TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal

Last month, Grooveshark’s music app was removed from the Android Marketplace by Google at the request of the RIAA. Following claim and counterclaim about Grooveshark’s legality or otherwise, the company has announced that if necessary they will take their fight to court and to Congress. “Let’s set the record straight,” they insist. “There is nothing illegal about what Grooveshark offers to consumers.”

grooveshark androidIn early April, Google removed Grooveshark’s music app from the Android Marketplace. While not initially confirmed, fingers were immediately pointed at the major record labels as the only groups with the power to influence such a decision.

Google were tight-lipped, saying only that the company removes products that violate their terms and conditions. Last year, however, Grooveshark’s app was removed from Apple’s store on the same grounds. It was later confirmed that Apple had received a complaint from Universal Music.

Perhaps inevitably, some observers have added these two events together and come to the conclusion that if Apple and mighty Google both have issues with Grooveshark there must be a pressing legal issue with the service.

Not according to Senior VP of Information Products at Grooveshark, Paul Geller. In a statement responding to the “misleading press” created by the company’s “detractors and competitors”, he insists that his company’s product and operations are entirely legal.

“Google hasn’t specified what it was in their ‘Terms of Service’ that we allegedly violated, but there does appear to be some confusion about whether Grooveshark is a legal service,” Geller first told Digital Music News.

“So let’s set the record straight: there is nothing illegal about what Grooveshark offers to consumers.”

Geller goes on to clarify the difference between a ‘legal’ service and one that is ‘licensed’.

“Laws come from Congress. Licenses come from businesses,” he explains. “Grooveshark is completely legal because we comply with the laws passed by Congress, but we are not licensed by every label (yet).”

According to Geller, Grooveshark is a technology company, and one which operates firmly within the boundaries of the DMCA.

“Some would have you believe that those of us who use the DMCA to innovate are inherently infringers and that claiming Safe Harbor under the DMCA is as good as admitting guilt. Not so,” he insists.

Geller suggests that the DMCA’s Safe Harbor provision was put in place to allow companies like YouTube (and indeed Grooveshark) to innovate and create ways around the problems being suffered by the content industries.

“If it weren’t for this notion, many of the products and services that are now taking a bite out of piracy would never have been born,” he notes.

On licensing, Geller says that Grooveshark has agreements with thousands of labels all over the world and also pays the three largest US performing rights organizations.

“We pay for our streams, and we actively negotiate with virtually every single content owner,” says Geller.

“We’ve taken down over 1.76 million files and suspended upload privileges to 22,274 users. These are not the characteristics of a company ‘dedicated to copyright infringement’. As we work with artists and labels to make more content available to our users, Grooveshark becomes more competitive as an alternative to piracy.”

Grooveshark is hardly a small affair. Geller says they serve twenty-five million unique monthly users spanning more than 150 countries and will fight for their business.

“In light of the recent misleading press concerning Grooveshark’s application, it is important to make clear that we will defend our service, and the letter and the spirit of the law, in court and in Congress.”

“We will defend our name and our ideals for the sake of our users who expect modern delivery systems and comprehensive access across devices, for the sake of artists and content owners who fear another decade of decline, and for other innovators who continue to bring new ideas to market through the expression of creativity in the form of technology,” he concludes.

In departing, Geller asks Google and Apple to reinstate the Grooveshark apps to their stores. Considering the pressure both companies are under and the negative noises coming from the RIAA, he could be waiting for a long time.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • AnonBuddhist

    Proof that RIAA will do anything they can to screw with the public. This just shows us what RIAA really is.

  • AnonBuddhist

    Proof that RIAA will do anything they can to screw with the public. This just shows us what RIAA really is.

    • sherboil

      More like what Google really is.They didn’t have to take it down.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Grooveshark = Google music competitor.

        And Terms Of Service are usually written in such a manner that you can be legally tossed out of an online service under pretexts such as “enjoying yourself too much” or whatever other excuse is deemed convenient.

        Google is suffering from schizophrenia on such matters to begin with.

        However, the “safe harbour” provisions are very oddly written. If a complaint is called due to the DMCA and it later turns out to be true, Google could face billions of dollars in fines if they chose to take a chance of the service being legal.

