're web 2.0 wannabe-millionaires building a business by exploiting other people's hard work without sharing the wealth.
Don't lie to yourselves.

jim j Monday, April 18, 2011
how is it an 'open letter' if it was shared 'exclusively' with digital music news?

Brian Monday, April 18, 2011
@jim j, well, now it's been shared with you and everyone who reads it. What a minor point to squabble about in such a great letter.

Joe Monday, April 18, 2011
Minor point my left foot, if this was suppose to be an open letter, it wasn't the best idea to share it with one media outlet exclusively.
That said however, I'm glad I stumbled into this article, and while I've used grooveshark only once, for a couple of minutes, I'm going to have to try it out a few times more and cheer them on.

Maxwellian Monday, April 18, 2011
I can see what they were thinking, becuase Digital Music News is definitely read by the entire industry. And it can be complicated to deal with a bunch of differnet pubs.

ChrisN Tuesday, April 19, 2011
You're apparently confused about what an 'open letter' is. A closed letter is one that is sent from the sender to the recipient. An open letter was historically sent to a newspaper so that its contents could be widely read.
This letter has been placed on something called a Web site, which I am lead to believe may also be widely read.
"Open" in this situation does not mean "sent to multiple people" or even "published under a creative commons licence".

Helianthus Monday, April 18, 2011
It is not "exclusive" in the sense that it is "closed." It is "exclusive" in that digital music news gets to publish it first. It can now be republished, openly, by whatever random fuck wants to put it on their blog.
The "open" of "open letter" refers to the broadness of the intended audience, the directness of the communication to the RIAA (and Google and Apple), not the necessary tribulation of first-publishing-rights that garnering an audience requires.

aaccardo Monday, April 18, 2011
Services like Grooveshark are NECESSARY!!! Please, major labels, this isn't 2001 when licensing to 1,000 different companies came back to bite you in the ass, because no one knew what they were doing. Companies like Grooveshark convert pirates and promote legitimate use - as long as they're licensed. Yes, they were dicks for doing this without your permission. But, the service works now and has a critical mass to distribute real money to content owners. Don't hold a grudge against something that works because the people with the solution went about it in a dickish way.

@MindnoteNL Monday, April 18, 2011
Meindert Bussink
straks ff lezen.. Grooveshark haalt in open brief uit naar de muziekindustrie

NathanJE Monday, April 18, 2011
"The Safe Harbor provision reads like it was written specifically for YouTube and Grooveshark, and its necessity continues to be illustrated every day."
Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. So Google is just pandering on this one. But more importantly potentially opening a legal vulnerability -- because why did they find Grooveshark to be infringing when they are behaving exactly like YouTUBE?

Yves Villeneuve Monday, April 18, 2011
I don't need Grooveshark or Youtube.
Are these services actually reducing piracy and the free consumption of music? Unlikely.
Are these services devaluing music? Likely.

Rick L. Monday, April 18, 2011
Devaluing music from.....free?

Pilak Monday, April 18, 2011
Don't worry, you probably just thought about what they said more than they did. :\

@ljharb Monday, April 18, 2011
Jordan Harband
In which the recording industry continues to drive away and/or piss off the very entrepreneurs that could save them...

@Beyecixramd Monday, April 18, 2011
León Asad
Grooveshark's service is completely legal.

@TCrane24 Monday, April 18, 2011
Taylor Crane
Grooveshark bites back...

@jesusjones Monday, April 18, 2011
jesús edmundo
Grooveshark FIGHTS back.

@gkla Monday, April 18, 2011
Greg Katz
grooveshark on the defensive; blood in the water. like this service a lot, but ...

Weevil Monday, April 18, 2011
Grooveshark's service is totally illegal.
It's welcome to go down fighting, as long as it goes down.

Mike Monday, April 18, 2011
did you read the letter, and do you know what Grooveshark is?

Fred Monday, April 18, 2011
Convenient that they didn't mention their ongoing lawsuit with Universal (or that they'd been sued by EMI in the past) in their open letter. And more on those open, "totally legal" folks at Grooveshark here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13526_3-10432132-27.html "Universal alleges Grooveshark "paid nothing" to use these songs without permission, and claims that Grooveshark refuses to provide copyright filtering software because its "business plan is based on copyright infringement." Universal also notes that it legally licenses these for streaming by MySpace and Rhapsody, drawing a clear contrast between Grooveshark and these services."

