Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
Here's an email sent to us this morning from Grooveshark SVP Paul Geller. It responds to our publication of several email exchanges involving King Crimson, a band frustrated by their inability to remove their content from the service. (The first sentence addresses a delivery error - apparently there was a problem receiving our emails initially.)
_________________
Paul [Resnikoff],
Comments Closed
TombstoneBlues Monday, October 17, 2011
LOL who the hell put DJ Pauly Crush in charge at Grooveshark? They become more of a joke every day. They won't survive much longer. Their entire company is run on a "hire our cool friends" basis, by a bunch of early 20-something year old hipsters, with zero work or business related experience.
kasnakes Tuesday, October 18, 2011
i know a dj who is a accountant, who's to say someone cant have a second job?
spot the similarities! Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Sadly, good accountants are as rare as good DJs these days.
EXPERIENCED! Thursday, October 20, 2011
Nice try, but before you start critizing the employees of a company you know nothing about, why don't you learn who the companies employees actually are.
michael angelo Thursday, December 29, 2011
grooveshark needs to get a grip and relax a bit.they must learn how to fix your credit and the music business before blasting people.
EK Monday, October 17, 2011
Although there are always two sides to every argument, I'm currently listening to "Moonchild" by King Crimson streaming from Grooveshark (http://grooveshark.com/#/artist/King+Crimson/4049), so whatever blocks they've put in place certainly don't seem to be working at all.
Really, if Grooveshare still can't accomplish a block after weeks of effort on the part of the artist, any complaints they have about conduct aren't worth the hot air they're written on.
Daniel K Tuesday, October 18, 2011
"Blocks"??? That's the thing: they have not put any blocks in place, and have even admitted as much. They obviously have no intention of blocking further content from being uploaded - or worse: are too incompetent to do so.
Anonymous Monday, October 17, 2011
"Lots of artists don't even know we have licenses for their content so you can't take claims like Fripps at face value without a little research." In fact, lots of people don't even realize that the vast bulk of your content comes from UMG, Warner, and Sony. And yet you DON'T have deals with any of them, you're streaming the stuff for FREE and not paying the artists and rights holders a single penny. That's a nice business you have there, crook. You get to make advertising and subscription revenue based on content that you don't even pay for. That's what's paying your salary. So maybe you can lay off the "we're trying our best" routine.
Who cares Monday, October 17, 2011
Usually I like the stories you guys put up but I gotta agree with Grooveshark and say you guys didn't do your due diligence and I have lost some respect for you because of it. I also don't understand why you are looking at things as Artist VS Retailer/Customer instead of being angry at the labels. If the artist is angry at his music being on there and he isn't independent then he should be angry at his label otherwise he is a fucktard. I didn't like seeing my music on Spotify so I called up my label rm and he got things down the next day and if they didn't then I would have been angry at him not at Spotify.
James Monday, October 17, 2011
All your story shows is that it is infinitely easier to get your music removed from Spotify than it is from Grooveshark. Which is unsurprising since, for all their flaws, Spotify have gone about their business in the right way (i.e. legally, obtaining all licenses before launch).
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
" I also don't understand why you are looking at things as Artist VS Retailer/Customer instead of being angry at the labels. If the artist is angry at his music being on there and he isn't independent then he should be angry at his label otherwise he is a fucktard. I didn't like seeing my music on Spotify so I called up my label rm and he got things down the next day and if they didn't then I would have been angry at him not at Spotify."
complete rubbish. grooveshark do no dilligence whatsoever. I have a self-run indie label and found all our catalogue up there. No one from Grooveshark made any effort to contact us eithre before or after the event and it took me weeks and dozens of angry emails to get it removed. Had a friend not told me our music was on there I would never have known. Even now bits and pieces are still being re-uploaded.
I have enough to do every day without managing a service I never even wanted to be part of in the first place!
Allan Tuesday, October 18, 2011
You're in the wrong here I'm afraid - the KC rights are owned outright by Fripp, the licensing arrangement with EMI ceased many years ago.
David Wednesday, October 19, 2011
@Who Cares : You are so right. It's not the digital service that's to blame if an artist has an issue with digital royalty payments. That issue is between the artist and the label and the deal that is between them. In most cases, the digital service are paying huge payments to the label - it's up to the label to pay the artist, not the service.