        Which is the bad part about the DMCA – in order not to risk your entire business you will always be forced to assume guilt whenever a complaint is lodged, and act accordingly. It’s a great censorship tool as there is absolutely no verification made nor required that the complaint is actually bona fide.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001396343857 Domingo Alex Cruz

          I cant tell if you are being serious… got anymore info?

    • Anonymous

      This is always about control.

      If Grooveshark follow the DCMA rules, as certainly seems to be the case, then a lawful service they are. The RIAA should then sod off and leave them alone to innovate.

      We should remember that it is not a DCMA supporting business’s job to police every file uploaded when that is the job of the copyright holders. As if they find one of their infringing files on this service then they can simply issue a valid DCMA take-down request and problem soon fixed. Either that or they can liciense Grooveshark to supply their creation as many already do.

      So the RIAA resorting to this action only says to me “We the RIAA are too fucking LAZY to do our job to protect our artists rights”

      What I also suspect is missing here is the RIAA saying “This service is losing our old tried and trusted business model money so lets bully them offline”

      At least calling Grooveshark an unlawful service would be a case of libel.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        The problem is that a valid DMCA takedown request is a simple matter of filling out a form and add an attached “proof” of ownership.

        Said “proof” will not be validated or verified with any stringent requirements which is why roughly one third of successful takedown requests have after the fact been found to be unfounded or ambiguous.

        So what it really means is that if you’re bothered to complete the form correctly and add some writing Google will act automatically.

        • Anonymous

          We should keep in mind that to remove copyrighted media using a DCMA take-down request, that you don’t own the rights to, would under the DCMA rules, leave you vulnerable to the expenses involved and a sizable fine.

          I believe we have yet to see a copyright holder/artist annoyed enough that another person removed his/her media to do something about it in court.

        • Anonymous

          We should keep in mind that to remove copyrighted media using a DCMA take-down request, that you don’t own the rights to, would under the DCMA rules, leave you vulnerable to the expenses involved and a sizable fine.

          I believe we have yet to see a copyright holder/artist annoyed enough that another person removed his/her media to do something about it in court.

  • http://profiles.google.com/per.wigren Per Wigren

    I wish that Grooveshark could let the community edit tags. The biggest problem with Grooveshark is that most stuff is horribly tagged.

  • http://toby7728.myopenid.com/ TT7728

    Grooveshark for Android is back up on the Android market!
    http://www.appscout.com/2011/04/grooveshark_for_android_return.php

    • ndmushroom

      Essencially yes, but technically no. It is available for Android users, but not on the Android marketplace.

      • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

        So the noobs can’t get it…big deal…

      • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

        So the noobs can’t get it…big deal…

  • Reasoned Neo Murdock

    Grooveshark will go to jail. Just watch, you’ll see. They’re stealing!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

      1. where is the “FAIL” button…
      2. you can’t steal something that nobody has. and if a friend gives you a copy of his test or something, you’re not stealing from him.. ffs, humans, stop being so retarded.

      • Anonymous

        U just got trolled hard. Look at his name… 3 Copyright trolls rolled into 1? lol

      • asdfasdf

        sarcasm, learn it

      • Reasoned Neo Murdock

        I tried to be very human but I am a bestophile, and a gay one…

        Ok back on topic. Copying means stealing, there’s no argument in that!

        • DarknezzFallz

          Go troll some other news site…
          On topic…
          If they were being completely legal then at some point ither the people at the RIAA or the people at Google have made a mistake unless your app has been found sharing files which it does not have rights to which is the only reason I see that it would be removed after doing such.
          You can’t forget that Google has become a slave to the Anti-Piracy groups and is basicly dead meat floating in the ocean of sharkes.

        • DarknezzFallz

          Go troll some other news site…
          On topic…
          If they were being completely legal then at some point ither the people at the RIAA or the people at Google have made a mistake unless your app has been found sharing files which it does not have rights to which is the only reason I see that it would be removed after doing such.
          You can’t forget that Google has become a slave to the Anti-Piracy groups and is basicly dead meat floating in the ocean of sharkes.

        • 3423

          don’t care what you are if thats what you really believe, then you have some serious, serious problems…

      • Eduard Anatolyevich Khil

        Trololololololol

    • Whatever

      Good one, they can’t use this argument anymore.

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal | Torrentfreak.com

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Jordan

    RIAA suck my dog’s ass

    • Pedantic Punctuator

      Is that a statement of fact or an instruction?