Steve Monday, April 18, 2011
It's also convenient that you didn't mention that they have a deal with EMI, Fred.

gogatorsthomas Tuesday, April 19, 2011
did Universal Music Group ask grooveshark to take the songs down? did grooveshark comply with these requests? I wonder what the songs they are suing grooveshark for are. how is this in any way different than when youtube is asked to take something down and they reply? also does grooveshark suspend upload rights to their site from users that continuously upload songs theyve been asked to take down?

@nikkitatieta Monday, April 18, 2011
Nikkita
Another reason that RIAA can go fuck itself...

@ElectroIsDead Monday, April 18, 2011
Xavier
nuff said.

Food For Thought Monday, April 18, 2011
Just today I got an email from a friend of mine that runs a medium sized independent label that tests a LOT of new digital platforms for his music and he asked me if I was making decent (or any) money from Grooveshark at all. No was my answer. He responded that he wasn't either. We've both had our music up on Grooveshark for about a year and they're ALWAYS hitting us up about the programs they've got us in, etc. and yet still less than paltry payments.
It's all just a scam.
Citing the DMCA - which they hide behind to make labels and artists either capitulate and accept belly lint for payment or waste all day playing whack a mole - doesn't make them a friend to music creators.
You guys can debate back and forth, blame the RIAA for everything, etc., etc. Bottom line is these guys don't give a rat's ass about musicians, fans, or anyone else. They're getting over like the spoiled kids they are.

brast Monday, April 18, 2011
they are spoiled kids, but they are so impressed with themselves they've also become pompous dicks.

SocialSoundSystem Monday, April 18, 2011
The reality is that the money isn't in the streaming or selling music... It's in the live events and tours. I've been working with them for over two years now building and geo-targeting our site skins, promos, auto-plays around tours. Our fans listen to all the music they want... And we get them out to shows.

Food For Thought Tuesday, April 19, 2011
That's great for you...but what about musicians that create music that doesn't lend itself to touring? Classical? Blues? Jazz? Or how about musicians that created music but no longer tour because they've broken up or gotten older? Musicians who embrace the concept that music itself shouldn't be valued by their fans are buying Fool's Gold and are hurting fellow musicians by empowering VC funded leech services and (so-called) fans that don't really care about the artists that create the music that they only want if it's free.

Long John Silver Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I've pirated music, but me and thousands like me are having NO effect on the music industry because, like you say - if it wasn't free, I wouldn't be buying it anyway.
If anything, the content discovery aspect of these services may even INCREASE sales (although not with me obviously, as I haven't bought a CD since the late 90's!).

gogatorsthomas Tuesday, April 19, 2011
are you really going to sit here and say that a jazz musician expects to get paid a handsome sum of money? in what world do you live in where classical musicians and jazz musicians make money off album sales and song sales off itunes. you should be happy they get paid at all. you play jazz and classical for love of it, not to market yourself as a global brand. get. over. yourself. like being a teacher and wanting lebron money.

Food For Thought Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Are you going to sit here and say that a Jazz or Classical musician doesn't DESERVE to expect to be paid for the music he creates?!?! I guess so since you just did. I think it is you who needs to get over yourself. It's that arrogant point of view that an artist - any artist - should consider him or herself as "lucky" to be heard that reveals the anti-creator view point that runs so deep within the "i don't pay for music and i'm proud of it" mob.
You (collectively) try to hide your anti-artist sentiment with lame "fight the man" rhetoric, but it is what it is. You blurt things you think you know (i.e. artists don't get paid for music sales...BULLSHIT!) to justify your position but what is really at play is that you desperately LOVE getting music for free and you don't care who it hurts.
To those artists who aren't making money from Grooveshark (or any other service that is profiting from playing your music), unless or until you respect the value of your creation no one else will either. If you treat your music as valueless so too will so-called fans. MUSIC is what you create. Did you get into music because you wanted to hawk t-shirts and other chachkies in order to make a living? or to have some one else tell you that you should consider yourself "lucky" to get heard? That's some sad victim BS.

