Grooveshark Responds: “We Haven’t Infringed Since 2008…”

Here’s the Grooveshark’s official response to Monday’s crippling decision; no word on whether the company will appeal or attempt to forge new agreements with the majors.

  • Save


58 Responses

  1. lol

    “Thou hast committed…”
    “…Fornication? But that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.”

    • the good lie...

      Grooveshark is lying… they’re infringing much of my catalog right now. They have no licenses, are not paying me, and they will not blacklist my titles from being redistrbuted despite giving them the lists to do so.

      • Anonymous

        “Grooveshark is lying”

        I don’t think anybody doubts that anymore.

  2. Anonny

    Nice try Grooveshark, the decision is based on evidence of employee uploading through January 2011.

  3. Anonymous

    Here’s how it works:

    Grooveshark employees were encouraged to upload 5,977 stolen songs.

    This means that Grooveshark owes 5,977 x $150,000 to its victims.

  4. David

    A very predictable response from Grooveshark. Snag is, when you have been caught out in massive dishonesty, why should anyone believe you now? It may be true that Grooveshark employees no longer upload songs themselves, but it is notorious that when rights-holders try to get material removed from Grooveshark it reappears almost immediately, often in multiple links (see e.g. Helienne Lindvall’s account ) This doesn’t look like an accident. Grooveshark seem to have some system to ensure that takedown requests are frustrated in this way. And that would entail ‘red flag’ knowledge of infringement, which takes away Grooveshark’s DMCA protection.

    • Anonymous

      “it is notorious that when rights-holders try to get material removed from Grooveshark it reappears almost immediately”

      Exactly like Google: Right holders have to send millions of take-down notices to Google day in and day out for the exact same content on the same sites over and over. As soon as it’s gone, it appears again!

      And no, that doesn’t mean Grooveshark should get off the hook.

      It means that Google needs to be sued, too — for every cent they’ve got!

      • some guy

        yea, but Google is like the mothership from Independence Day in legal terms

        • Anonymous

          Google would have lost the Viacom case without ContentID. Don’t underestimate the power of a united content industry.

          And it can easily be proved in court that Google’s business model is designed to abuse the DMCA. It even refuses to take down more than a certain number of criminal links per day…

          • Google-SiliconValley-Illuminanti-NWO Member

            The Viacom case happened before we took control of the US Government. That’s right Mr. Artsy Fool, we replaced Congress and Obama with robotic lookalikes.

            Our plan is so close to completion, I don’t even care to keep it secret anymore.

            Face it, you smelly musician scum, the future belongs to the nerds and our AI robotic minions. Enjoy your reorganization procedure.

            And to my brothers reading this:

    • David

      I find that my suspicions have already been answered in another case against Grooveshark, reported here:

      This makes it clear that Grooveshark does indeed have a system that in effect automatically replaces tracks removed by a DMCA complaint. If more than one copy of a song has been uploaded, which is often the case, one copy is made the ‘primary’ copy and used for streaming. If copyright holders issue a DMCA notice, the primary copy is taken down, but one of the alternative copies automatically replaces it as the basis for streaming! Since details of secondary copies are not available to copyright holders unless and until they become the primary copy, the only way to remove a song entirely from the system is to issue repeated DMCA notices against each new primary copy (whose number is unknown) until, hopefully, they run out.

      It is simply astonishing that Grooveshark could ever have argued that this system complied with their DMCA obligations. And incidentally it does distinguish Grooveshark from YouTube, who do not, I think, have any comparable system.

      • Anonymous

        “it does distinguish Grooveshark from YouTube”

        David, I don’t know if your comment is aimed at my attack on Google.

        If so, it should be noted that Google Search and YouTube have very different approaches to piracy:

        While Google Search is the world’s leading piracy portal today, YouTube solved almost all of its infringement issues when it introduced ContentID in 2009 in order to survive the Viacom case.

        However, YouTube Music Key will be the end of ContentID for thousands of artists that don’t sign Google’s new controversial YouTube contract.

        This means that YouTube is back at square one and that it will be exactly as criminal as it was before 2009 — perhaps even more: Back in the Viacom days, Google claimed it couldn’t prevent piracy. But it can’t use that defense today. ContentID does exists.