      “RIAA suck my dog’s ass” suggests that the RIAA do currently perform this act.
      “RIAA, suck my dog’s ass” suggests you’re instructing them to perform it.

      Oh for the subtlety of a comma ;)

      Still, it works for me either way LOL

      • Mike

        omg, so much sentence raping when you clearly can’t even read.

        Didn’t he state that his sentence was without a comma, hence the way he wrote it.

        • Pedantic Punctuator

          The weight of ocular disfunction in regard to understanding the simple syntax of the English language clearly tilts towards you sir.

          Had you clearly read my small humourous aside you would be in no doubt that it was constructed with tongue firmly in cheek.

          To answer your question as to whether he “stated” that his sentence was without a comma – no, he didn’t make such a statement. The entirety of the post was a simple 5 word sentence (including the acronym ‘RIAA’ as a “word”).

          My post in reply was in no way meant to cause offence, but on the contrary it intended to convey a jovial sense of sarcastic humour using the common vehicle of subtle wordplay through highlighting how something so simple as a comma to punctuate the sweetly succinct sentence could alter one’s perception of the meaning so profoundly.

          Hence my sign-off that “it works for me either way” coupled with my joke pseudonym “Pedantic Punctuator”. Don’t flame me for making a joke for god’s sake. You people are too uptight sometimes – not everything you read posted on the internet is an attack upon your person or the nature of your character ;)

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Let’s give the man the benefit of a doubt and assume he isn’t proposing cruelty to animals but rather is reflecting on the well-dressed RIAA spokes(wo)man currently violating his dog.

  • JJ

    Uhhm, guys ? …
    Ofc RIAA will do anything they can to shut down anything that is not selling physical CD’s … that’s pretty much their job description.
    They dont give a shite if it pisses fans off, if something else gave even half a percent more profit for the labels they’d piss music fans everywhere in the face and laugh while doing it.
    The RIAA was started to look out for the labels interests, nothing else.

    • Anonymous

      Agreed. It doesnt really matter if it is legal or illegal but as long as you are streaming, file sharing etc you’ll be in the list of the next target of RIAA.

      We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia.
      Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs2/ for details.

    • Anonymous

      If that were true, why is iTunes still operating? Why does Amazon sell MP3′s? Can you answer those?

    • DocGerbil100

      This may not be strictly correct, I think.

      It’s a mistake to think the RIAA is entirely subordinate to the labels – the labels seem to me to be customers rather than owners. The first purpose of the RIAA (and all such associations) is to keep their customers paying for whatever services the RIAA can provide.

      These services currently include (and appear largely limited to):

      • gathering and analysing industry data (made irrelevant by the internet);

      • anti-piracy efforts against street-vendors (made irrelevant by file-sharing);

      • anti-piracy efforts against file-sharers (an essentially unachievable goal) and;

      • producing fake studies and lobbying governments for favourable laws and tax-breaks (more easily done by smaller, more focused organisations dedicated to the task).

      This is why they are so mental about file-sharing, I think – at some point the penny is going to drop that the RIAA – and it’s counterparts in other industries – are basically a completely pointless waste of everyone’s time and money.

      Being able to convince gullible industry managers and shareholders that they can fight piracy and drive everyone back to CDs is probably the only thing keeping the RIAA alive.

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal | Uncategorized

  • internet jerk

    IMO music streaming is the next step for music. Its the way people get what they want. To me this would be the same thing to be forced to buy a record when cd’s where the norm. Not to mention if grooveshark is an “illegal service” then why isnt youtube? or pandora?

    The dinosaur industry needs to die. Long live new media (or at least until something better comes along).

  • Whatever

    @”Google hasn’t specified what it was in their ‘Terms of Service’”
    Because they can’t otherwise they would state exactly what the problem is.

    @”DMCA to innovate”
    A US restriction law to innovate ? This one is hilarious.

    @”for the sake of artists”
    That’s always a good one that the MAFIAA uses all the time.

    Clearly MAFIAA speak to convince the MAFIAA (not google or apple or normal people) that the application is legal.

  • Anonymous

    Screw the RIAA, I am surprised someone hasn’t taken them out already!
    total-privacy.int.tc

  • Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today

  • Anonymous

    Or the Grooveshark developers can just make the apk available for Android, and put the iOS version on Cydia. Unremovable. Unless Saurik gets nagged at – but then we just hop onto another repo.