snacks for thought Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Anti-creator? Anti-artist? You will truly only respect the value of your creation by NOT putting a monetary value on it and expecting to be paid. Expecting a comfy cash flow from making music is one of the most anti-artist statements I have ever heard. Artists, musicians, filmmakers, whoever - should be making art for the sake of art, creation and discovery. You should be happy to have the opportunity to share your creation with the rest of the world. The greatest artists of our generation didn't start their careers expecting to be paid for every minute they spent songwriting or recording. I can't say for sure, but I would be willing to bet money that artists like Arcade Fire, who won best album of 2010, didn't start their careers counting pennies from online streams and complaining in online forums about the money they lose from technological innovation.
If you truly expect to make money as an artist, then you need to do more than just create. You need to remember that all of the priciples of capitalism still apply in addition to complementing the advancements in technology. You need to be savvy at online marketing, performing live, networking, social marketing, personal branding, merchandising; and above all you need to be making some good fucking music.

alternatively Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The problem with that logic is that only big-name companies can survive no-pay hits like this. A band just starting out can't afford to have their music ripped off since it's that income that means they can buy better equipment to keep rising up. Then they can start taking on the capitalism front, but regardless a musicians job is to make music.
Personally, I'm a programmer. I push down the prices on my programs as far as I can to be fair, but to say that my main source of income should be the coffee mugs sold on my website's little e-store as opposed to the software that I create is insane.
The same logic applies here. I like how grooveshark is a unified front-end for getting music easily, but they simply shouldn't be hosting music that they don't have a license to distribute. Host the music for the companies that they're licensed with, sure, but anything beyond that is just theft.

hfjskla Monday, April 18, 2011
this is a meaningless article and this guy (along with the rest of them at grroveshark) is a complete amateur.

Funny Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I love the thought of someone calling someone else immature with improper grammar.

@stevensvanduzer Monday, April 18, 2011
Stevens VanDuzer
yeahhhh Grooveshark

@jandrewc Monday, April 18, 2011
Andrew Caldwell
Grooveshark is by far my favorite service in recent years, and I'm happy to see them defending their business

@amsb Monday, April 18, 2011
Andrew M. S. Boyd
You go, Grooveshark!

@micmehmet Monday, April 18, 2011
YOU WANT A FIGHT? OK LET'S FIGHT!

Josh Monday, April 18, 2011
Grooveshark... I.... I love you. A lot. Stay strong.

Eran Monday, April 18, 2011
Keep fighting the good fight, guys. You have a great product, and those who disagree need to get with the times.

wrytyr Tuesday, April 19, 2011
We're seeing an evolutional change in how we think of property. We're essentially saying that the artist doesn't get to benefit from having made the work, only from presenting the work.

G88 Tuesday, April 19, 2011
If we’re saying the revenues and business isn’t anymore in records (this is obvious), but not even anymore in legal downloads and streams, then this would mean an essential shift in the perception of value creation indeed. However, would this mean the artist shouldn’t get rewarded for the fact he makes music? Well he actually is. The rights to the music still belong to him. It is based on that music that the artist creates a brand, which on its turn can be monetized through merch, concerts, and more creative selling schemes (ArtistShare etc.)

but.... Tuesday, April 19, 2011
grooveshark IS the corporate side of music.

nick003 Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I love Grooveshark, I hope it is not taken away, fuck the corporate side of music.

jasonh Tuesday, April 19, 2011
RIAA NEEDS TO GO.
they hurt businesses.

rastamouse Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Grooveshark = Dyingshark

Paul Tuesday, April 19, 2011
One of these days, the record industry will bite off that little bit more than it can chew and alienate enough music buyers that more of them will circumvent this corporate march toward self-destruction. Rather than adapt and adopt, the record industry is mired in one ancient way of thinking all to protect the bonuses and perks of a few at the very top of the heap (and I don't mean the artists). Perhaps one day all that will be left of them is a pair of stone feet in the desert with an inscription.

@glorpglorp Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Glorp Norp
Encouraging words from Grooveshark...

@paulclabourne Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Paul
Well said.

@elliotreeves Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Elliot Reeves
Worth reading (love Grooveshark)

@alexlofton Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Alex Lofton
Fight on, Grooveshark!

@duncangeere Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Duncan Geere
Grooveshark has fired the first salvo in an increasingly interesting-looking fight against the labels...

@Tisum Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Mat 【d(-_-)b】
Paul Keller conteste le retrait de l'application Android...

@bsterzenbach Tuesday, April 19, 2011
bsterzenbach
I've always liked Grooveshark's attitude

@opaytuvi Tuesday, April 19, 2011
opaytuvi
Well said!

