Comments on: Q&A With Grooveshark, Where ‘Everybody Gets Paid’ For Sharing Music

By: Kallahann

Kallahann — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:30:38 +0000

Groove shark is Awesome http://www.reverbnation.com/hannmusic

By: Nikko Gibler

Nikko Gibler — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:48:00 +0000

I recently started to use Grooveshark to make themed playlists that I then post on my blog for my readers to listen to. I think Grooveshark is great but I haven’t really used it to either upload or download any music. I stick with streaming and if I am not mistaken, that is not a gray area. Right? Check out the way I post my playlists here… There’s only 2 right now.. But be sure to listen…. You very well may enjoy it!

http://gibler.wordpress.com/category/playlist-2/

By: Nogoodpunk42

Nogoodpunk42 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

i’m still cautious about legality. “…proper arrangements have been made to ensure that we are a legal service.”
I mean I could say “I’m the king of England” but that doesn’t make it so. I’ll be waiting to see/hear more.

By: soulxtc

soulxtc — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

@Nogoodpunk42
From what he’s told me its legit. The beauty is is that there’s really no “risk” from a users perspective in that Grooveshark would be liable not the user. It’s a US-based company so they’ve gone to great lengths to make sure that it’s on the up and up.

I think the record labels like it because they’re getting a bigger cut of tunes than they do with iTunes. Plus they’re getting a cut of downloaded tracks that may not have been legally purchased allowing them to actually make a profit from piracy.

By: Trunk

Trunk — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Uhhhhh 100% legal for whatever 3rd tier labels Grooveshark has managed to sign up. None of the major labels have touched them with a 10 foot pole. It is most definitely NOT a legal service for ALL music. In fact it appears to be legal for about .025% of the global catalog.

And it’s not P2P either…it’s barely as sophisticated as Napster. All Grooveshark appears to be is a whole lot of hype…they have been out for a year and can’t even manage a release of their software?

By: brooksnt

brooksnt — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

@ 3

I understand your skepticism but I just wanted to clear a few things up.

Some of our biggest competitive advantages have yet to be mentioned. For strategic reasons we haven’t disclosed many details about features we offer and features that are being developed. We have spent countless hours pouring over the details and I assure you we have considered all the aspects you have mentioned.

Now with this in mind I want to respond to a couple statements you made.

“None of the major labels have touched them with a 10 foot pole.”

Interesting thought. Do you truly think the major labels would turn down an opportunity to earn money on previously pirated music? We are offering them a chance to earn revenue on music that will otherwise earn them NOTHING. I can’t even comprehend what sort of logic it would take to think that a business such as the music industry would not want to earn revenue on something it previously could not.

“And it’s not P2P either…it’s barely as sophisticated as Napster.”

This is not the case. Our P2P software was designed from the ground up and does not work the same as Napster. In fact we are more efficient than Napster. Aside from the fact that we’re legal all of the users on Grooveshark benefit from one another. Artists get paid. You get paid. Grooveshark gives people a reason to get music legally again–with all the best aspects of illegal p2p networks and none of the worst aspects of other legal music services (DRM restrictive catalogs no social environment).

“All Grooveshark appears to be is a whole lot of hype…they have been out for a year and can’t even manage a release of their software?”

We have designed from the ground up a system that solves a problem that the entire music industry has failed to solve in a decade. We did this in less than one year with a team the size of a local YMCA basketball team. That’s from nothing more than an idea to a working Beta launch.

-Nathan Thompson
nathan.thompson@grooveshark.com

By: CCSDUDE

CCSDUDE — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“everything from high-quality mp3′s upwards of 512 kb/s”

unless I’m somehow behind the times and mp3 iso standards have changed it’s a max of 320kbs

so what the hell is this PR stooge talking about?

By: brooksnt

brooksnt — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

We support all bitrates no matter how low or high for the formats we currently allow: mp3 OGG and FLAC. Also the bitrate for every song is transparent and available for the user to see allowing choice based on format and bitrate.

MP3 decoders are only required to be able to read 320kbps though mp3s can technically be 640kbps (though this is rare). The “standard” only requires decoding of the 320kbps maximum but it is possible to achieve higher bitrates.

-Nathan Thompson
nathan.thompson@grooveshark.com

By: meyou123

meyou123 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

It does sound like a decent propositionthough I have always considered a buck a song extremely high with all of the free p2p programs out there.

If free p2p did not exsist I may have a different view but it does. Still it does give someone a choice if they want a legal download service.

Though I for one and hoping that ad supported legal song downloading services take off rather than things like this.

By: brooksnt

brooksnt — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Don’t count us out yet.

You make a good point with the price issue. Unfortunately for us illegal networks are some of our biggest competition. But as I mentioned previously some of our biggest competitive advantages have yet to be mentioned. Just know that we have not overlooked price as a concern for those used to getting music from illegal networks and we do have an answer for this. For the time being we just want to prove that our concept will work.

But look forward to bigger better things a little further down the line.

Nathan Thompson
nathan.thompson@grooveshark.com