Grooveshark's legal problems just went to 11, and you can thank King Crimson for cranking the volume. The 'long story short' is that Universal Music Group now has fresh accusations and evidence in its long-running 'legal jihad' against Grooveshark, thanks to a fiasco started by the Crimson camp. And the world's largest label is now presenting this new evidence to federal court judges.
Here's the longer version: This all started last month, when Crimson shared a series of frustrating emails involving Grooveshark, and a totally hopeless attempt to remove their content from the site. Digital Music News subsequently published those emails, and an anonymous comment to that story - allegedly from a Grooveshark employee - has been included in the UMG filing.
The comment claims that Grooveshark employees are instructed to actively upload unauthorized music to the Grooveshark site, often against the wishes of the copyright owners and under the guise that random users are to blame. That behavior constitutes a clear violation of DMCA copyright statutes.
Digital Music News did not attempt to clarify the identity of the commenter, given our long-standing privacy policies on the matter. And, we were not contacted by any party - including Universal Music Group - to verify or match identifying information to this post. Still, that anonymous comment has been used as an exhibit in a freshly-filed lawsuit by Universal Music Group in the US District Court in Manhattan, according to details shared by C|Net journalist Greg Sandoval. We haven't been able to obtain the actual filing - yet - though we can say that reports from Sandoval are typically accurate.
Grooveshark SVP Paul Geller, with whom the Crimson exchange occurred, has also not seen the filing. "We haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment," Geller told Digital Music News over the weekend. But the filing also apparently contains evidence that Geller himself, CEO Sam Tarantino, and VP Ben Westermann-Clark have personally uploaded thousands of songs into the Grooveshark database, an unequivocally clear move outside of DMCA safe harbor protections.
In other words, the clear smoking gun that Universal so desperately needs to bury this company - for good. "[The business records of Escape Media Group, Grooveshark's parent company], establish unequivocally, that the sound recordings illegally copied by Escape's executives and employees, include thousands of well known sound recordings owned by UMG," C|Net cites.
More ahead, including details from the filing once it is obtained. Stay tuned.
Comments Closed
Visitor Saturday, November 19, 2011
I've witnessed enough panels and met enough people at Grooveshark to be easily convinced of this. There seems to be a culture of arrogance and insecurity there - too many frat boys would be 'super cool' if they worked in the 'music business'.
mhewfkjag Saturday, November 19, 2011
seconded. also supported by private dealings with their "executive" (pretty astounding to have SVP's title fresh out of a state university with no prior experience) team. not a shred of respect for business partners or, really, anyone besides artists willing to take pictures with them.
as for these recent allegations: what are the odds that it ISN'T true? how did they seed the site in the first place? also, the repeated claims by artists as to how content that is removed is nearly instantaneously replaced -- usually in minutes.
best outcome is that they are taken down at least partially by their hubris. that guy gellar crawls on his belly to work everyday.
Visitor Sunday, November 20, 2011
grooveshark is bad mojo.
Shawn Sunday, November 20, 2011
Paul + rest of DMN: Please protect the whistleblower. Florida is known for nastier things than sharks...
Visitor Monday, November 21, 2011
This is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that Grooveshark employees would in fact upload infringing content in spite of DMCA take down notices is absolutely absurd. Grooveshark's legal positioning hinges on the DMCA, there is no way they would put that at risk by actions from within.
I am, in fact, an X Grooveshark employee, and I can easily identify from the statement by an anonymous "whistleblower" that there is no way that person ever stepped foot inside a Grooveshark office. Take a second and consider the magnitude of 35 million users on a user upload platform - its a simple reality that mainstream content is uploaded very frequently.
While it is clear that there is contention as to the "ask for forgiveness later" licensing approach that EMG chose as their path - this is in no way an indication that Grooveshark is some sort of unscrupulous company only in it for themselves. In fact the very opposite is true. Grooveshark is run on the premise of creating a better user experience, and leveraging new media business models based around their ecosystem, to find alternative means of revenue for the modern artist. What Grooveshark is currently doing with data is, unequivocally, some of the most cutting edge developments in the industry.