Visitor Wednesday, October 19, 2011
"It's not the digital service that's to blame if an artist has an issue with digital royalty payments. That issue is between the artist and the label and the deal that is between them. In most cases, the digital service are paying huge payments to the label - it's up to the label to pay the artist, not the service."
complete garbage. what about artists who run their own labels and self-release? we're suffering exactly the same thing.
no - grooveshark are ripping off everyone and don't discriminate between artist & label
Rob Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Quote <<I gotta agree with Grooveshark and say you guys didn't do your due diligence>>
Anyone who pays attention to the music business, and it is very easy online, knows about the spat Fripp already had with EMI, and that EMI no longer owns any of Fripp's masters.
So hey, I didn't do any "due diligence" either, but I don't need to. It's a well-known fact.
So if you have "lost some respect", and if that's a big deal for you, perhaps you should do some "due diligence" of your own before taking sides with an incompetent music site.
SocialSoundSystem Monday, October 17, 2011
I have been working with Grooveshark for almost 4 years now. They have 30+ million users worldwide and we've been able to access all of their data and demographics for the songs we've claimed in their system. All of the artists I work with are nationally/internationally touring acts on tour year round. The all know that fans are going to find their music online wherever so we do our best to get our music up where fans are listening. Let them stream it all they want and get them out to a show. Selling music is great, but it's more a secondary perk when you're a live act. We all know no one is going to retire on streams.
My two-cents and a ball of lint.
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
The artists you cover are probably not going to retire handsomely from touring either.
/yvesvilleneuve
SocialSoundSystem Wednesday, October 19, 2011
I can agree to an extent... But there's a lot of money to be made out of the back of a van. The main act I work with is Slightly Stoopid... They've been on the road for 15 years from vans to amphitheater tours. They aren't major label terrestrial radio stars... But they do make a decent living and have played with a lot of great artists across the musical spectrum.
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
Unless you are perceived as a major act, you are not going to make significant money from touring.
The best way to be perceived as a major act is to sell a lot of music and get majorly played on terrestrial radio.
/yves villeneuve
Grooveshark=antisocial Wednesday, October 19, 2011
I would not call the 3.5 M cash Grooveshark got for setting up its piracy platform "pennies". Unless you speak as a multi-millionaire, of course!
G.P. Monday, October 17, 2011
This letter from Grooveshark is not just online bulling. It is clearly violating a number of Federal laws and honestly I am very surprised they sent it to you without consulting an attorney*.
Please don't let them bully you like this. Don't be intimidated. They feel the pressure, you have struck a sensitive chord with your investigative journalism.
If they want to fix their public image, they should reach out to Robert Fripp & agents and make things right. Meaning: an apology involving "USD" in it...
*in the unfortunate event that some party is looking for an excuse for PR drama, may the Grooveshark General Counsel please be advised that this particular comment comes directly from a regular reader of Digital Music News and not a representative or agent. I am sure Grooveshark Inc. understands how a blog works, just wanted to be 100% clear, in this "information wants to be free" era...
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
Lol @ investigative journalism
That's a strange reaction Tuesday, October 18, 2011
You don't consider this to be journalism...?
Maybe you would prefer the music business blogs to chant "Oh how cool these scammers are, oh how I like their advertising money" all day long...?
Jokes Monday, October 17, 2011
Wow, G'shark is a joke. So unprofessional. A bunch of kids, frankly. Wow.
Anonymous Monday, October 17, 2011
Paul Resnikoff:
If you really want to ask him to right question, ask him how much Grooveshark pays the rights holders for streaming music by Lady Gaga, Adele, Black Eyed Peas, Eminem, Katy Perry, Lil Wayne, or LMFOA. The answer is zip, nada. Grooveshark makes money off of these streams from subscribers and ad partners and _doesn't pay a soul_.
DieterK Monday, October 17, 2011
"You might have noticed that King Crimson is on Virgin (EMI) -- who we have a licensing deal with. "
King Crimson / Robert Fripp did a licensing deal with Virgin in 1993. Digital rights were not included in this deal. And anyway, if Grooveshark had dug a little bit deeper, they might have noticed that the deal between King Crimson and Virgin expired in 2003. Almost 9 (NINE) years ago. KING CRIMSON IS NOT ON VIRGIN (EMI)!
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
They don't dig deeper, because they don't know how to. The place is run by a bunch of kids who know absolutely nothing about the industry they are working in.
and on Monday, October 17, 2011
Or rather they don't dig deeper, because they don't want to.
Smokescreens and ignorance benefitted (and continue to benefit) the old Music Biz very well, so it's no surprise that some "Music 2.0" companies are trying the same tricks. And every day it's becoming harder and more time consuming for anyone to keep track of where their music is being sold.
I'd rather have my stuff traded about for free by fans than know there were companies making cash off it that I couldn't stop.
Regardless of what the value of streaming is, the simple fact that a rights-holder cannot get their content removed speaks for itself.
David Tuesday, October 18, 2011
They didn't need to dig at all in this case, since Fripp and his associates have told them, directly and repeatedly, that Virgin/EMI have no rights to license any King Crimson material.
Thus the response to the comment
If the artist is angry at his music being on there and he isn't independent then he should be angry at his label
is simple: Fripp is independent; he is the label. Mentioning Virgin/EMI at this stage is just knowingly trying to create a smokescreen.
Food For Thought... Monday, October 17, 2011
Ah, poor Mr. Geller doesn't like the treatment he is getting online. It's a dose of his own medicine. His company hides behind the DMCA and uses it as a gun to creators' heads (license us because your music is going to be up anyway).
While he's busy giving King Crimson the runaround and firing off emails to DMN I've heard from about a dozen more indie labels who tell me that they use Grooveshark's DMCA takedown link to no avail only getting more runaround.
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
yes - i submitted takedowns through their dmca. nothing happened and i was then told to email someone else...and weeks of bullshit and delays ensued
grooveshark can fuck off
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
Geller is a DJ (http://www.facebook.com/paulycrush). He has spent his entire "career" making money off other's music ;)
Ron Monday, October 17, 2011
There is a nice blacklist updated with the people who work for these scam sites. The list is forwarded to the right hands and shared among managers, agents, publishers.
I guarantee you that anyone who is on that list is never EVER going to get a gig in the music industry at any point in the future. So, don't quit your scam site employment any time soon, because information wants to be free. You should be thankful the list is not public on Pastebin.
Oh, and for the people who state their professional relationship with those scam sites on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn - keep doing that, it helps populate-update the list. Keep bragging, keep bragging. Payback is a bitch. All of us will still be around when the scam site you are currently working for is sold off for data mining.
Visitor Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Ron, shut up. You're embarassing yourself.
Yes, all former Napster employees never worked in music after Napster went under. Oh wait, Sean Parker picked up Spotify, the single most-talked-about company in the industry.
Ron Wednesday, October 19, 2011
If you are on that list, you are up for a big surpise when you submit your resume. At least be honest about it, don't omit the fact that you previously worked for the Grooveshark mafia, like some started to do recently.
There is a very funny example of someone who applied for a NYC label position, hiding the fact that he used to work for Grooveshark. Problem is, his blog was full of lies about the music industry. Guess where his application was placed? Yep. Recycle bin. Didn't matter that it was printed on bright colors, either.
You just can't accept that artists and labels use search engines or communicate with each other. That's what happens when you hang around with "serial entepreneurs". You lose sense of how working people react to gangs.
Yeah right Friday, October 28, 2011
LOL @ fantasy stories with no evidential basis
Visitor Monday, October 17, 2011
from the horses mouth
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/101311cc
"I work for Grooveshark. Here is some information from the trenches:
We are assigned a predetermined ammount of weekly uploads to the
system and get a small extra bonus if we manage to go above that (not
easy).The assignments are assumed as direct orders from the top to the
bottom, we don't just volunteer to "enhance" the Grooveshark database.
