Both Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group are now taking legal action against Grooveshark, according to federal court paperwork filed Thursday. Both labels are joining an action started by Universal Music Group in the US District Court in Manhattan last month, a development that effectively pits Grooveshark against every major label.
The latest actions were first reported by New York Times journalist Ben Sisario. The presence of additional plaintiffs has been confirmed by the court to Digital Music News on Thursday afternoon, though this is the only paperwork we have so far.
The amendment process basically adds more parties and serves to bolster the original lawsuit. In the original complaint, UMG used information posted anonymously in a Digital Music News comment thread to support claims that Grooveshark employees are deliberately uploading content. That is apparently happening despite refusals from the owners themselves, according to the comment, and seems to offer evidence of clear infringement.
The smoking comment - and the accompanying article - is actually a surprisingly large part of the legal filing, despite the unconfirmed identity of the partner. This individual could be anyone, though the parties now seem likely to subpoena Digital Music News in the near future to uncover more information. In fact, Grooveshark's legal counsel has already advised us to retain electronic records related to this comment (we have not responded).
Meanwhile, EMI is still technically listed as a major label partner for Grooveshark, at least according to a list furnished to Digital Music News in late September. But that relationship now seems dated, especially given the recent purchase of EMI's recording assets by UMG.
More details ahead.
@_Andi_C Thursday, December 15, 2011
Well Grooveshark, you were great while you lasted. #StayStrong
$$$? Thursday, December 15, 2011
Did they pay you anything for that or are you an intern looking to put a foot in the music industry? Advice: if you work for Grooveshark, don't put it in your resume. So many angry label managers out there. Trust me. Just skip the Grooveshark part.
Visitor Thursday, December 15, 2011
'bout time these thieves were dealt with.
lost john Thursday, December 15, 2011
why must your vitriol be shielded by your "visitor" moniker? what is your fear of sharing your opinion in conjunction with whom you might be?
haha Thursday, December 15, 2011
Says the guy with the username "lost john"
Randall Friday, December 16, 2011
Shut up, Ron.
j Sunday, December 18, 2011
and spotify is any better? no.
@KeithMeyer25 Thursday, December 15, 2011
...and there it is.
CHELAY Thursday, December 15, 2011
It's about time these thieves were taught a lesson about the value of music. See ya later grooveshark
JacksonL Thursday, December 15, 2011
Anyone find it strange that Digital Music News is by accident DESTROYING Grooveshark?
Reality base community Thursday, December 15, 2011
No, Grooveshark is destroying Grooveshark.
@kimschultzzz Thursday, December 15, 2011
It's getting heated in here.
Danny Friday, December 16, 2011
It's about time.
Also, Digital Music News, how about an article about South Korea MP3 Market? A singer just sold 7 million MP3 downloads in 5 days there according to Gaon Chart (SouthKorea Billboard). Google "artist sold 7 million MP3 downloads in 5 days" for more info.
Here's the 5 days + 7 days total:
poplife Friday, December 16, 2011
They'll fight...but they'll lose. Their partners (of all stripes, including investors, advertisers and labels) will slow fall off. They'll reduce staff, under the guise of anything but diminishing revenues. We've seen this movie time and time agin.
GS will be dead by this time next year.
And yes -- good luck staying in the business (if that's what you want) with GS on your resume. And those stock options you chose? Um, you should've taken more salary.
Jon Friday, December 16, 2011
I feel like I was reading these comments around this time last year as well predicting the same. It hasn't happened yet, and it may or may not happen eventually. Isn't it more prudent to just watch what happens and see what the legal process yields? Doesn't it seem better to read through the documentation/evidence, instead of making grandiose claims and giving employment/stock advice to anonymously to people you don't know? Can you really speak for all employers in the music industry? None of this behavior makes any sense.
I would suggest they seek professional counsel on their stock options, if needed. I would suggest they use theirnetwork to seek out further career opportunities. Some people in the industry are pissed off at the company; some are not. At least one former employee I know is thought very highly of throughout the industry.
Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand the nature of the absolutes with which you are speaking.
Visitor Monday, December 19, 2011
@Jon - couldn't agree more.
@ Poplife regarding your statement about future employment - Don't know if your eyes are open or not but regardless of any legal positioning the Grooveshark UX/UI is one of the best web app experiences on the internet. Most people are falling over themselves trying to build a product like that. Pandora? They would have become profitable a long time ago if they could figure out how to competently put together premium advertising, which Spotify has yet to take any respectable swings at.
If you have any business chops you'd recognize this. But I'm sure you're the guy that had to struggle how to use Itunes, so Spotify is well suited for you.
Good Riddance! Friday, December 16, 2011
Funny how the Grooveshark mafia boys suddently stopped talking shit about the music industry on their Twitter accounts.
previous episodes - Friday, December 16, 2011
Blissi Sunday, December 18, 2011
Yes, like all major networking sites or rather any place on the interent grooveshark gets the brunt for users putting their own bought and owned music onto the server like any other file holding site. Makes logical sense. Though if you guys did more research they are doing this to get more money. They let people upload music there and then sell the usage data back to labels for half of what it would cost for liscensing. Sounds like a good plan to me considering it worked with EMI. Grooveshark, a bunch of leap of faith manuvers or cleaver bob and weave tactics for higher profit? You decide.