Grooveshark.vc Dies, Grooveshark.im Surfaces…

April 30th: Grooveshark.com is shut down for good.

May 5th: Grooveshark.io surfaces in its place.

May 7th: Grooveshark.io becomes a globally-ranked website.

May 14th: Grooveshark.io is shut down for good.

May 15th: Grooveshark.vc surfaces.

May 16th: Grooveshark.vc shut down.

May 19th…

groovesharkim1

groovesharkim2

groovesharkim3

30 Responses

  1. jw

    The track playing in your screenshot is this, Paul. https://soundcloud.com/scottrek52/the-eagles-sprin-training

    Perhaps scottrek52 violated Soundcloud’s TOS by uploading a Don Henley track, but is Grooveshark.im violating anything by offering a Spotify-like GUI for searching/playing Soundcloud files?

    Perhaps they are, I don’t really know. Are artists getting paid when their soundcloud uploads are streamed through Grooveshark.im? I don’t know. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. But these would be some valid things to report on, as opposed to the witch hunt you currently seem to be on.

    Reply
    • jw

      Also, just curious… what’s the Chrome plug-ins you censored? Ad-blocker? Do online publishers use ad-blockers?

      Reply
      • Paul Resnikoff
        Paul Resnikoff

        I mean, there’s a bunch of them that I use, I just blotted them out to keep the focus on the grooveshark.im, not my personal extensions.

        Reply
        • jw

          Fair enough.

          Though you might want to direct the focus to the Soundcloud API, & whether or not these are essentially legal, “embedded” soundcloud uploads. And you might want to try & make the distinction between what is piracy & what is perhaps just… technology. Right?

          I don’t care if this site does or doesn’t exist… I don’t have that much use for Soundcloud outside of what shows up in my social feeds, but you’re painting this site with the same brush as actual Grooveshark, who really committed piracy. There’s no evidence that this site has done anything wrong.

          This just proves all the more that the legality of intellectual property online is complex, & relies completely on context, & if people who are supposedly experts on “digital music” can’t tell what’s legal & what isn’t, how is technology supposed to make that distinction?

          Reply
          • Universal Indie Records

            Actually,
            If you sign up as a developer.. you’re allowed to use Soundcloud’s API to stream music on your site without using their embedded player. As you can see from their home grown player they’ve carried over the likes, downloads, share etc.

            Basically everything the embedded player has. So this doesn’t really violate Soundclouds TOS.

          • jw

            So, basically what you’re saying is that this site is totally legal.

            Except for maybe just the name.

            Interesting.

            What say you, Paul Resnikoff?

          • Universal Indie Records

            Yes it’s legal. My site universalindie.com uses the Soundcloud API to play MY song without using soundclouds standard embed code.

            They’re basically a search engine that plays soundcloud music through their own site.

            There are $20 scripts that do the same with
            Youtube ie: http://codecanyon.net/item/youtube-music-engine/7490975

            though due to YouTube’s TOS, the legality of it is a little more questionable.

          • Universal Indie Records

            Actually they use a $14 script to power the site here:
            http://codecanyon.net/item/cloudplayer-search-engine-player-web-app/11287962

            I can understand wanting to use the Grooveshark name for instant recognition when folks do Google searches… but why would you want to bring the wrath of the major labels down upon you now that they’ve acquired the name and could probably easily get you shut down due to trademarks and copyrights.

          • Float Overblow

            If they’re using the API, they’re using it badly. http://grooveshark.im/artist/Float-Overblow listen to “Cyan”, and then https://soundcloud.com/float-overblow/cyan listen to the actual Cyan, which isn’t actually some random j-folk. Incidentally, Cyan is regular old All Rights Reserved copyrighted because it’s part of an album I hope to sell once every five years or so, but a lot of my music is cc by-sa. I have massive disrespect for any site that would do this to artists that already make their music free for commercial use.

    • kowalski

      People who want to be paid on a per listen basis relating to digital copies of recordings of their material are not artists they are profiteering extortionists and, therefore, enemies of humanity.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        People who want to be paid on a per click basis relating to digital copies of recordings of other people’s material are not sharing they are profiteering extortionists and, therefore, enemies of humanity.

        Reply
      • Obie

        “…profiteering extortionists and, therefore, enemies of humanity.”

        You’re an idiot.

        What you describe is no more “extortionist” than any other property or business owner asserting their rights.

        Reply
  2. Anonymous

    “Grooveshark.im Surfaces”

    And nobody would know know without the Pirate’s Best Friend — Google.

    Reply
      • Anonymous

        “I found out about it right here on DMN”

        …and Paul doesn’t google, nope.

        Reply
        • Paul Resnikoff
          Paul Resnikoff

          If you guys want to beat up on me about this, keep going because you’ve got a point. Before I wrote this article Google wasn’t showing grooveshark.im. Now, because of this article, it’s the first result. So yeah, I’m blowing up the clone, though I also thought it was important to report.

          Reply
          • jw

            HOW is it a clone if it 1) wasn’t developed by the same people, 2) doesn’t look anything like Grooveshark.com, 3) doesn’t function the same, & 4) doesn’t source the audio in the same way?

            What is cloned other than the name?

          • Anonymous

            “Now, because of this article, it’s the first result.”

            Feels good, eh?

          • Anonymous

            Paul- you’re reporting this bs in the hopes you can somehow cause financial damage to the people behind the original Grooveshark. You’re petty vindictive agenda is stale. Don’t be a douchebag.

          • Anonymous

            “Paul- you’re reporting this bs in the hopes you can somehow cause financial damage to the people behind the original Grooveshark”

            And why not? Heaven knows they deserve it.

          • Rebel

            You might want to look in the mirror. That sort of attitude isn’t exactly appreciated by ‘heaven’ either.

  3. Cameron Rigglesby

    Can’t we get that overpaid Kerry Sharman dude to stop this debacle?

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      So why does it take forever for links to be approved here?

      It’s obviously OK to link to organized crime sites.

      Reply
      • Paul Resnikoff
        Paul Resnikoff

        Chill people. It’s because spammers often lodge links into their comments to bump SEO, so we need to quarantine comments with links for review. It takes a little bit longer than a normal comment. mkay?

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          Oh. And commercials for guys who steal from your readers are not spam…

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *