Slashdot Mirror


Grooveshark Shuts Down

An anonymous reader writes: Grooveshark, one of the most popular music streaming websites, has announced that they are shutting down immediately. Several lawsuits from the record companies pushed the company out of business. In a notice posted on the Grooveshark website, its two founders said, "[D]espite best of intentions, we made very serious mistakes. We failed to secure licenses from rights holders for the vast amount of music on the service. That was wrong. We apologize. Without reservation." All of their music has been deleted, and the site itself now belongs to the record companies. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds that according to the settlement (PDF), Grooveshark must pay $50 million, but no money judgment has been entered against individual defendants.

10 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Now where will I find a shark, that also grooves? by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Best I can do now is a shark that can slow dance. It's just not the same.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  2. Best of intentions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite best of intentions, we made very serious mistakes. We failed to secure licenses from rights holders for the vast amount of music on the service.

    Huh? Surely it can't be best of intentions if you publish music on your service for which you know you don't have proper licenses.

    1. Re:Best of intentions by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyone with some legal experience able to clarify this? Given that grooveshark wasn't...exactly...apologetic about their strategy(nor has it changed all that much), my assumption is that the sudden shift to grovelling-apology-mode has much more to do with losing than it does with any change of heart.

      Do courts give grovelling apologies enough weight that this 'contrition' is a logical strategy to try to reduce any awards of damages? Are such apologies sometimes added as conditions of a settlement, presumably so that the victor can grind the vanquished further into the dirt? Is there some other advantage to issuing one?

  3. Wait what? by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We failed to secure licenses from rights holders for the vast amount of music on the service.

    But you still continued? Good plan there.

  4. Re:K Bye. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who said they are getting to walk away with just an apology? Their statement includes:

    “As part of a settlement agreement with the major record companies, we have agreed to cease operations immediately, wipe clean all of the record companies’ copyrighted works and hand over ownership of the website, our mobile apps and intellectual property, including our patents and copyrights.”

    Note the "as part of a settlement agreement ..." part - which indicates that shutting down operations isn't the end of it for them.

  5. Corporations are people too by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except without all that silly permanence when things go wrong.

    As long as the founders played the corporation game right, they have no personal liability at stake. A corporation is just like a person, except that when a corporation violates a law which would burden it for life, or financially destroy it, it magically disintegrates leaving the real people who ran it into the ground clean and unencumbered by their wrongdoing.

    There are good reasons for the existence of corporations; this isn't one of them.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  6. Re:K Bye. by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They didn't quite get to 'just walk away'. They were given a choice, an impossibly high fine to pay or hand over all their patents, copyrights, infrastructure, software, basically everything while very publicly scraping the ground about how wrong what they did was.

    Essentially, they had something of value that was interesting to the plaintiffs that was bigger than their realistic chances at getting actual money out of them.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  7. Re:K Bye. by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if the music companies were smart, they'd continue to operate the site

    "we shut down the pirates! that will end this threat once and for all!"

    (two weeks later, 20 more sites)

    it should have been:

    "this is a popular site. now that we own it we will modify it slightly so that we derive some revenue from it while not pissing off the listeners, thus gracefully transitioning to a new distribution model that listeners desire"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  8. Re:Try again... 4? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do people think all this music is Free?

    Might I remind you that our app stores are slam full of Free apps, which is the price that the users today demanded.

    You know, apps like Pandora...that users can download and install without charge and listen to thousands of hours of music.

    I'd say it's pretty fucking obvious why users think music is free. The industry is presenting it that way.

  9. Re:Try again... 4? by damicatz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Stealing is the taking of property with the intention of depriving the owner of the use of said property.

    Copying a piece of music is not stealing because it does not suddenly disappear from the hard drive of the musician or render the musician unable to perform it.