@MrValdez Tuesday, April 19, 2011
MrValdez
Interesting

@patsteiger Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Patrick Steiger
Carta aberta do Grooveshark à indústria de música (ou: Fuck you RIAA)

@alexbienz Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Alexander Bienz
Grooveshark learning the hard way about the press game

@koningwoning Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Eric Woning
For all musiclovers: please read this.... Don't let the RIAA get away with being copyright nazi's

@daengbo Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Daniel Bo
Is Grooveshark's service legitimate? Legal? Licensed?

@h_vermeylen Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Hendrik Vermeylen
My favourite streaming music service Grooveshark...

@vulsai Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Vulsai
Very interesting read!

@ChrisYoko Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Chris Yoko
Rallying behind Grooveshark... Stand Strong!

@chriswaldron Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Chris Waldron
With passion And purpose grooveshark makes a stand

@v_geezy Tuesday, April 19, 2011
V
Whoa the app got removed from Android market?!

@mattlewissf Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Matt Lewis
I like how Grooveshark defends its (albeit, legally confusing) service...

@RBRJimmy Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Jimmy Ryan
Well put.

@brokemogul Tuesday, April 19, 2011
scott vener
first poker now this... everyone is taking away my favorite things...

@MEkrivus Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Mike Krivus
Thanks, Grooveshark, for getting the gloves out.

@AlxRodz Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Alexander Rodríguez
VERY enlightening read! Support these guys!

@jgruchacz Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Joe Gruchacz
Support these guys!

@brooksrocco Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Brooks Rocco
Grooveshark holding strong in the Android shakeup. For those interested in the question of their legality. And funk.

@ncmaddrey Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Nate Maddrey
Grooveshark vs the record industry. Things are about to get rowdy...

@houndeyex Tuesday, April 19, 2011
James O
Grab your ankles, Grooveshark

@jandrewc Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Andrew Caldwell
Grooveshark is by far my favorite service in recent years, and I'm happy to see them defending their business

Anonymous Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The idea that technology companies are eventually going to solve the problems that plague content producers today is an oxymoron.
Technology companies have single-handedly created the biggest problems that content producers face today by facilitating the upload of "user generated content" to drive traffic to their services in order to attract advertisers and venture capitalists. Not to speak of ISPs who have profited massively from uninhibited piracy on their networks because it sells broadband subscriptions.
Fair use and Safe harbor provisions are routinely abused by technology companies in order to avoid paying content creators and their representatives.
It is true that licensing needs to get simpler, but not cheaper.
This issue - for both sides - is not about innovation or *cough* "the digital PR revolution", but about money.
If Grooveshark wants to negotiate licenses, all power to them.
If Grooveshark provides on-demand streaming of unlicensed content, as apparently Google Inc. and the RIAA are convinced about, then they are engaged in illegal activity and shall be punished to the full extent of the law.
The idea that content should be free to everybody without creators being adequately compensated is reminiscent of totalitarian ideologies, which promote sacrificing yourself to the greater good.

Dear Pompous Music Industry Pe Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Nobody cares that you wrote in bold.

ms Wednesday, June 08, 2011

James Tuesday, April 19, 2011
"We've taken down over 1.76 million files and suspended upload privileges to 22,274 users" - what a mockery of the idea of safe harbour and a testiment to how poorly conceived the DMCA was. It may be an entirely appropriate tool for the odd infringing item on an otherwise legitimate website, but honestly... just look at those numbers and ask yourself if they reflect well on either the business that's subject to the notices or the legislators who drafted the DMCA in the first place. The DMCA is utterly inadequate, but with figures like this - and no doubt even worse ones for Youtube and so forth - it can only be a matter of time before the government comes around to creating a more sensible defence for creators.

@atab Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Lateef Mauricio
The industry will have you think that music is business not art

@jlogelin Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Jay Logelin
lol.. maybe android is not as open as I thought...

Aaron Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Sure it is...
Download the app on your pc and install it yourself.

@waitslowdown Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Alex Vidal

@MosesAvalon Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Moses Avalon
Grooveshark still drowning in it's own blood, vows to kill it's RIAA "Ahab"

@bryanzug Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Bryan Zug
Go Grooveshark, go!

@grafntech Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Thank you, Grooveshark!

@agbs Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Adam Schwartz
Google should stand up for innovation and openness, looking a little too much like Apple today.

@jatorres Tuesday, April 19, 2011
jesus
Fight, fight, fight...!