I personally knew everyone in the artist department and know first hand the dedication these people have towards helping artists of all sizes, improve their market position.
I also knew everyone from the executive level fairly closely, aside from the CEO, and everyone there had the same vision and attitude - create the best user experience, and artist platform that has ever been.
If you compare this to Spotify - the favorite child - the overall experience, ad units, and artist services offered are incomprable. Grooveshark unequivocally has the best rich media platform available. The fact that Spotify only takes exclusive ad partners currently, speaks to the fact that they are clearly not taking the same approach when it comes to tracking music- brand affinity data. And lets be honest, brand sponsorships are a VERY large piece of the picture when it comes to the future of music.
That being said, I recognize that the current position that Grooveshark is in terms of licensing doesn't sit well with most content holders. Furthermore a game of hunt and peck for DMCA takedowns is also very far from ideal.
All of this is reflective of one thing - these guys may have gotten off on the wrong foot in terms of their model, and attempted to do it without handing over all of the company's equity for over 75 to 100 million in VC funding. However, everyone at Grooveshark works their ass off - 50 to 60 + hr weeks - on start up salaries- in the name of innovating on behalf of the artist, and the music industry at large.
You really can't fault them for trying to make a sustainable model. The only way any new company has survived upfront licensing advances for majors, is through millions and millions in capital funding. Look at Pandora or Spotify, and their profitability. Simple matter of the fact is a company can't pay out royalties and scale their business if they don't have any money to do it with. If labels and artists want more innovation and royalty streams, they should be a little more forgiving with companies actually creating tangible value, not just hype.
Yves Villeneuve Monday, November 21, 2011
SamrR @ Projekt Monday, November 21, 2011
Yes. BUT Grooveshark is making their money off the artists, by exploiting us and not paying a fair royalty. If Friop (or Projekt) wants our music off the site, then get it off the Goddamn site. And keep it off. It's all about Grooveshark making that Mercedes money and the eventuall IPO or sale to a bigger fish. All the while, ripping off artists..... Really awful business model.
Liars Monday, November 21, 2011
Right this moment, I am looking at some King Krimson/Robert Fripp songs on Grooveshark.
Let me guess, "oh, it's a bug!". Feel free to elaborate. What kind of bug?
Yves Villeneuve Monday, November 21, 2011
skeptic Monday, November 21, 2011
really well-written! Sounds like someone on the inside had a hand in writing it. Not many "X" employees would go to bat for the old boss like this - unless stock options, etc.
not paul geller Monday, November 21, 2011
paul geller - have the decency to post under your name. your prose is ridiculously easy to detect at this point.
urfullofcrap Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Im not going to even acknowledge the ridiculousness of this post, but i will say, Start Up Salaries my A$$... I know the mid and exec level well too, they blow money like its going out of style. expense accounts multiple fancy houses/condos, the whole bit! have you seen these guys at any number of the conventions? theyre wasted out of their mind, making a scene, and acting generally like idiots. get your facts strait dude.
interesting development Monday, November 21, 2011
UMG is a big company and would never make any legal move, just because its team read a whistleblower's post on a music industry blog. It is obvious that they have other serious data at hand. Something tells me the whistleblower only scratched the surface with what he posted on DMN.
shark no more! Monday, November 21, 2011
Information wants to be free. Someone should upload all the Escape Media Group/Grooveshark internal data as a torrent.
a picture is a thousand words Monday, November 21, 2011
They don't even try to hide.
This photo is from Grooveshark's official Twitter account. Notice the pirate flag on the wall:
https://twitpic.com/146g6a/full
mdti Tuesday, November 22, 2011
this is one of the stupidest argument i've ever read on this site and others....
congratulations !!!
Oh yes Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A piracy website has the flag of pirates in the company's headquarters. What a surprise.
Visitor Monday, November 21, 2011
@ SamR : I agree that music should stay down once notice has been given. Not defending that in any way.
@Liars: I was never part of the technical end, I'm not a programmer/developer. Its very clear there's deficiencies in the system based on this - however your insinuation that it's in some way intentional is baseless. That would be an awful strategy if they wanted to keep good standing with the music community. Their business is based on the music community.