All search results are monitored and when something is tagged as "not
available", it get's queued up to our lists for upload. You have to
visualize the database in two general sections: "known" stuff and
"undiscovered/indie/underground". The "known" stuff is taken care
internally by uploads. Only for the "undiscovered" stuff are the users
involved as explained in some posts above. Practically speaking, there
is not much need for users to upload a major label album since we
already take care of this on a daily basis.
Are the above legal, or ethical? Of course not. Don't reply to give me
a lecture. I know. But if the labels and their laywers can't figure
out how to stop it, then I don't feel bad for having a job. It's tough
times.
Why am I disclosing all this? Well, I have been here a while and I
don't like the attitude that the administration has aquired against the
artists. They are the enemy. They are the threat. The things that are
said internally about them would make you very very angry. Interns are
promised getting a foot in the music industry, only to hear these people
cursing and bad mouthing the whole industry all day long, to the point
where you wonder what would happen if Grooveshark get's hacked by
Anonymous one day and all the emails leak on some torrent or something.
And, to confirm the fears of the members of King Crimson, there is no way in hell you can get your stuff down. They are already tagged since you sent in your first complaint. The administration knows that you can't afford to sue for infringement."
musicservices4less Tuesday, October 18, 2011
If this comment is legit (I hope it is and no offense intended) it shows at least at this tech company that there is no interest in protecting artists rights or "doing the right thing". Why? Because it costs money and a lot of it when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands or more of copyrights. Why do record companies, publishing companies, movie producers, etc. have lawyers and business affairs departments? Because that is the right thing to do. It's called being legit, respecting the law and the rights of others. Oh, you say the "system" is archaic, old, redicously complicated. Well, peacefully protest, call your congressperson, vote, vote with your wallet. But be legit American business people not like the countries who do not enforce their business laws (China, India, etc.). Consumers don't like the price? Well, consumers don't like a lot of prices. You think the iPhone is too expensive? Try stealing it out of an Apple store or warehouse. What is stopping you? Oh, you might get caught. So if you probably won't get caught or its too expensive to sue, it's OK?
Vistor as well Tuesday, October 18, 2011
If you are legit, you should reach out to the artists and labels currently suing Grooveshark.
You testimony will put a nail in Grooveshark.
Visitor Tuesday, October 18, 2011
This comment is NOT legit as coming from a real Grooveshark employee.
Damage Control Failure Wednesday, October 19, 2011
...how do you know? You can't be that sure, unless you read minds...
Or perhaps you just finished waterboarding the Grooveshark employees/interns?
Visitor Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Lol waterboarding... But seriously. This isn't from a real employee because the described process isn't how ingestion works at Grooveshark.
Occupy Grooveshark Tuesday, October 18, 2011
ATTENTION:
NY songwriters, artists and music fans:
Here's a chance to tell Sam Tarantino, Paul Geller, Jack De Young and the rest of the Grooveshark team how you feel about them (will the first band they "signed" Quiet Company be there? www.quietcompanymusic.com/).
Does karma suck? Hmmmm.
Go to their party -- and speak your voice. Drinks are free.
(Actually they're paid for by Denny's, One-A-Day Vitamins, and the other shitty corporatations clearly lacking a conscious by advertising on Grooveshark):
Thursday, 10/20
9pm-midnight, LES Thompson Hotel
RSVP: cmj@soundctrl.com
(This is not a CMJ event, anyone who rsvp's can attend)
Cease and desist Tuesday, October 18, 2011
From messing with a vital popular movement and its brand "occupy" for your own entertainment. Whatever may or may not be up with GS it is definitely not important enough to be watering down the only tiny little peep into actual awareness seen in the USA for decades.
Time to fight back Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Grooveshark and all the other similar scam sites are actively violating the artists' constitutional rights. Occupy them? Hell yes.
Artists should stick together and support each other. It doesn't matter if your own album is not on Grooveshark e.t.c. It doesn't matter if your own DMCA notice was effective this time. Help each other. Destroy the scam sites' PR, online and offline.
They are refusing our right to a future. They are refusing our right to have a family, a home, a reasonable income.
Time to fight back.
Let the Lady Gagas sort their big interests with their big laywers, if and when they stop taking the "expozzzure" pill. Their problem. Focus on people like you, everyday people who are having a hard time. Composers, musicians, bands. Artists that you see struggling. Do what you have to do. Share useful information, give legal and tech tips to each other, follow up, don't step back even for a second.
