It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Google and Apple Blatantly Lie About Grooveshark Ban

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:53 AM
Some of you may be familiar with streaming music site Grooveshark, which allows user uploads but contends that it is legal and policies violations. Recently, Google and Apple both removed the Grooveshark app from their mobile stores, claiming that the site is a major violator of copyright law.

Now, it's no secret that both companies are developing their own streaming "cloud" music services. Another thing which is no secret is that Grooveshark is operating in a legal loophole -- but it has successfully not only remained operational, but attracted major sponsorships from extremely reputable corporations, and continuously improved its interface and library, over the last several years. Calling it an illegal service is a matter of opinion at best, and in context, it's more like what you might call a damn lie.

Now it turns out that Google is rumored to be in talks with Spotify, a European service highly similar to Grooveshark, which it has largely locked out of that market.

Google Cloud Music? – Rumors Of Partnership Talks Between Spotify and Google

Google accused of hypocrisy on Grooveshark ban

Grooveshark Insists It's Legal; Points Out That Using DMCA Safe Harbors Is Not Illegal

Lie might be too kind of a word. If you ask me, this is propaganda. They are trying to scare people away from free services which are, and have been for many years, perfectly legal to use, even if they might not always and forever remain so, and even if some people really wish they weren't.

They want people to think paying their monthly fees on top of the cost of the amount of money which just so happens to add up to right around the same amount of revenue that has been lost since people became unwilling to fork over twenty bucks for one single and eight other pieces of overproduced safer, better -- fitter, healthier, more productive...

You can still get the Grooveshark app, by the way. Just not through the Android or Apple markets.
edit on 27-4-2011 by sepermeru because: edit button likes my hair this way

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:36 AM
edit on 27-4-2011 by sepermeru because: (no reason given)

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)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Can you explain why companies like EA Games are perfectly comfortable sponsoring Grooveshark, which has been operating for many years? Why did Apple and Google allow the app to stay up for months, until right before they launch their own music services? How do these things square up with the claim that they only care about the legality?

And again, "legal loophole" means legal. It's a way of saying "legal" that manipulates the listener into thinking there is some category of illegal that is also legal. Otherwise, Apple, Google and every other major corporation would be in a lot of trouble, because every single one of them uses legal but shady means to save money when they file their taxes.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:10 PM
get Tinyshark instead... works jsut as well

2nd line

top topics

log in