Is Now One of the Largest Sites In Sweden…

  • Save

Sweden is famous for being the birthplace of Spotify.  But now, it’s becoming the re-birthplace for Grooveshark:

According to Alexa stats updated this morning, is now ranked 8,671 in Sweden, part of a rapid and continued global rise. is also surging in other countries like Spain, where the ranking is 17,742.  Other countries are also welcoming the new Grooveshark clone, including Colombia (12,046) and Israel (16,664).

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on a music industry that has spent tens of millions burying Grooveshark in court but somehow can’t make it go away.  In primetime mega-markets like the US, for example, is about to break the all-important 100,000-mark, a threshold already crossed in Euro-heavyweights like France, Germany, and the UK.

  • Save

The tenaciously resilient is believed to be the work of  a shadowy Grooveshark ex-employee, one determined to frustrate the major label cabal.  “So because we don’t have goldman [Sachs] paying $20 million to line the pockets [the major labels] just dug up some dirty emails and shut it down after running us dry,” the disgruntled ex wrote in a recent DMN op-ed.   “So you happy now music industry?  You just fucked yourselves over and made a problem that will be 10 times as bad that you can NEVER control.  And artists LOSE again.”

“and just so I can be 100% clear: GROOVESHARK WILL NEVER DIE!  I’m gonna make sure of that.”

26 Responses

    • Universal Indie Records

      Yes, you don’t need artists – who make the songs that you listen to in the first place. Got to love the logic and intelligence.

      Rocket scientist all.

  1. Anonymous

    8,671 isn’t exactly high. Pandora ranks 4,851 in China. Their service isn’t even available in China.

    • Vail, CO

      I just love how the RIAA has time to respond to DMN posts.

    • not a music mafioso

      cos the now jobless ex grooveshark employee is based outside of the US and the service is hosted via an anonymously registered lichenstein domain on a maylasian cloud service. Good luck major label mafiosi types even finding someone to sue to shut that down … shoot, foot, NOBs

    • edinlouis

      I cannot open this site today. Any problem with it? Has it been shut down already? Yesterday, I saw a people say that “it is better to choose a safe way to stream music”. Now I totally realize this sentence, it is better to utilize legal Grooveshark alternative sites.

  2. Anonymous

    Yeah, we don’t need all these industries any more than we need ‘artists’.

  3. wallow-T

    I keep saying this: The Internet plus the personal computer comprise a toolbox for making and distributing copies of files. There are a possibly infinite number of ways to assemble the pieces in that toolbox to make and distribute files.

    If one way gets blocked, another one will spring up. “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”

    • gs_forever

      we have to make money, I’m sure you can understand that.

      • Anonymous

        You can make money but artists can’t? Oh, ok.

  4. malware popups or redirects

    the site is under attack, use at your own risk lol

  5. FarePlay

    This is what happens when there are no consequences for your actions. It encourages people to carry on bad behavior; because why not? It sends a message that piracy is invicable. Besides everyone likes to win over the establishment, except in this case the estabishment is also the musician and songwriter, whether they are signed to a label or an indiependent..

    Until piracy, I was anti-regulation and anti-jail, now I understand that both are necessary.

    The tricky part is not to go to far with either.

  6. resurrect_gs

    I’m sick of hearing all the bs about digital music piracy. Before the internet, artists and music companies alike received just compensation through the sale of records, CDs, whatever physical manifestation was the norm, not to mention their share of concert revenue, and royalties from radio stations. People everywhere were able to record the music they (or someone) bought and PAID FOR onto cassette tapes, or later, burn that music to CDs so they could listen to their music in the car, or while they walked or jogged. They even shared their tapes or CDs with their friends and family. No one came after cassette tape or CD manufacturers crying because people were able to make copies of their music collection for their convenience. And they didn’t arrest people on the street with a walkman with a tape or CD in it.

    Along came computers and the internet and a way to digitize recordings, and users everywhere began creating mp3 files from the music that they (or someone) originally bought and PAID FOR at some point. They also decided to share those files, just like they used to share their tapes or CDs. Now the music industry is crying that people are making copies of music and giving them freely to anyone who wants to stream or download them, and they’re criminalizing the companies that make that possible.

    People still buy music, go to any FYE, they’re still buying CDs, hell, they’re even buying LPs again, and they’re buying mp3s online, or they’re paying “legitimate” online sites so they can stream the music they want. And the last time I checked, people still BUY tickets to go to concerts. Artists are not starving. Music companies still make millions. This is about music companies wanting to grab every last freaking fraction of a cent they think they are entitled to, from everyone who dares to use 21st century technology to listen to their favorite music. Enough already. This is 2015, enough technology exists to allow endless sharing of music files, again, that someone, at some point, actually BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. They’re crying about 0’s and 1’s that are floating around cyberspace, frustrated because they can’t do anything to stop it. Of course they can use they’re high powered lawyers to sue the hell out of any company that enables people to share those 0’s and 1’s, so the company and all the resources are blown to hell. That will teach them! Problem is, for every one site that is shut down, several more are created and found by people like me who will never stop listening to music online, no matter how many lawsuits those fools file.

    Let’s not even talk about the fact that shutting down GS did NOT mean that millions of fans suddenly gave up and started buying all the music they had in their GS playlists. Are they that delusional? Let’s talk about the real and most important reason that people like me loved GS so much, and the playlists we were able to put together. WE CAN’T FIND a lot of the music that we were able to find on GS, thanks to other people who freely shared that music, music that can’t be found anywhere else to BUY if we wanted to! I had so many songs that are from the 60s or 70s that are out of production, and cannot be found on any of the pay sites that I have searched, and I have tried! Obscure music in some cases, that were literally only found on GS, after searching the entire internet. No artist is going to get compensated for a song that is no longer on the market, in any form. Hell, I can’t even find some of them used online in album form, let alone CDs or mp3s.

