posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:24 AM
If I were Google or Apple I probably would have done the same thing. Even Grooveshark admits it operates in a "legal loophole" - hardly the best
footing for a serious business enterprise. RIAA has complained that the site hosts copyrighted music. Grooveshark's defense is that individual users
upload content and the site can't be held responsible for what they upload. Sorry, but that defense didn't work so good for all the P2P file-sharing
networks out there, like Napster and Kazaa, or even the torrent search engines which only
link to files uploaded by individuals (like
Isohunt).
I went to Grooveshark's site to see how available copyrighted music is, searched "Lady Gaga", and saw pretty much her entire discography available,
free of charge, copyrights be damned. Grooveshark's defense is "
We didn't upload this, blame 'teenybopper16',
She's the one who uploaded
this...".
It seems to me that Grooveshark has a problem with it's business model and is on unsure footing regarding the legality of the music it streams, and
they have to remedy this between themselves and the record labels. Blaming Google or Apple is just poor sportsmanship. Like I said, if I were Google
or Apple, I wouldn't touch this until everything was perfectly legal and above board.
Besides if Google wanted Grooveshark's business, it would have just
bought them, like they bought YouTube.
edit on 27-4-2011 by
Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)