Grooveshark makes a stand against the music industry.(androidpolice.com)
androidpolice.com
Grooveshark makes a stand against the music industry.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/04/18/grooveshark-stands-up-for-its-service-makes-android-app-available-online-and-sends-out-open-letter-to-the-music-industry/
8 comments
The app was pulled due to a request from the RIAA which is essentially music labels.
I agree... I wrote the damn thing, and I can tell you that it's technology companies who this is aimed at. The RIAA stands up for what they believe to be their interests. However, there is no defense for Google -- a company that owns YouTube and is trying to launch their own competitive music service.
Maybe Google just doesn't want to fight the RIAA and prefers to fight Grooveshark. Maybe fighting the RIAA would open up a debate on the legality of YouTube, which Google also wouldn't want.
I think the main problem is there are too many grey areas in music streaming. When Amazon launched their cloud music player a couple weeks ago, it gots loads of press about the legality of purchasing music in the cloud then it being streamed to any computer or being able to download it in general.
I personally think we are stuck in a transitional period between traditional music and digital music. The traditional sense of what Amazon is doing is completely illegal, when you upload a file you are technically making a copy of it which technically you could share with others. In a traditional sense all these services are illegal in some respect.
We need new legislation that has clear guidelines. We need a clear way of letting these companies legally share music. There should be a clear port of call for all music providers such as these to try and make a go with their products.
I think they are spending too much time fighting these companies and telling them they are wrong rather than guiding them in the right direction.
I may be way off mark here but as a developer I would not touch anything to do with music licensing again. I really feel for Grooveshark, I have used the service and it looks like they have put their heart and soul into that product and instead of a great big "Thanks for helping the music industry", they get kicked.
I personally think we are stuck in a transitional period between traditional music and digital music. The traditional sense of what Amazon is doing is completely illegal, when you upload a file you are technically making a copy of it which technically you could share with others. In a traditional sense all these services are illegal in some respect.
We need new legislation that has clear guidelines. We need a clear way of letting these companies legally share music. There should be a clear port of call for all music providers such as these to try and make a go with their products.
I think they are spending too much time fighting these companies and telling them they are wrong rather than guiding them in the right direction.
I may be way off mark here but as a developer I would not touch anything to do with music licensing again. I really feel for Grooveshark, I have used the service and it looks like they have put their heart and soul into that product and instead of a great big "Thanks for helping the music industry", they get kicked.
The DMCA provides the clear guidelines you're referring to. Grooveshark also falls back to the DMCA and their willingness to comply as evidence that they are legal.
I think the biggest issue for music startups (disclaimer: I used to work for one) is probably that the startups that try to do it legally and correctly are still competing against the ones that border on being illegal, or are straight-up illegal. Users don't care, but startups might get sued.
All of that aside, I agree that Grooveshark has built a great product. But I'd be kidding myself if I didn't also say the first song I searched for was Metallica and I got a massive list of songs I could listen to. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy.
I think the biggest issue for music startups (disclaimer: I used to work for one) is probably that the startups that try to do it legally and correctly are still competing against the ones that border on being illegal, or are straight-up illegal. Users don't care, but startups might get sued.
All of that aside, I agree that Grooveshark has built a great product. But I'd be kidding myself if I didn't also say the first song I searched for was Metallica and I got a massive list of songs I could listen to. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy.
The only thing I find odd about Grooveshark is the same tune but displayed in different ways. Almost like a group of people have just uploaded their personal collection. It does feel a little amature in that respect.
I think its hard to make an unbaised decision on the company and how I feel about this take down decision because I do not know the complete inner workings, only what Grooveshark tell us. They could tell us they are paying fees when they are clearly not, they could say all royalties are being honoured, when again they could not be.
It's all assumption led but I know that whatever is happening is not good for the end user. I was going to pay for their mobile version and I didn't question the legality of it either. To the average user, all this messing around means that when Google or Apple release their own product then every "normal" user will jump ship for it because they know it's there to stay rather than being worried it will be dropped at any point. The end user doesn't generally have any loyalty, they just want to listen to music.
I think its hard to make an unbaised decision on the company and how I feel about this take down decision because I do not know the complete inner workings, only what Grooveshark tell us. They could tell us they are paying fees when they are clearly not, they could say all royalties are being honoured, when again they could not be.
It's all assumption led but I know that whatever is happening is not good for the end user. I was going to pay for their mobile version and I didn't question the legality of it either. To the average user, all this messing around means that when Google or Apple release their own product then every "normal" user will jump ship for it because they know it's there to stay rather than being worried it will be dropped at any point. The end user doesn't generally have any loyalty, they just want to listen to music.
