Grooveshark sued by all four major record labels - Polidicks

[img]http://i.imgur.com/g58FS.png[/img] [quote]Music streaming service Grooveshark is now being sued by all four major record labels after EMI joined Universal, Sony and Warner in taking action against the company for failing to pay royalties. EMI was the only company with whom Grooveshark actually had a licensing deal, but has now filed a suit in the US against parent company Escape Media Group, saying that it has failed to make a single royalty payment. The site doesn't specify the damages that EMI is seeking, but according to reports it could be around $150,000 (£97,270). Grooveshark issued a statement saying that the matter was a "contract dispute" that would be resolved. Grooveshark's 35 million members are able to upload their own tracks to the streaming service's music library. This legally questionable practice means that Grooveshark often has to deal with take-down orders (under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to remove infringing contents within a specified time period, however the company is protected from being sued provided it complies with the order. This is the same defence that YouTube uses for video uploads. However, if a batch of internal emails between Grooveshark employees turn out to be authentic, it may need to make a lot more money from advertising that it currently does to pay its legal fees. In November last year, Universal Music Group filed a copyright lawsuit against Grooveshark in November after it obtained emails that showed that the employees of the music streaming service led an effort to post more than 113,000 pirated songs. One of the emails supposedly from Grooveshark's chairman Sina Simantob, said: "The only thing that I want to add is this: we are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels." You can read more of the internal emails, along with the full complaint here. Universal is looking for the maximum damages of $150,000 (£97,270) per song, which means that potential damages could run up to a ridiculous $17.1 billion (£11.1 billion). In December Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group followed suit.[/quote] If you ask me this is ridiculous, Grooveshark is to music what youtube is/was to videos and the sum of money they want is completely over the top, i mean £97,000 per song? If you don't know what grooveshark is, Its a web based music browser that lets you stream music and save it to playlists but now download tracks. Its a fantastic service which also supports new artists who upload their albums. [url]http://grooveshark.com/[/url] Ive been doing some research over the lawsuit and separate legal actions taken by individual artists (ie King crimson). Their DMCA takedown policy is exactly the same as Youtube, in that you file a complain and it gets taken down. However my point about the ridiculous sum of the lawsuit still stands.

What the fuck record labels? Take your heads out of your asses!

[QUOTE=Mixed Sources;34608386][img]http://i.imgur.com/g58FS.png[/img] If you ask me this is ridiculous, Grooveshark is to music what youtube is/was to videos and the sum of money they want is completely over the top, i mean £97,000 per song? If you don't know what grooveshark is, Its a web based music browser that lets you stream music and save it to playlists but now download tracks. Its a fantastic service which also supports new artists who upload their albums. [url]http://grooveshark.com/[/url][/QUOTE] This is an outrage! A travesty! Our freedom to communicate is being threaten- [quote]In November last year, Universal Music Group filed a copyright lawsuit against Grooveshark in November after it obtained emails that showed that the employees of the music streaming service led an effort to post more than 113,000 pirated songs. One of the emails supposedly from Grooveshark's chairman Sina Simantob, said: "The only thing that I want to add is this: we are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels."[/quote]

oh shit nvm lol [quote]In November last year, Universal Music Group filed a copyright lawsuit against Grooveshark in November after it obtained emails that showed that the employees of the music streaming service led an effort to post more than 113,000 pirated songs. One of the emails supposedly from Grooveshark's chairman Sina Simantob, said: "The only thing that I want to add is this: we are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels." You can read more of the internal emails, along with the full complaint here. [/quote]

[QUOTE=RichyZ;34608487]fuck record labels[/QUOTE] You're both retarded. Grooveshark Owes a ton of money. People get sued when that happens. Regardless the industry.

Excuse, but Groovewhat? Never heard of it.

[QUOTE=Maximo13;34608503]Excuse, but Groovewhat? Never heard of it.[/QUOTE] it's like [url]www.jukesy.com[/url] if you've ever heard of that. Its like youtubes music play-list feature, you make a play list and add songs to it and listen to them, you can't download them or anything like that, it just streams the music.