    So are we just supposed to go to hell and get over it? So what if we never get to listen to those songs again, right? As long as those evil, illegal GS-like companies are busted up.

    I was smart enough to offline many of my collection, but GS was destroyed before I could offline it all, it takes awhile when you have a few thousand songs in your collection. I’ve been able to find most of them through the latest GS search sites, but not all of them. I will keep trying, on other sites (Youtube is working well), I am hoping GS users who uploaded them in the first place will continue to upload them elsewhere so they can all be resurrected. I was content before to just stream, and not actually download, all they’ve done by busting up GS is to encourage people to actually download songs so we have them no matter what, instead of just streaming them. Doesn’t that just make it worse, in their mind?

    I hope GS is fully resurrected some day, including all the content that used to be there. I know that despite the industry’s efforts to continue to stomp out sites that allow people to freely share music online, there will always be a way for people like me to find the music I love, music that someone, at some point, originally BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

    • AnonyX

      You speak for most of Us ! Once the music were SOLD it’s PUBLIC PROPERTY and So is GrooveShark.!! Shark is one of those top species that ESCAPE Extinction.

    • SupportArtists

      There is no justification for breaking the law, piracy in any form is illegal, no matter how you try to make excuses. Artists deserve to be compensated, and so do the production companies for making the music possible in the first place.

      If everyone just shared the latest release of a song freely over the internet, there would be hardly anyone who would have to “purchase it in the first place”, so how then would the copyright holders be compensated?

      There are plenty of legal sites where you can pay for your favorite songs, even older songs that aren’t produced anymore. No one has a right to steal songs just because the technology exists to do so.

      • AnonyX

        Well intent but not having the clarity of the concept or the issue of the problem. UNDERSTAND THIS, the real thieves are those that uses ‘technology’ initially in the case of the invention of cassettes, cds and dvds whatever for MASSIVE COPIES to make BILLIONS (at relatively no capital cost at all! no shortcoming what so ever!!) and then PREVENTING THAT SAME Facilitaties or Advantages of a similarly discovered Advance ‘Technology’ like THE INTERNET from the benefit and right usage of the People to share THEIR information BOUGHT or CREATED with everyone else.

        SO YOU SEE THEY CAN USE TECHNOLOGY FOR WHATEVER FOR THEIR BENEFIT AND WE ARE SUPPOSSEDLY ACCORDING TO THEM NOT TO ??! No artists are starving more than the ordinary people and consumers, this isn’t the mid 20th century. You think they weren’t paid their fees so that the Evil Record Companies will get to reap their sales ?? Think Clearly. It’s Just pure envy and greed in the guise of corrupted once righteous moral ethics and THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE.

      • resurrect_gs

        Again, I’m all for supporting the artists, and the production companies, giving them their fair dues, and I understand the problem with new releases. Obviously it wouldn’t be right for one person to buy one CD (or mp3s, whatever), then upload it to every free share site on the internet so everyone else can get it free. There has to be a balance. New releases of books are sent to libraries so people can read them for free, yet the authors are still compensated by other people who go to the store (or internet) and buy them.

        My main concern remains with songs from earlier decades that are almost impossible to find legitimately, songs that are out of production, “one-hit-wonders” and the like. Those artists and their record companies were justly compensated decades ago, long before the internet, many of them are dead and gone. Their work has become a part of society’s music culture, people deserve the right to access that music freely, if it is out of production. If we can’t go to a store and buy it, and someone else has a copy of it, they should have a right to freely share it so we can access it.

        Grooveshark offered the ultimate music sharing experience, the ability to search for specific songs we like, and to create playlists to organize and play those songs any time we want. Other sites let you search for a song, then offer up similar sounding songs to listen to, like a radio station. Worthless!! We may as well just listen to the radio.

        The music industry needs to reach a balanced compromise so listeners can freely access specific songs that are not readily available in the general market, and allow companies like Grooveshark to exist to facilitate that sharing, just like libraries exist to facilitate the free sharing of written work.

  7. dealer666

    The act of piracy can only be considered if they receive a payment for that act!

    When a song or a movie is shared it can not be considered piracy because then sites like youtube would have to be closed.

    When a record agency put something on youtube they have to do that as a company , they have to pay to keep it running but I can also download the video.

    I ask me if in this case they will not be doing piracy because of the income they receive from youtube when we click on that link, but then they answer us that only are sharing music or movie.

    Sorry for my english , but I am Portuguese and I use a translator to make the comment . Goodbye and see you soon .

    • resurrect_gs

      Unfortunately, the giants in the music (and video) production industry get to not only make their billions, they also get to make the rules, with their influence on lawmakers, and the courts. So THEY get to define piracy. In their mind, piracy (let’s just discuss online piracy) is the act of, not only downloading, but even listening to music (or watching videos) online without paying for it in some fashion so that the copyright holders get every little penny they can their hands on.

      I say “listening to”, because Grooveshark allowed users to find and listen to songs shared by others without actually downloading a “physical” file to their own network or device. The production companies would not even stand for that!! We can listen to songs available on the radio for free (I may never buy anything from the advertisers that pay the radio station), that’s OK, but we can’t listen to the same songs online for free. What kind of logic is that??? I’ll tell you why, because “Big Music” is a multibillion dollar industry that has the ability to crush companies like Grooveshark through the courts, just because they can’t make any money off them. Pay up or die. Sounds a lot like extortion to me.