You can afford a laywer? Learn something useful about legal actions, then educate other artists, write even just one article on a blog or on your own page/profile/site.
You have a friend who runs your site? Learn something useful about tracking down scam sites e.t.c., then share this information with musicians who don't have access to it.
You never know when the time will come that you will need the support of the other people to defend yourself, to defend your future, to defend your right to be.
We can't fight the currupted each on our own. Together, we can crush them.
Remember: Scam sites like Grooveshark are funded, sold and bought by the exact same financial leaches that participate in the more general financial orgy that is committed to make us all into slaves.
If you oppose the mafia of Wall Street, you also oppose Grooveshark and all the other thieves. Money laundering is just one tiny operation inside this mafia world.
Thanks! Tuesday, October 18, 2011
I will be there with my band and some other musicians from the area. Keep an eye for things like this, Grooveshark will try to restore its image by playing the "cool" card and buying drinks.
It is going to be a very fun night, I can promise you that.
Grooveshark is giving sharks a bad name.
Visitor Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sam and Paul are both based out of the Florida Grooveshark office in Gainesville. I highly doubt they'll be there for this.
Name Wednesday, October 19, 2011
If Sam and Paul aren't there, it's because they're either ashamed or afraid (or both). They are both living in both NY & Gainesville (and mostly NY).
In other words: if they aren't there, they're pussies.
SomeDude Tuesday, October 18, 2011
GrooveSHARK. At least they were honest when they chose their name.
A Comment Tuesday, October 18, 2011
At least they're not bald.
@HeavenlyBodiesR Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Heavenly Bodies
This is no good PR Grooveshark... #fail
@JohnLW Tuesday, October 18, 2011
John L Walters
Smokescreens and ignorance benefitted the old Music Biz very well … it's no surprise that ‘Music 2.0’ companies are trying the same tricks.
Allan Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Is there a name for a type of shark which, when confronted, emits clouds of brown, foul-smelling fluid?
If you're in any doubt who is in the wrong here, read the opening e-mails from the rights-holders to G'Shark in the thread called 'King Crimson Can't Get Their Music Off of Grooveshark'. Then scroll to the end and read the confession from a company whistle-blower who has the guts to tell the truth.
osushisan1 Tuesday, October 18, 2011
What a dumb ass. Thanks for posting.
Visitor Tuesday, October 18, 2011
I think a bunch of bands going down there and making their feelings known is a very good idea.
That said, Sam will doubtless pussy out and not show up.
Sara Tiemogo Tuesday, October 18, 2011
I've actually found the contributor's comments to be quite helpful in providing more information. At the very root of this letter, Pauly seems to be saying, "I still can't answer your question about how much money we pay. I'm mad that you exposed the incriminating parts of our conversations with you. Please stop giving us bad press so that we can continue to operate poorly?" It's sad that companies think just because they've used the correct grammar that what they are saying will be accepted as true. Shame Shame. www.saratiemogo.com
John Lovaas Tuesday, October 18, 2011
First, Mr. Geller states
"...You might have noticed that King Crimson is on Virgin (EMI) -- who we have a licensing deal with..."
Then, Mr. Geller states
"...Turns out EMI doesn't have the digital rights to King Crimson..."
What kind of license would Grooveshark have with Virgin/EMI, other than one for digital content? I mean, Grooveshark isn't producing audiophile vinyl reissues- or are they?
If you have a business based solely on the online distribution of digital content, why would you negotiate a licensing deal for anything other than digital content? Wouldn't someone notice the contract excluded digital content- which is the only reason the contract is required? Huh.
Allan Tuesday, October 18, 2011
John, Grooveshark have repeatedly been told by Declan Colgan and Robert Fripp (who owns the KC recordings outright) that EMI have no digital rights over the KC catalogue.
More to the point here is, since GShark have absolutely no rights to this music and have acknowledged the same, why they allow it to remain on their system. This chronic and flagrant misuse, along with the recent admission by a GShark staff member that this is deliberate policy, shows how dishonest this company are.