Never really used grooveshark much because I just downloaded my music off YouTube and put it in iTunes. But GS won't win this, we know this from other.. fallen companies :( mu

If Grooveshark dies I will too. It is all I use nowadays.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;34608487]fuck record labels[/QUOTE] yeah fuck all record labels because 4 major labels sued a company legitimately that makes all of them bad

One of the Grooveshark programmers graduated from my high school. He visited us for our programming senior exhibition, and gave us a bunch of free shit. He was also one of our judges for our presentation (and the only one to show up when I presented). Pretty cool guy, shame to see this happening to him.

Ha. They want 17 billion dollars. I want a job as a lawyer who estimates the price of fake damages.

[QUOTE=ketchup v2;34608633]If Grooveshark dies I will too. It is all I use nowadays.[/QUOTE] Grooveshark is the main reason i don't pirate music, If an album is good i will buy it after i have listened to it on grooveshark so i can have it wherever i go.

I moved to Grooveshark when Spotify went bad, guess I'll be looping back to YouTube videos now. :|

Spotify > Grooveshark

[QUOTE=BaconMan_lol;34608490]You're both retarded. Grooveshark Owes a ton of money. People get sued when that happens. Regardless the industry.[/QUOTE] The problem is the sum 17 billion, how the fuck would grooveshark EVER have stolen 17 billion in revenue? Or made any kind of money near that sum ever? The people responsible for paying that would be forced to pay for the rest of their lives. Even if there was a hundred of them

I doubt any small business could get away with some shit like that. "You stole my chocolate bar, $900,000 please."

Looks like the Black Mesa symbol.

[QUOTE=ijyt;34608690]I moved to Grooveshark when Spotify went bad, guess I'll be looping back to YouTube videos now. :|[/QUOTE] [url]www.jukesy.com[/url] seriously, much better than grooveshark imo.

Oh for fucks sake. I wish Grooveshark didn't do this stupid shit, and I wish the record labels weren't greedy fucking bastards. I really don't want to have to pay for spotify.

I don't really support the record labels, but Grooveshark is a dick too. With ads and their pro thing they're making money off of streaming other people's songs and doing virtually nothing else. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;34609009][url]www.jukesy.com[/url] seriously, much better than grooveshark imo.[/QUOTE] This is pretty good, if only because it has The Beatles. Grooveshark must have been sued or something, because there's no Beatles on there that isn't a cover and iirc Pink Floyd sued them so there's none of them either.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;34609009][url]www.jukesy.com[/url] seriously, much better than grooveshark imo.[/QUOTE] Powered by youtube? Fuck that. I love grooveshark because I can use it on my phone as well.

[QUOTE=a dumb bear;34609024]Oh for fucks sake. I wish Grooveshark didn't do this stupid shit, and I wish the record labels weren't greedy fucking bastards. I really don't want to have to pay for spotify.[/QUOTE] Just get Unlimited. It costs less than a hamburger meal from McDonalds per month.

[QUOTE=lunarwalrus;34609060] This is pretty good, if only because it has The Beatles. Grooveshark must have been sued or something, because there's no Beatles on there that isn't a cover and iirc Pink Floyd sued them so there's none of them either.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure grooveshark doesn't have The Beatles is because of legal issues and deals the band made with other companies.

I thought people either bought songs or pirated them, had no idea people bothered streaming it.

I knew Grooveshark was a bit dirty from the King Crimson case, which is a pretty interesting one to read about. But still, that's just a ridiculously stupid amount of money to sue them for.

This is a plot by Jukesy to take Grooveshark the fuck out, once and for all. I feel it in my heart.

I really think its time I buy that Alestorm shirt that has "SUPPORT MUSIC PIRACY" on the back

If I were grooveshark, if they get ordered to pay the fine that cripples them, I would publicly release the entire code and instructions on how to set it up. That way, the big media companies lose. Instead of there being one grooveshark, there could be several thousand.

fuck major music labels. stop suing single mums for millions, please.