        So this is a new Viacom case waiting to happen…

  5. Vincent "The Shark" DiTrizio

    I off’d your brother back in 2008?


  6. Anonymous

    Evidently the above comments were made by individuals that never enjoyed Grooveshark and all it had to offer.

    • Anonymous

      I wish there was a way to have a Grooveshark service that is licensed.

      • jw

        Yeah, it’s called Spotify.

        The Grooveshark catalog was terribly unreliable… mislabeled songs, incomplete albums, out of wack track ordering… if you were a Grooveshark fan, you should be over the moon for Spotify or Rdio.

        • izzy

          from a former user – that was the charm of Grooveshark. It also has bootlegs/studio sessions/outtakes etc that Spotify et al will never have.

          • Anonymous

            “It also has bootlegs”

            Ah, more ammo for the prosecutor! 🙂

  7. Anonymous


    • some guy

      (facepalm) might as well throw out the entire internet with that attitude

      • Anonymous

        You’ve been trolled by a pirate, my friend. 🙂

        And don’t worry — Spotify is indeed absolutely worthless for artists, but nobody thinks it’s a criminal corporation.

      • Anonymous

        Sounds like a plan!!!

        Burn the Internet to the ground.
        So musicians can be free!
        We will make a lotta money.
        And have a big party!

        • Anonymous

          Yes, yes — we get it, you want to sound like an artist. 🙂 But you don’t seem to know what we’re like.

          So let me help you out:

          * Artists are more tech savvy than pirates. We have to be. Most of us work with technology all day.

          * Artists use the internet more than pirates. You guys just use it to transfer stolen files. We use it for work in ways you can’t even begin to understand. So it’s fair to say we also love it more than you do.

          If we lost the internet, we would lose our jobs. If you lost the internet, you would just lose your porn and your Spiderman movies.

          Now you a bit about us, feel free to use it the next time you wish to portray an evil musician.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t slander me. I’m not a dirty pirate.

            Let’s be honest. The Internet has fucked over the music industry, and every pill and potion to make the Internet work for us thus far has FAILED. Maybe the Internet will work in the future, but I am not holding my breath.

          • Anonymous

            “I’m not a dirty pirate”

            You’re sure as hell not an artist, either. The internet is the best thing that happened to musicians since Les Paul, legislation and enforcement just can’t keep up at the moment.

          • Anonymous

            The internet is the best thing that happened to musicians since Les Paul

            Bullshit. Seriously, lay off the Google kool-aid.

            legislation and enforcement just can’t keep up at the moment.

            IT NEVER HAS. The Internet wasn’t created decades ago, yet there never has been a single minute of that time where been working to fuck over the artist.

          • Anonymous

            “The Internet wasn’t created decades ago”

            I give up, you’re weird — bye.

    • Anonymous


      Hm, you sound like a silly old pirate… 🙂

        • Anonymous

          Just sayin’ you need to take it down a notch if you wish to come across as an evil artist. Less is more, you know…

          • Anonymous

            “Evil artist”????? PANDORA and SPOTIFY, GOOGLE and the rest of the SillyCon Valley crew are the evil ones. Do you work for them?

          • Anonymous

            I think most of us can agree that Google is evil — I mean, it steals our work — but Spotify? 🙂

            Useless to artists yes, evil no…

          • Anonymous

            Mr. Ek looks evil to you? 🙂

            Again, Spotify is indeed worthless for artists. But here’s the difference between Spotify and Google:

            With Spotify you have a choice!

          • Anonymous

            Spotify is screwing over the industry. We should back to CDs.

  8. Allison Bricker

    Such a shame some still fail to grasp there is no stopping the stream. From PirateBay to Icelandic streaming servers free from the fascist US copyright board, the writing is on the wall: Musicians will have to work harder to make money, ergo the days of releasing an album and collecting payment via the old system is dead. (OMG you mean artists have to work tirelessly like the rest of the People?? Cry me a river. The Outrage!

    Those who realize the blue collar bootstrap work ethic such as Dave Grohl, Less Than Jake, the entirety of Fat Wreck Chords, realize the money is in touring, playing intimate gigs, and rocking out like a boss until the cows come home.