Ben Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Stop sending the DMCA notices to the scammers themselves. They have no respect for artists. Instead, send the notices directly to their hosting provider.
safe harbor = hosting provider
You send a DMCA notice to YouTube directly because they have their own servers (Google empire).
Grooveshark is hosted by Level3 (level3.com). This hosting company's DMCA designated agent information is on this page:
level3.com/en/network-security/designation-of-agent/
Put the pressure on the hosting companies themselves. And if any company lies to you or tries to cover a scammer, go public and ask all the other artists to never do business with the hosting company that had this mafia behavior.
Hurt them where it hurts the most...
someone Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Read the following and connect the dots ---
https://twitter.com/#!/colinhostert/status/125389070472982528
http://jackdeyoung.tumblr.com/post/4623664057/where-i-desperately-try-to-solve-our-legal-woes-via
The exact same people who publicly advertise that they don't like the fact that artists have rights, go on to seek trademarks for their corporations:
http://www.trademarkia.com/company-escape-media-group-inc-3752877-page-1-2
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=45837115
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Grooveshark
http://www.techjournalsouth.com/2010/04/escape-media-group-tunes-in-nearly-3-5m-for-streaming-music-service/
http://www.privco.com/private-company/escape-media-group-inc
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/tennessee/tnmdce/3:2011cv00681/51012/
http://www.insideview.com/directory/escape-media-group-inc
http://www.prlog.org/10005984-escape-media-group-introduces-grooveshark-the-first-legal-peer-to-peer-online-music-brokerage.html
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Gainesville/escape-media-group-inc/25770863.aspx
PDF file: soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=44BFD200-353A-45F2-B7F5-8512222AD5B5
By the way, if you have any relation to Audio Rokit, time to take proper action:
http://blog.grooveshark.com/post/11614415451/grooveshark-partners-with-audio-rokit
sandystarr0 Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sandy Starr
'can't take claims like Fripp's at face value without a little research' - do research BEFORE uploading!
Jakko M Jakszyk Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Well that's told everyone Mr Geller. Well done. As someone whose worked quite closely with Mr Fripp these past few years, I know just how evil and venal he can be. Fancy him doctoring his correspondence to fit his message. I've actually seen all the correspondence and all he appears to have done is just shorten it somewhat. Still that's not the point is it? It's the principle of the thing. Principles are important aren't they Mr Geller?
Still at least it's all over now and in spite of the mistakes you've made (and owned up to) at least all the Crimson and Robert Fripp content is now no longer available on your site. So no one need complain anymore about this and just get on.
Incidentally - I type this whilst listening to "A Scarcity Of Miracles" by Jakszyk, Fripp & Collins - A King Crimson ProjeKCt streaming live from your site. Right this second.
Must be some other unavoidable oversight by someone else who works for you. Or maybe it's a blanket deal with Virgin. I'm not signed to them incidentally. I did have a deal with them in 1987 though. That must be why. The kind of mistake that can happen to anyone. Or maybe I'm just looking for attention? Yes that's it probably. You see what happens when you work with Robert Fripp? you become as evil, venal and as attention seeking as he is!!!!
Did I tell you about how it's just taken me 3 years to get several albums I own taken down off Spotify?
Oh, there I go again!!!!!
richard Wednesday, October 19, 2011
It is truly baffling that Grooveshark continue to argue about this.
It all seems very simple as far as I can see - Robert Fripp owns the rights to all King Crimson / Robert Fripp music. Virgin / EMI does not. Grooveshark does not.
Therefore unless Fripp has granted permission (which he hasn't), no other company can use, sell, or stream his music.
Therefore Grooveshark has no claim whatsoever to Fripp's music.
Why can't Grooveshark grasp this very simple fact? Either Grooveshark is grossly incompetant, or deliberately dishonest. Either way, Grooveshark should admit that they have clearly been found out, remove Fripp's music and shut the hell up. How hard can it be?
Bad Ron Wednesday, October 19, 2011
What really impresses me about the "record companies" is for a the fuss and noise they make about illegal downloads, they are the biggest pirates on the net.
hm... Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Grooveshark is not a record company.
bucket Wednesday, October 19, 2011
I'm also baffled why Grooveshark doesn't have systems like YouTube to take down or block copyrighted material uploaded by users without permission. Maybe this process involves investment in technology that is beyond their means. But it is their clear responsibility to police this, not their ISP's. The ISP is not responsible for content, only for enforcing their terms of service.
