from Hacker News

The Grooveshark Settlement [pdf]

by hxn on 5/3/15, 5:59 AM with 51 comments

  • by legutierr on 5/3/15, 11:54 AM

    Two thoughts on this.

    First:

    I was an occasional user of Grooveshark, and whenever I used the service (which had a brilliant UI, by the way) I found myself wondering how they could still be operating, given that they weren't licensed by the major labels. It felt like Napster in a web app, only more centralized (and thus, easier to take down, one would think).

    Well, the answer seems to be that they have been fighting the major labels in the court this whole time (~5 years). Unlike maybe everyone else who has faced up against the major labels, Grooveshark forced them to fight. When the labels didn't give them a licensing deal, and told them to stop operating, Grooveshark responded, "Make us."

    They created their tech, built a loyal following, grew their business, all the while fighting this lawsuit. In the end, the only thing that stopped them from pursuing their vision was a judges' order. This settlement seems to be a judge-mediated settlement of only the damages portion of the trial after liability had been established. It seems that the judge ruled against Grooveshark by summary judgement in September, which means they have known for more than 7 months that this was inevitable. They shut down their service 2 days ago.

    People have called Grooveshark "shady", and many people believe that their business model was "illegal". Both adjectives may be accurate descriptions. I think the best adjective to describe these guys, however, is "gutsy".

    Second:

    The front-end system that Grooveshark built, which is the best that I have used for music playback and discovery, is now jointly owned by the major labels. They cannot possibly be short-sighted enough just to throw that away. Will we see Grooveshark resurrected as a label-owed alternative to Spotify, et al? Will they try to maintain any portion of the Grooveshark organization, especially the engineering team? Again, they would be foolish not to try, although maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

  • by FreakyT on 5/3/15, 1:42 PM

    It's really unfortunate that they were taken down. Sure, there exist paid services like Spotify, but when there's only licensable content you miss out on all weird obscure stuff that Grooveshark had, like video game soundtracks, chiptunes, and international music not licensed abroad.

    If only every one of these large record labels could just instantly go out of business, simultaneously. That would be wonderful...

  • by Osaka on 5/3/15, 9:20 AM

    I'm curious to know what will happen with all the user data on their systems. There was a site floating around which allowed you to access your playlist information just by entering your account email. I assume that was old public data.

    And with services like this, is there any threat to users who access 'illegal' material?

  • by Vintila on 5/3/15, 10:42 AM

    I find it interesting that by virtue of point 5, they are not allowed to open source anything related to Grooveshark. Unless I'm interpreting it wrong.
  • by acaloiar on 5/3/15, 7:00 PM

    Can anyone comment on the potential implications for Apple iTunes, Google Play Music, and Amazon Prime Music? Each of these services allow users to upload content from their personal libraries. As far as I know, these services make no technological effort to assert the users' ownership of the content. Rather, I assume their Terms of Service mandate content ownership prior to uploading. Do their TOSs protect them from the complaint levied by the Plaintiffs in the Groovershark case stating that Groovershark was: "liable for direct and secondary infringement of certain of the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works;". Was Grooveshark's TOS materially different than that of the services mentioned above?

    If I were to illegally upload a copyrighted work to Prime, iTunes, or Play; would I expose the parent companies to any liability or is the legal onus entirely on me as the user infringing on the TOS?

  • by therobot24 on 5/3/15, 8:56 AM

    50 mil...ouch
  • by arihant on 5/3/15, 12:00 PM

    The message they posted a day before this settlement - http://grooveshark.com/

    I'm confused, didn't Grooveshark just provided aggregation and a streaming player with playlist management? The music was not hosted by Grooveshark right?

  • by darylyu on 5/3/15, 3:17 PM

    Is there a tl;dr version in simple English?