    Moreover, the bed-wetters who bemoan streaming, file sharing et al merely wind up souring their fans.

    So here is to good quality music over corporate label sugar pop, excising the dinosaur record labels from the equation, and hard working musicians.

    Figure it out or get a day job.

    • Anonymous

      Hehe, this is really a threat to you guys, eh…

      But don’t get me wrong, I do understand: All your heroes turned out to be common criminals — first the Pirate Bay junkies, then Mr. Dotcom and now the mighty shark. Too smart to get caught, too big to fall…

      Bummer. 🙁

      • Allison Bricker

        Um Kim Dot Com relaunched Mega and New Zealand kicked out the FEDs last year.

        Pirate Bay is still up and running mirrored throughout the cloud, remaining untraceable.

        Radiohead frpnt man Thom Yorke released his solo album through BitTorrent last Friday.

        So you may want to get your facts straight before attempting to troll.

        • Anonymous

          “Kim Dot Com relaunched Mega”

          Um, no he didn’t. He launched a new company called Mega. His old criminal company, MegaUpload — you know the organized crime site that was too big to fall — is d.e.a.d! Mega is not a problem. If it’s going to be a problem, it’ll die too.

          The Pirate Bay it’s still up but you can’t say the same about its founders — you know the convicted criminals we’re discussing here — and Mr. Yorke certainly didn’t do anything wrong, let alone illegal, when he released his new album.

          Then again, I understand what you’re going through. The disappointment. The grief. What’s happening to the world you once knew?

          But you’ll get over it.

        • Dan

          “Pirate Bay is still up and running mirrored throughout the cloud, remaining untraceable.”

          Except it isn’t untraceable – that what those thieving wankers Peter Sunde and Gottfried Savthom (or whatever the little shits name is) thought – guess where they are? Yes that’s right in JAIL. Guess where Kim Dot Com is heading? Yep JAIL.

          Governments are starting to work out that the music (and film and other creative industries) are worth protecting. Enjoy your little moment in the sun along with your thieving friends because sooner or later YOU WILL GET CAUGHT.

          Grooveshark was found on theft, continued to steal and guess what – THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT.

          Fuck off back to Torrentfreak you pathetic Freetard

          • Anonymous

            Agree with everything you say.

            Plus: Now we know it’s impossible for identifiable persons to run corporations like MegaUpload and Grooveshark. Everybody said this was impossible a few years ago, so that’s fantastic!


            1) Block industrial piracy sites like the Pirate bay, and
            2) Find the organized criminals that operate them.

      • Anonymous

        Er yes, we heard you the other 14 times. 🙂 Please give it up, artists don’t hate the internet. We love it. Couldn’t live without it.

        We just don’t like thieves…

        • Anonymous

          How do I know you are an artist and not a Google/Spotify shill?

  9. Mr G

    “Grooveshark owes 5,977 x $150,000 to its victims.”

    That math isn’t right. It will be based on each time those songs were streamed…

    • Anonymous

      “That math isn’t right”

      Yes, it is — damages can’t exceed $150,000 per song (won’t be any less either since it is willful infringement).

      So we’re looking at $1bn, give or take…

  10. Ms Poon

    hello legal experts,

    How many lawsuits have been filed against Escape / Grooveshark?
    How much do these lawsuits cost?
    Who pays for them?

    Is there any possibilty of jail time?

    • Anonymous

      “Is there any possibilty of jail time?”

      Yes, five years in prison. Damages up to $150,000 per song, fines up to $250,000 per infringement, plus court costs and attorney fees.

      This is a case of industrial piracy so max penalties are expected.

  11. ferb

    It’s a civil case, so no jail time. The company will probably go into receivership quickly because it can’t make money if the site is shut down. The founders would have known that this case was a loser for years and they were probably taking tons of cash out of the company for their personal gain. They probably spent the last year hiding assets. Maybe Grooveshark’s shareholders sue them over this. Maybe not. They’ll fight any judgement against them for years. In the end, they’ll pay a little, but the labels will never put them in the poor house. Think Michael Robertson of He was found liable for an amount that is way more than his net worth. was a very long time ago. He is still a very rich man. He will always be a very rich man.