It was hailed as a progressive partnership, a bold step for a struggling major label and a vision for the future. "We think services like Grooveshark offer great music discovery options for fans," EMI Music's global head of digital business development Mark Piibe said in October of 2009, just months after trying to sue Grooveshark into oblivion. "In turn, Grooveshark offers a new revenue stream for our artists and will help us learn more about how we can better connect
different types of fans with artists."
That seemed to thaw the ice a bit, and put Grooveshark ahead of Spotify in the US. It also eventually led to a deal with indie consortium Merlin the following year.
Then, things got really complicated, on both sides of the deal. As of Thursday, separately-acquired EMI Music Publishing has joined the major label groups in suing Grooveshark, effectively cancelling its very significant licensing nod. EMI's recording unit has yet to be formally acquired by Universal Music Group, though barring a late-stage roadblock, EMI Music will be rolled into a growing (and separate) UMG suit against Grooveshark.
The Publishing complaint was filed in the US District Court in Manhattan, and paints Grooveshark as a bad licensing buddy. "[Grooveshark parent] Escape Media has not made a single royalty payment to EMI, nor provided a single accounting statement," the suit alleges. In comments to the New York Times, Grooveshark pointed to a "contract dispute."
The development points another barrel at Grooveshark's head, but also puts pressure on other big partners. That includes Merlin, which licensed Grooveshark in 2010 but appears to be facing pressure from member labels. Also potentially vulnerable is Mercedes-Benz, which joined forces with Indaba on a high-profile remixing project last year. The carmaker has not responded to multiple requests from Digital Music News on the deal's status, and Indaba has also declined any comment.
gollamic Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read something like this before. So nice to find anyone with some original ideas on this subject. realy thanks for starting this up. this website is one thing that is wanted on the web, someone with slightly originality. play texas hold em online
Worse than I thought! Thursday, January 05, 2012
«Escape Media not made a single royalty payment to EMI, nor provided a single accounting statement...»
!!!
Did Escape Media bother to provide payment to its team, at the same period of time, or were they also working for free?
What a great business oportunity.
I bet Grooveshark wants more than 1 mil for their data....
Visitor Friday, January 06, 2012
I think its safe to say 'its over' Grooveshark. Is there an advertiser alive that would do a deal with them now?
Anyone working there not currently looking for a new job and/or means of evading personal bankruptcy proceedings should probably have their head checked.
truth Friday, January 06, 2012
Digital Music News didn't destroy GS -- Sam Tarantino and cohorts destroyed GS.
Simple as that. DMN simply did their job -- and reported.
journalism, cool eh? Friday, January 06, 2012
Exactly. DMN just did their job. And unfortunately it looks like this site was the only one among the many "music biz" blogs that did its job on this matter.
bydesign Saturday, January 07, 2012
I disagree. Grooveshark could be one of the greatest companies ever if they just worked the licensing out. Instead they are just getting destroyed by these lawsuits and we can thank Digital Msuic News for this?
missing information! Sunday, January 08, 2012
But Grooveshark doesn't want to work out the licensing part. Their internal e-mails explain this in full detail.
Anticapitalist Sunday, January 08, 2012
Yeah, and all the drug cartel bosses out there could be bank CEOs if they just worked the legal paperwork out.
Payback time Friday, January 06, 2012
Visitor Friday, January 06, 2012
Anyone who thinks that way is a fool, who clearly isn't in tune with the world of business. Ever think about everyone there drinking the Kool Aid, and the upper level having their own intentions all the while ?
Whether or not Grooveshark is in legal disputes, it remains pretty apparent that they managed to build one of the best web apps on the internet - and specifically within the music space their user experience trumps all. Anyone who's business savvy will snatch up the talent of that fallout.
Newsflash: No one wants to work for the "old" music industry anyhow. Its full of bureacracy and complacent big shots who are watching the floor drop out from under them meanwhile they're pulling down serious coin, and have a fat compensation parachute so aren't concerned with anyone else's future.
The future is in technology companies injected with music. Not music companies who are 'trying out the whole tech thing.'
You should probably hurry up and stick your head in the sand, I don't see any business empire's in your future.
Payback time Saturday, January 07, 2012
Ah, yet another internet hero, knowing everything about everything from the safety of his keyboard. Everyone is an enterpreneur these days.
Grooveshark copied the iTunes player. They didn't build shit. They just set up a piracy database and worked their way up to today's scale.
I don't know about you, casually predicting the financial future like your boyfriend runs Goldman Sachs or something, but I got all the success I could wish for with my company. I got 18 beautiful and very dedicated people working in it. They all fucking have piracy. They would never accept someone like you getting hired to work with them. You call them out of tune? See you in ten years. We will see if you are stil around.
careful there... Sunday, January 08, 2012
updownleftright Sunday, January 08, 2012
Grooveshark makes about 300k to 500k a month in ad sales as their primary source of revenue. If the record labels target the brands and advertisers who target users on grooveshark, then their money source will dry up quickly.
If Grooveshark is really for the little guy as they continuously claim, then how much have they paid to indie artists (or any artists for that matter) compared to pandora, last.fm, or itunes?
does anyone have that figure?
This company is run mostly by people who don't think they'll have to work for anyone else. At this point, it would be a safe bet for them to focus on making as much money individually so they can pay off their lawyers or save up to weather the storm of jobhunting.
Previously on Hunting Sharks Sunday, January 08, 2012
King Crimson Can't Get Their Music Off of Grooveshark. So They cc'd Digital Music News...
This Morning, Grooveshark Sent Us This Angry Email...
Grooveshark Whistleblower Provokes Another Universal Music Group Lawsuit...
Grooveshark Is Now Facing $17 Billion In Damages...
@zackolantern Tuesday, January 10, 2012
So everyone woke up this morning and thought, "this would be a great day to sue the pants off of Grooveshark again."
Visitor Wednesday, February 15, 2012
As much as I loved Jim he was out of his head most of the time and unlikely to see the future of music or indeed his own end.
Research Paper | Term Paper | Essay
John Green Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Keep sharing articles like this.A great article with best possible effects.I am great fan of your buy ventolin inhaler blog.Every time i come here i see something very new.
Ann Okawards Friday, March 16, 2012
thanks for your great article of "EMI Sues Grooveshark", very impressive, and learned more from your words above, so any other post can we view? thanks! crystal awards custom awards
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us