Without these controls Grooveshark are simply exploiting musicians along with the rest of the music "industry".
Fabian Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Why does Grooveshark have a public upload system in the first place?
If this company wants copyright owners to upload their material on Grooveshark, *after* they have provided a proper license, they can offer a controlled system of artist/label login/sign up (with e-mails confirmed before any upload can be authorized). This would take just a few hours to implement, the code is minimal...!
@ThatEricAlper Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Eric Alper
This will all blow over soon...
Live Again! Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Lots of King Crimson and Robert Fripp tracks available right now on Grooveshark. Lots of collaborations of Robert Fripp with other artists, as well. This basically confirms what the anonymous Grooveshark employee wrote: they don't delete files, they just hide them for a while.
Mascarini Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Hmmm ... a few comments about (groove)Sharks:
1) They are always on the move - and they try to stay ahead of their lies
2) They have sharp, jagged teeth - all the more to bite with and stay attached to their victims
3) They move silently in dark waters - similar to the swimming in the deep end of the music industry "waters"
4) They feed all the time - and usually on artists revenue
5) Even if they lose a dorsal fin, they come back to respond to lawyers and artist advocates.
Yo Robert the Frippster - Keep up the good fight.
All the Best,
R.
Unite Thursday, October 20, 2011
Time for the artists worldwide to fight against these mafia tactics.
DMCA notices are just one minor detail. Solidarity is more important than ever.
David Saturday, October 22, 2011
This is simply more of the same bullshit so rampant in the ethos of most new companies these days: it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Just do what you want to get a foothold and deal with the fallout later.
I worked for a startup that did this and I eventually learned it erodes and sours the spirits of everyone working there. A dead fish stinks from the head down. If the leadership are assholes, the company is an asshole, regardless of how well-meaning the staff "just keeping a job" is. Eventually we learned word got out that my former company was regarded in their space as major assholes. So glad I'm gone from there. Never again will I work somewhere I don't respect the mgmt, whether as people or their mission. But definitely as people. Working for assholes sends a ripple effect into your own life and the lives of those in your life. It's a slow steady staining you don't notice till it's too late and you realize you've become the jaded downer of your friends, always kinda complaining.
These newer media companies have read just enough of the entrepreneur and mgmt books to know the surface level tricks of keeping employees happy - just enough small carrots, small bonuses, pep talks, and hip environmental acoutrements to make the job seem cool, positive, and fun. But under the hood it's all band-aids and greed. And the turnover is huge, as once vets who been around start realizing the true bullshit of the place start leaving or getting fired when they speak up to mgmt, though mgmt asks for Open Discussion all the time in the name of having Open Door policies. But once you disagree on an idea, you can start counting the days till your bullet arrives.
I hope those Grooveshark staffers get out. It will only get worse for them. The only wealth the mgmt will further share with their employees will be the b.s., frustration, and anger they begin accrueing as their business model continues to erode. They'll keep whatever profits for themselves as they see the ship sinking and they'll want what they feel is their's. The speeches I'm sure Gshark gives their folks about being a family or team will be seen as hot air soon enough as the mgmt tries to flee with as much as they can per what they might have invested. Guaranteed.
Lisa Thomas Music Services Monday, October 24, 2011
To further clarify Mr. Geller's assertions about licenses, it might be helpful for everyone to know that certain big labels are currently involved in a lawsuit with Grooveshark pertaining to the use of catalog without licensing, and I was advised by one of the PRO's in the US that they are currently auditing Grooveshark for performance royalties.
Thanks, Paul R., for keeping this forum going. Exposing lies and those who tell them is vital to the kind of "transparency" Mr. Geller fears.
which PRO? Saturday, October 29, 2011
Lisa, would it be possible to share with us which PRO is that?
BMI, ASCAP or SESAC?
Apologies if you can't tell because of an active NDA.
nooneslisteninanyways Saturday, November 19, 2011
wtf is grooveshark. . . . . . .
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us