@Yves Villeneuve: Your logic is poor - if that were the case why would I call attention to that fact? I was simply being honest as to my personal relationships while I was there. I didn't interact with him very much at all.
@Skeptic: I'm glad you think I'm articulate. I also wouldn't call this 'going to bat.' If I were really going to bat I'd tell you who I was. I just am a little tired of all the defamation of character of people that I happen to be personal friends with.
Qur Monday, November 21, 2011
«I was never part of the technical end, I'm not a programmer/developer»
What was your position then?
Yves Villeneuve Monday, November 21, 2011
JC Monday, November 21, 2011
Having worked with some of them before, I know that a lot of the Grooveshark developers are big fans of early Apple. The source of the flag would be this: http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Pirate_Flag.txt.
Before I left they also had a gaint print out of the Steve Jobs Macworld cover hanging on one of the walls.
mdti Tuesday, November 22, 2011
>>>>
and how do you explain the pirate flag in there office?
>>>>
dude, you are disapointing me....
this is the stupidest argument i've ever read on this site and others...dispointed that you used it too, i had a better impressions reading your poszts here and there.....
But congratulations !!! that gives you silver medal today :-D (gold medal is a few posts above)....
Yves Villeneuve Tuesday, November 22, 2011
basic information Thursday, November 24, 2011
It's a piracy symbol. Not the UN flag. Stop supporting mafia gangs.
previously Monday, November 21, 2011
For those who missed the earlier episodes:
This Morning, Grooveshark Sent Us This Angry Email...
King Crimson Can't Get Their Music Off of Grooveshark.
must be a lot of $$$ to risk p Monday, November 21, 2011
How much do the top Grooveshark mafia people make from this scam?
Yves Villeneuve Monday, November 21, 2011
Grooveshark is providing the location and inviting the public to infringe on music copyrights. This is enough evidence to shut down Grooveshark with a simple court injunction.
Yves Villeneuve Monday, November 21, 2011
I would also argue in front of the judge that Grooveshark lacks the resources to maintain the integrity of the DMCA process or has purposely rendered it meaningless, therefore should cease to operate until the problems are rectified upon re-start of the operation.
@kylelreynolds Tuesday, November 22, 2011
kyle reynolds
SOPA is too powerful, we need our due process but with companies like Grooveshark deliberately breaking the rules...?
and they say we need more jobs Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Why is SOPA "too powerful"?
Because it might force Google to hire more people?
arrbee Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Ironically Universal are also in strife with Mr Fripp over unlicensed use of King Crimson music, so I doubt they'll be calling him as a witness...
no need for Fripp Tuesday, November 22, 2011
They don't need Robert Fripp as a witness, he is just one artist and they sue Grooveshark for copyright infringement of music material of many many more artists.
Even if Robert Fripp and UMG were *best friends*, he wouldn't have to appear in court. It is obvious they have enough data to present in court, otherwise they wouldn't make any risky moves. Maybe they would, ten years ago. Fifteen years ago. Not anymore.
By the way, Mercedes-Benz USA will have some explaining to do to the mothership in Germany...
elle Tuesday, November 22, 2011
From Jack De Young's Facebook -- SVP of somethin' somethin' -- an official announcement??
------------
gaetano Wednesday, November 23, 2011
It's about to get good.
holy Wednesday, November 23, 2011
happy thanksgiving groovesharkers!
the only pleasure i take in their inevitable financial hardship is that perhaps the songwriters that went unpaid for years will finally receive some payment (from the pockets of little boy tarantino and the rest of the kids playing dress-up in at grooveshark).
-d
Antennae Friday, November 25, 2011
Robert Fripp and his representatives have informed Grooveshark countless times of copyright violations, yet still King Crimson material remains illegally on the site. Many other copyright holders have made the same complaint.
G'Shark's response to these complaints has been overwhelmingly arrogant and uncooperative: their legal guy Marshall Custer even accused Fripp and Coglan of "a lack of due diligence"!
Given this attitude, I'm not surprised a major lawsuit has erupted. Whatever you feel about major music corporations, copyright etc., ethical listeners should consider boycotting sites that blatantly disrespect artists in this way.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us