@HamptonH Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Hampton Howerton
Grooveshark is legal

@j4n Tuesday, April 19, 2011
j4n
Musikindustrie schließt endlich auch legale Angebote...
Endlich ein Ende kommerzieller Musik in sicht?

Spin Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Without taking a stance on whether or not Grooveshark 'should' or 'should not' be allowed to do what they are doing...It just doesn't smell right. If you don't feel you NEED to license music from artists/labels/etc., then why are you doing it?
You either take a hard line against the need to license the music OR you license it from every rights holder.
-Spin

an old man Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Grooveshark is a bunch of redneck delinquents! Their mulleted brand of digital music will not stand! I say lock em up and throw away the key!
They still have the best service though.

@Polaco_ Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Polaco_
Grooveshark: "Fuck you, Google"

@effedup Tuesday, April 19, 2011
effedup
Open letter to RIAA: FUCK OFF

@FantasmaDLaDuda Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Diego Focanti
¿Por qué Google bajó la aplicación de Grooveshark del Android Market?

@jaimiegraham Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Jaimie Graham
damn, all good things must be ruined by the music industry, I suppose.

@ChrisAddington Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Chris Addington
You better enjoy it now, while you can.

@MusicalUrbanism Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Nashvillian Tuesday, April 19, 2011
All of that lofty talk, and yet Grooveshark is still mono on Android. Mono! Way to care about quality, guys!

Eric Lyons Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Grooveshark is clearly illegal under the DMCA, and I really don't understand how Paul Geller could understand otherwise.
The DMCA specifically states that a music “...transmission specially created for the recipient” (not videos, which is currently YouTube's exception) requires licensing. I.e., on-demand == license, or you're illegal.
See Arista Records vs. Launch Media
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arista_Records,_LLC_v._Launch_Media,_Inc)
for an example of a service that was *not* deemed interactive, and thus only has to pay statutory fees (i.e., does not require a license, just like Pandora). The article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arista_Records,_LLC_v._Launch_Media,_Inc
provides a more in-depth look.
In short, it is only a matter of time before Grooveshark either gets a license from all the content owners whose music it streams on-demand, or they are sued off the face of the earth, for better or worse.

Anonymous Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Ask them why Olly Barnes (tasked with sorting out European licenses) recently quit...
I have a feeling that's not down to their 'respect' for rightsholders.

Jonny Tuesday, April 19, 2011
FOR SCIENCE INNOVATION!

TreyQel Tuesday, April 19, 2011
I run a label and I've licensed my music to Grooveshark. I've had over a hundred thousand streams. I've never been paid a penny. When I ask them, they always tell me they'll look into it. I don't want them to be shady because I want them to be another source of income. Its not looking like they will ever pay though.

@shekhar Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Shekhar Khedekar
awesome service...

@opaytuvi Tuesday, April 19, 2011
opaytuvi
Well said!

@paperheartsmx Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Edith
Me gusta su actitud.

@dougestey Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Doug Estey
This is epic

@JennOuellette Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Jennifer Ouellette
Team Grooveshark. I would really like their app on my iPhone

@the_real_jambi Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Jambi Ganbar
Damn RIAA, DMCA...

@Evan_Guerin Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Evan Guerin
Much love to Grooveshark for this articulate letter

@papermodelplane Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Aaron Draczynski
Grooveshark fires back against Google & Apple in an open letter. Love these guys, best online streaming music service.

jimmyflip Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Any good attorney can argue either side of any case. Grooveshark and Youtube both have a very good legal team. Both are guilty of clear and apparenty copyright infringement. As with any large corporate entity; there is money being exchanged that is not spoken of. There is no argument though. You like? Then you buy my friend. If you don't like that, make your own music. That's capitalism. If an artist decides for themselves to give anything away that is their business. Sad truth is most true musicians live just at the poverty level.

jimmyflip Tuesday, April 19, 2011
...and it's worth mentioning here that all the folks who are leaving positivie comments on behalf of Grooveshark are people who would've purchased music but don't no longer need to...

joe Sunday, April 24, 2011
really? that's what you tell yourself?

@ricardobeat Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Ricardo Tomasi
Boa, Grooveshark. Quero meus apps de volta.

Nicoletti Consulting/Promotion Tuesday, April 19, 2011
if you Use a enjoy a product or item/service and do not pay "Some" fee or compensation for it ,.. they call it "Stealing"..what was the Question?.. Nicoletti Consulting/Promotion P.o.box 386 Laguna Bch,California 92652 ph 949-715-7036 musicbiz@cox.net

http://www.myspace.com/icarusf Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Google ? As an independent music artist my You Tube account contains 14 music videos, I suspect my video counts are scorned from about 8 to 1, I am allowed to be friends with about 4 new people per day and ORKUT has placed me in India with a dot. in extension... Everything I attempt with the USA is simply filtered out. It looks like the sign tells 'Keep out' ! Yes mam, these are signs of the modern times...

ajcarroll Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Unless a significant number of users upload music to which they are licensed to do (eg. they are the copyright holders) I doubt that grooveshark qualifies for the "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA, in which case they are not "legal". In order to qualify for safe harbor provision, in addition to complying with take down notices, they must also not have "knowledge of infringing material", and this includes a subjective aspect known as red flags. Bottom line if you host a service for which there is predominantly licensed stuff uploaded, then you can effectively turn a blind eye to the illegally copied stuff, however if your service or an aspect of your service is predominantly illegal stuff, then you can't hide behind safe harbor. This may effectively mean they have to turn off the "user upload" aspect of the system, unless they can establish its predominatley used for users uploading the content they own.
Thus if it turns out that GrooveShark has licensed material that they load with partners, but their end users are mostly loading unlicensed stuff, then I suspect the courts will require them to completely disable the user upload feature.

Michael Harden Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Not necessarily. Grooveshark, in addition to having the ability to share the music that people upload, can also be considered a form of digital music locker, similar to Amazon's MP3 service, and mSpot. mSpot doesn't have licenses to any music at all as far as I know (at least not from the majors) and still offers the ability for users to upload their music collections for listening anywhere including their app. Yes, the streaming aspect isn't there, but when it really comes down to it, would the RIAA rather I burn all of my friends copies of music that I have bought and have artists and labels profit in no way, or would they rather I upload my music to a service that they support (or in Grooveshark's case, can support if they really wanted to) and actually make money from my sharing my music with my friends?
Somewhat back on topic: They sort of do qualify for the Safe Harbor based on the digital locker concept. It's easy to tell what music Grooveshark doesn't have licenses with, but figuring out what music was legally purchased and uploaded by users to be streamed elsewhere isn't so blatantly obvious.

@Zripwud Wednesday, April 20, 2011
bancando a Grooveshark en todas!!!

@TheWizardTower Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Adam McCullough
Everybody should read this.

anti-est.blogspot.com Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Rich Masio Thursday, April 21, 2011
I responded to Aaron from Grooveshark when he posted this letter on a newsgroup we are on.
###
Aaron,
As someone who has been both on the technology/innovating music company side
and the content owner side, I don't automatically despise you and Grooveshark,
but a lot of people think you've gotten some pretty bad advice over the years.
It's easy to use the Safe Harbor provision but eventually that shit gets old
and it would be nice if you had a service that compensated all artists and
labels without them having to send notices and join Merlin settlements.
And at this point, the claim of using content to build an innovative service is
a red herring. You sit between legally licensed services and file sharing
and tools like EX-FM (which I like and enjoy using) and other than being a
repository for uploaded music that is available for anyone to listen to, I
don't see what problem you are solving. Places like South America and
Africa can certainly use a legitimate service like Grooveshark, but all you've
done in America is teach people born after 1995 that your service, with a lot
of unlicensed music, is better than paying $5 a month for Rhapsody, or MOG or
Rdio. Which to me, is a bargain. I pay for all three.
Rich Masio

Anon Thursday, April 21, 2011
When can we politely request they go back to the kid's table?

@supernova092 Sunday, April 24, 2011
Jim Taylor
This is a HUGE deal...

Brenton Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The music industry would do well to recognize that the days of overcharging consumers for music files are long behind them.
Music belongs to the world now. Not the RIAA. Not Universal. And if you want people to spend money on your artists, fire Britney Spears and Kesha and invest in artists with talent. Artists who have brand-loyal fanbases. Who play shows you, Universal, can book and promote.
Your revenue sources have run dry, Big Music. Will you cling to the old ways and eat dust? Or will you join Grooveshark and irrigate?
Lawsuits won't save your business. Evolve or die.

tantana Sunday, May 01, 2011
fizy.com is much better than grooveshark

OUR SPONSORS
Follow Us