We use the label's songs till we get a 100m uniques, by which time we can tell the labels who is listening to their music where, and then turn around and charge them for the very data we got from them, ensuring that what we pay them in total for streaming is less than what they pay us for data mining.
This part doesn't quite make sense to me. Besides being news to me that this is their business model, how could it possibly be that UMG is willing to pay more for the data about a song play than they charge for that play?
I think the data helps determine terrestrial radio playlists - it's what made last.fm an attractive acquisition. It may also help with targeting certain demographics and geographics with music in advertising, tv and film.
I hope you aren't upset about this revelation.The quality of their service is pretty high, I don't recall ads, nor do I recall having to pay a subscription fee.
If you are discomfited by it, take comfort knowing that the only reason they get money for it is they are selling the amalgamation of what thousands (millions?) of listeners chose; from the sound of it, you are going to be completely invisible among the masses.
"$271,350,000" Wow. And all they had to do was read a comment on a blog post. If I didn't know any better (I'm not sure I do), I'd say piracy is big business for the entertainment industry.
News at 5! Grooveshark co-conspirator pavel_lishin releases shock claims that CEO waterboarded helpless orphan child whilst stealing money from legitimate artists! More to follow.
Am I the only one who noticed that Custer claimed he wouldn't fight Universal in the press... in a statement released to the press including his arguments as to why Universal is wrong?
I'm willing to support just about anyone who is taking on the record labels, but don't claim you won't fight Universal in the press right after doing so and scolding your opponents for doing so as well. That's just hypocritical.
Here in Canada I can't use Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, or Amazon's thing without jumping through hoops and proxies, and I'm just too old and lazy for such shenanigans now.
Grooveshark has me as a customer for life whether the labels want want to play nice with them or not. The only alternatives we have are Rdio, Slacker, and maybe a couple of others. None of them are nearly as good as Grooveshark. Grooveshark's biggest drawback is having to jailbreak to get their iOS app, and that's not something they have control over. Major points to them for developing it anyway for a smaller jailbreak audience.
Are you willing to pay $10 a month for GrooveShark once they are forced to change their business model?
Pardon the pessimism, but I don't recall any online music service that didn't negotiate with the labels first surviving these lawsuits. Though maybe I am forgetting one that is still around and going strong?
If Universal shuts down Grooveshark they set a precedent that can get Youtube shutdown, because they are run on the same model. Users upload content, Grooveshark removes content and users when they get DMCA complaints.
I don't think the YouTube analogy works here, because YouTube's main focus was never to be an online music service. That is Grooveshark's sole purpose and is marketed as. There are many music services that allowed that same thing and are no longer around like muxtape for example.
Also the wild west that YouTube was is no longer, as they pay they labels. Maybe Grooveshark won't go the way of all the other unlicensed music services & they'll negotiate the proper licenses to remain in business?
If that happens their model will be like Spotify and the others(pay monthly fee for mobile access). Though will it's users stick around or jump ship to what service I'm not sure? I don't know of any other Grooveshark like services as the press only covers Spotify, MOG and Rdio these days.
Sure, but the masses are not listening to the unknown bands. They are listening to the best talent in the world which the labels find, cultivate, market and create icons out of - ones that the MASSES follow, love and adore.
Further the majority (Grooveshark's users/visitors) are there to listen to the label's music not the unknowns. Now if the unknowns are really good then they'll get a record deal because they want to be heard by as many as possible (become famous).
Just like us entrepreneurs wisely seek out investment to grow our businesses artist do the same with the labels. Some artists could say "I hate the labels they will never sign me!" Though once that artist gets a following and a taste for money/fame they'll change their mind! They'd be foolish not to!
The same could be said for YouTube. It was primarily the Lazy Sunday video from SNL, along with some other major production videos, that made YouTube popular. It was only after the service saw success that the user-generated videos became interesting to the masses. They came for the major label productions, but stayed for the home movies.
But that is, of course, the fear of Grooveshark. The masses come to hear Lady Gaga's latest single, but they just might stumble upon an independent that they enjoy while they are there. That discovery leads to wanting to find more, and eventually the major labels, like in video today, become even less relevant. Grooveshark has already started promoting bands I have never heard of, and I'll usually give them a chance when I am there.
There's a timing game being played here that YouTube already won, and which I think GrooveShark are about to lose.
Both YouTube and GrooveShark bet that they'd be able to (quasi-illegally) host major production content without the owners' consent until some derivative (in YouTube's case, raw audience combined with ad revenue and in GrooveShark's case apparently metrics) gave them enough value and/or capital to strike deals with legitimate content owners.
YouTube won; they were able to push enough traffic to entice labels into partnering with them for a revenue-generating service (VEVO), and were subsequently able to begin enforcing the DMCA aggressively via automated tooling combined with an easy takedown process for labels.
I think GrooveShark are about to lose. So far, labels seem less interested in making deals with them than in destroying them, and I highly doubt they have enough legitimate content to survive. They didn't make it past the "host infringing content for long enough to generate value" inflection point quickly enough.
It's also worth noting that it's possible to host a much wider variety of independent / user-generated content which is actually interesting on a "video site" than a "music site." "Video" encompasses an incredible range of content (including music!), while "music" is a single content type with a much narrower range of producers. Many more people have cute kids, athletic talent, cool cars, funny pets, and so on than have musical talent.
It is a nice ideal, but I highly doubt that is the fear of Grooveshark. If that was the fear, they would have sued Myspace out of existence back in its heyday (which they probably could have, tons of pirated content was there). But they embraced it. A quick perusal of http://grooveshark.com/#/explore/popular shows that Universal Music Group artists are by far the most played, and UMG doesn't see a cent of that. I think that is the fear, a well justified one even it is trying to hold onto a dying business. Occam's Razor and all.
Eh, there's a first time for anything. Maybe it'll finally take a company with more guts than brai^H^H^H^Hbusiness acumen to finally stand up to these bullies.
Irrelevant, irritating, LOUD ads played in between movements of a single piece that are tied together. It's really irritating to be listening to something and have Spotify suddenly SCREAM at me the lyrics to some country song about taking my clothes off that I would NEVER be interested in, which Spotify would know if they could be bothered to look at my listening history, or even my last.fm account, both of which they can see. That said, I still use it to listen to music I haven't yet purchased.
I'm amazed how stupid spotify's (and all other free music services') ads are. Haven't they heard of contextual advertising? I'm listening to Kings of Leon, sell me KoL t-shirts, have them talk about their gold plated vinyl record, sell me wristbands with their lyrics on them. Nooooooooo, here's Rihanna's latest single. Enjoy!
It's like no one told them you don't have to exactly copy the old school radio advertising model.
I have no problem paying with my time. I just wish they would have me pay with my time by listening to stuff I don't despise with a passion normally reserved for Hell and all Montagues.
My breaking point is that their library doesn't have the music I want to listen to. I own a lot of Rammstein albums, and if I can't have those on my mobile playlist, I'm not going to bother.
(Yes, I can have it pull music from iTunes, but then I'm having to manage two separate libraries, one of which could disappear overnight as a result of a court ruling. The odds of that happening are greater than all of my backups suddenly vanishing.)
This. This is exactly why I do not ever use Spotify. Ever. I downloaded it, installed it, then noticed I needed a Facebook account and never looked back.
This part doesn't quite make sense to me. Besides being news to me that this is their business model, how could it possibly be that UMG is willing to pay more for the data about a song play than they charge for that play?