  • Pingback: P2PTalk » Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal

  • Pingback: Blogging From The Beginning » Blog Archive » Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We're Completely Legal – TorrentFreak

  • Anon

    When the RIAA starts going after legal alternatives, you know somethings not right. It’s clear that the RIAA doesn’t want anyone listening to anything, under any circumstances. That in itself makes file sharing all the more reasonable.

  • Zhenglish45

    Finally (48 hours) time limit to buy.

    LV Muffler $ 5.99
    LV Bags $ 19.9
    LV Wallet $ 6.55
    Armani Glasses $ 5.99
    LV Belt $ 6.9

    Buy addresses-
    — tntn.us
    Tips (48 hours after the special product is invalid)

  • Zhenglish45

    Finally (48 hours) time limit to buy.

    LV Muffler $ 5.99
    LV Bags $ 19.9
    LV Wallet $ 6.55
    Armani Glasses $ 5.99
    LV Belt $ 6.9

    Buy addresses-
    — tntn.us
    Tips (48 hours after the special product is invalid)

  • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

    Torrent/Usenet > Grooveshark.

    • jj

      iunno, i use both. Grooveshark to find music, torrents to get music.

      • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

        YouTube?

    • jj

      iunno, i use both. Grooveshark to find music, torrents to get music.

  • GUEST

    Grooveshark is making money for the corporations of parasites?

    THEY CAN DIE!

    • sherboil

      what?.

      • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

        Basically they support some of the parasites I think he was trying to say.

        • sherboil

          Because they have license deals?.And that makes them evil??.You guys are funny.

        • Anonymous

          Some people here would like to see the RIAA die meaning they avoid funding them and their labels/artists to bring that day closer. It can then prove upsetting to see a file-sharing company willingly fund the RIAA.

          I personally believe that file-sharing companies are legally safest under DCMA protection and it does maintain some balance of fairness. Other file-sharing services cannot qualify for DCMA protection but at least DCMA makes file-sharing more acceptable to the masses.

          It is nice to see artists working with an advanced service like Grooveshark to make some money.

  • GUEST

    Grooveshark is making money for the corporations of parasites?

    THEY CAN DIE!

  • Nome

    About :Zhenglish45

    Someone remove this spam please?

    Thanks!

  • Nome

    About :Zhenglish45

    Someone remove this spam please?

    Thanks!

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

    “We are legal because we want to be.”

    • Anonymous

      How you manage to not drown while taking a shower is beyond me Jack. Or should i say Eric Boehm.

      • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

        Thats probably an issue in your case though, huh? Probably why you dont step out of of your house a lot? The outside world must be awfully scary.

        • Jacks dad

          Do you usually come right and tell people that you are a stupid @$$hole, or do you let them figure that out by reading your comments? obvious douche is obvious…

        • http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock

          Im not going to stoop down to your level anymore. Let me just add that my comment stemmed from the fact that they admitted that they haven’t been licensed by all the labels hence they are using their music without permission, which makes them illegal.

        • Ugly American

          OMG, “illegal!” Stop the presses! The sky is falling! The end of the world is coming! At one time, alcohol wasn’t legal either – and we all know how well prohibition worked.

          Here’s a strong drink for you, Jackie – on the rocks:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Temple_(cocktail)

          Don’t forget to share! <3

        • Anonymous

          Actually, no. DCMA rules means they can use copyrighted works without license but they do have to on request remove the infringing works or to negotiate a license.

          So any unlicensed works on their service the copyright holder does not care to protect, or to license, when under DCMA rules the owners are doing nothing about it which is the same as granting approval for distribution. It is after all up to the copyright holders to police and protect their own creations.

          This is a good reminder that copyright protection is only FAIR and not ABSOLUTE when copyright protection is also balanced against public rights and other business types.

          So to say all copyright must be licensed makes you lawfully wrong.

        • Borderliner

          …not to mention that if one really wants to go that road then usage of public domain materials by big labels must also be paid. After all – the number that has been released by the author is pretty much nonexistant compared to the material that’s become public domain due to laws deciding so.

  • http://thesharebears.com/ Jenn

    It’s seems like the age old controversy over music on the web will never die! lol

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal | TorrentFreak | NotSoCrazyNews BETA

  • Anonymous

    a bit slow, but it did find the song i wanted to hear. and it met my rigorous qualification: it’s free.