I have used Grooveshark for a while now and I do enjoy what they have on offer. It's companies like Grooveshark that the record industry need. If they are doing what they say they are doing then they contribute heavily to the music economy.
I look at the actions of Google in two ways, they have either received a lot of complaints from the governing body and their hand was forced or they really are releasing their own cloud music store and they are getting rid of potential competitors.
I hope its the first reason as I really like Google and their ethics.
I have had personal dealings with the music industry though and how licenses work. In some cases they do not even check the legality of a music provider and presume they are acting illegally because their business model looks illegal. They are going against their own policy of innovation to get them out the mess they are in.
I hate to say it but I think if/when Apple/Google release their own version of the cloud music player, the rest are screwed anyway. They will find some way of making the software so integrated with their phones that it's pointless to use any 3rd party software like Spotify or Grooveshark.
I look at the actions of Google in two ways, they have either received a lot of complaints from the governing body and their hand was forced or they really are releasing their own cloud music store and they are getting rid of potential competitors.
I hope its the first reason as I really like Google and their ethics.
I have had personal dealings with the music industry though and how licenses work. In some cases they do not even check the legality of a music provider and presume they are acting illegally because their business model looks illegal. They are going against their own policy of innovation to get them out the mess they are in.
I hate to say it but I think if/when Apple/Google release their own version of the cloud music player, the rest are screwed anyway. They will find some way of making the software so integrated with their phones that it's pointless to use any 3rd party software like Spotify or Grooveshark.
Honestly, I'm surprised it's taken Apple this long to throw a similar feature packaged in with their iOS devices. My theory is that they are holding onto their iTunes business model for as long as possible before either purchasing or mimicking the streaming subscription-based style.
Google on the other hand us HOPEFULLY working on something great for their Android devices..
Google on the other hand us HOPEFULLY working on something great for their Android devices..
Google must buy Grooveshark. That is the only logical way.
Grooveshark did not make a stand against the music industry. They made a stand against Google and the RIAA. Seems like Google is afraid of the RIAA and just drops anything from the store the RIAA doesn't like.
As much as the RIAA has done terrible stuff and earned their status as a boogieman, aren't they the main representatives of the music industry? It isn't like the music labels are not the ones behind the RIAA's actions.
I believe the subtlety there is that the RIAA represents the interests of their corporate members, which almost wholly differ from the artist's interests.
I also believe that is one of the main reasons they are labeled as "the boogieman," in addition to some pretty boneheaded PR moves.
I also believe that is one of the main reasons they are labeled as "the boogieman," in addition to some pretty boneheaded PR moves.
I can see why Apple is against Grooveshark...people buy less music. I've been using Grooveshark for the last 5 months and went from buying about $20 worth of music a month to maybe $2-3.
But I stopped pirating so much music because of it (deleted shortly afterwards if I did not really like it). Surely that means they do not lose any more revenue because of me. ;-)
I'm curious what Grooveshark does that allows it to be legal, where as p2p networks, youtube, megavideo, etc. routinely have to take down their copyrighted content. Anyone know?
The answer is: Grooveshark routinely has to take down (unlicenced, non-fair-use) copyrighted content, just like the others. That's the cost of DMCA safe harbour compliance.
How come they have so much content then? Is it because the copyright holders can't send them sufficiently detailed take-down notices fast enough?
Pretty much. You'll see that the aggressive ones are taken down, like the Beatles, won't find that at Grooveshark. However, you can upload your own Beatles tracks and label them differently "B34tles" and it'll stay up there longer, just like the Kazaa days.
I love it when startups at least attempt to drag businesses stuck in the old way of doing things kicking and screaming into the new reality.
What's stopping Grooveshark from creating an HTML5 webapp compatible with both iOS and android? Is the technology not ready?
HTML5 is part of the way there but many browsers still crap out over trivial stuff. For example, for a long time (still might be true), Chrome would go nuts if someone tried to play an audio link that produced a 404 error.
So, this isn't a comprehensive answer, but hopefully shines some light on where HTML5 actually is with regard to providing an experience similar to a native app.
So, this isn't a comprehensive answer, but hopefully shines some light on where HTML5 actually is with regard to providing an experience similar to a native app.
Could I reach out to someone at Grooveshark here?
Maybe, but why not mail them the reply as well?
They have something against vendors (like Google and Apple) prematurely pulling out their app from their respective markets/stores because of their ignorance of the law.