Last October, on a Digital Music News post, an anonymous commenter claiming to be a Grooveshark employee stated that company employees at every level actively upload copyright-infringing content to the Grooveshark service. In the six months since, Grooveshark has been slammed with law suits from all four major labels, as well as attacked by large indie distributors and other groups for their anti-artist business practices.
We’ve been watching this ever since last fall with great dismay. If you look through the evidence being presented against the company in Universal Music’s lawsuit, it’s hard to deny that the company’s behavior has repeatedly harmed artists, whether intentionally or not, by blatantly ignoring their rights.
In response to all the heat, Grooveshark founder & CEO Sam Tarantino did an interview last week with Evolver.fm’s Elliot Van Burskirk on the 6 reasons why he thinks recorded music should be free. While we certainly don’t agree with quite a few of his assertions—in particular that touring is unilaterally more lucrative for artists than recorded music—we wanted to open it up to you guys to hear your thoughts. Here are his 6 reasons:
1. Record labels want too much money
2. Musicians already get paid more by touring anyway
3. The music business is too slow and partially broken
4. Grooveshark is modeled on early YouTube (the one that got sued)
5. Grooveshark complies with takedown notices [Ed. note: This is debatable]
6. Grooveshark’s ad platform can boost an unknown band to 500k views in 3 weeks
What do you think? Are these legitimate excuses for Grooveshark not to pay the artists whose work is the foundation of their business? Or do you think this argument merits consideration? If you’re an artist, how do you feel about the way this company treats the artistic community? Let us know your thoughts!
Donate
Blog
Notes From a Healthy
Music Ecosystem
About
Our thoughts on the music industry, our artists and our work to create better opportunities for those who love and create music.
Recent Articles
Cateogories
The Grooveshark Debate: What Do You Think?
Last October, on a Digital Music News post, an anonymous commenter claiming to be a Grooveshark employee stated that company employees at every level actively upload copyright-infringing content to the Grooveshark service. In the six months since, Grooveshark has been slammed with law suits from all four major labels, as well as attacked by large indie distributors and other groups for their anti-artist business practices.
We’ve been watching this ever since last fall with great dismay. If you look through the evidence being presented against the company in Universal Music’s lawsuit, it’s hard to deny that the company’s behavior has repeatedly harmed artists, whether intentionally or not, by blatantly ignoring their rights.
In response to all the heat, Grooveshark founder & CEO Sam Tarantino did an interview last week with Evolver.fm’s Elliot Van Burskirk on the 6 reasons why he thinks recorded music should be free. While we certainly don’t agree with quite a few of his assertions—in particular that touring is unilaterally more lucrative for artists than recorded music—we wanted to open it up to you guys to hear your thoughts. Here are his 6 reasons:
1. Record labels want too much money
2. Musicians already get paid more by touring anyway
3. The music business is too slow and partially broken
4. Grooveshark is modeled on early YouTube (the one that got sued)
5. Grooveshark complies with takedown notices [Ed. note: This is debatable]
6. Grooveshark’s ad platform can boost an unknown band to 500k views in 3 weeks
What do you think? Are these legitimate excuses for Grooveshark not to pay the artists whose work is the foundation of their business? Or do you think this argument merits consideration? If you’re an artist, how do you feel about the way this company treats the artistic community? Let us know your thoughts!