  • Pingback: AppStore banned Grooveshark is not illegal, says Exec | MyCE – My Consumer Electronics

  • Foff

    Ok Dumb Riaa F#cks We will just continue to dl all the free stuff we want and you can continue to whine and fight a losing battle.

  • Former Insider

    With Spotify shortly reducing their free service to a level which is frankly useless, interest in Grooveshark is spiking in Europe.

    I hope they can eventually produce a web app that runs on all smartphones, thereby negating the need to go through Android Market or Cydia (if you have an unlocked iPhone).

  • BOB

    I HATE YOU ALL ….AND BTW MY BUM SMELLS

  • BOB

    I HATE YOU ALL ….AND BTW MY BUM SMELLS

  • waka

    Actually Grooveshark is awful, I follow a few musicians/artists on twitter who have been complaining about how their music is on grooveshark without their permission and aren’t seeing a dime from it being on there.

    Let the RIAA take them down, they are no better, just because an artist may not be Beiber huge doesn’t mean you can put their music on your service for free without anyone noticing.

    • josh

      Either get them to send a takedown request or sign up as an artist. Easy.

      • waka

        They have sent takedowns, but I think it’s dumb for a company to say they are legal when they illegally have music on their service without artist consent. Then to have someone suggest that the artists getting ripped off should sign up to the service is even dumber. No offense but I’m just saying

        • Anonymous

          Take down requests should also be correctly formatted and to state where on their service the infringing file is to be found. As Grooveshark say they have already removed 1.76 million files so it is not like they are ignoring their responsibilities.

          Under the DCMA law Grooveshark and other companies can lawfully distribute and profit from unlicensed works. So there is no “ripped off” in what is lawful for them to do and such rights can help small companies to grow into a larger companies because they have the media to innovate.

          I can only suspect a case a dumb artists.

          Artists lose control of their works when they first release them and they will spread around society without their control or approval. The law is established to give copyright holders FAIR and not absolute rights to profit from their creation.

          DCMA grants that FAIR right by saying where ever your creation pops up you can control it by either removing it or by licensing and profiting from the distribution. In return they become a lawful service using both licensed and unlicensed works.

          I cant comment about how much money Grooveshark makes artists when that all depends on how their business model works. I would question though if such bands make good music that people would want to listen to and buy. In case if they lack profit they can later end the agreement and remove the file.

          From all this I can only believe artists need to learn their legal rights and how exactly DCMA works. There are also companies around who can protect their media for them should they prefer.

  • Maroan

    The problem is that RIAA feels That Grooveshark and others have stolen their ideas… You know these ones they wanted to give to the consumers in “the near future”….

  • Pingback: Sala de prensa » Blog Archive » Llega la hora de Grooveshark

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal

  • 7h3 |3371$7 3x7r3m1$7

    I am surprised that the music industry hasn’t tried charging us all for just being in earshot of some damn music before now…

    Ps : love reading all your guys comments every night, even you trolls out there are funny afterall without you there would be NO sad b*st*rds in the world to take the piss out of before bedtime would there now…

    • Marcus

      “I am surprised that the music industry hasn’t tried charging us all for just being in earshot of some damn music before now…”

      Trust me they are trying and are actually getting progress in some places. Like in Australia here is a “levee” (pre-emptive fine more like) on blank CD’s that goes to the music industry.

      They are basically saying that if you buy blank disks then you must be pirating music.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      You mean like when they earnestly tried to argue in court that having a music jingle on your mobile phone meant the user of the phone should pay for a public performance license?

      • Killerhoojab

        the air is just kind of thin right now for those types.

  • sm9

    It’s DMCA not DCMA you twats.

  • sm9

    It’s DMCA not DCMA you twats.

  • sm9

    It’s DMCA not DCMA you twats.

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Insists It’s Legal; Points Out That Using DMCA Safe Harbors Is Not …

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: Were Completely Legal - wehaveways's posterous

  • Pingback: Article: Is Grooveshark Legal? Illegal? Copyright Infringement?

  • Pingback: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2X3IHEKORLNVVTYVIKDNMSESGI WuJin

    Welcome to visit our [url=http://www.airmixonlinestores.com/]Nike Max online store[/url] where there have a variety of [url=http://www.airmixonlinestores.com/]cheap Air Max shoes[/url] for you to choose. Certainly all our products are for sale, new and free shipping. Wish has a good experience purchase here

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.