Rather than being presented with the usual page from where almost any music in the world can be found, local users were instead greeted with the following message:

Due to unreasonably high operating costs, the notice reads, Grooveshark is now inaccessible from Germany.

“We will miss you! You can write to us. We hope to come back one day,” it continues. “If you want to reduce the operating costs for both providers and Grooveshark, you can send a polite message to GEMA.”

GEMA is the local music rights collections organization in Germany and according to its own stats has 64,000 members and represents more than 2 million rights holders.

The organization has a history of licensing disputes, most visibly when it started blocking videos on YouTube in order to achieve a deal on its terms with the Google-owned company.

The unpopular move was even met with criticism from prominent music industry players, including CEO of Sony Music, Edgar Berger, who suggested that members of GEMA’s supervisory board had not yet arrived in the digital era.

“We want to see streaming services like Vevo and Spotify in the German market. [These platforms] must not be blocked by GEMA any longer,” he said. “Artists and music companies are losing sales in the millions.”

Nevertheless, it’s unlikely that Berger will apply the same sentiments to Grooveshark’s plight. All the major labels – Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI – are suing Grooveshark over copyright infringement or royalty issues in the United States.

That legal process was stepped up this week when Grooveshark sent a reportedly aggressive and broad-reaching subpoena to Digital Music News in an attempt to unmask a supposed whistleblower whose allegations form the basis of Universal’s copyright infringement lawsuit against the music streamer.

On its German page, Grooveshark concludes its German departure message by suggesting that users test out the local Simfy music service as an alternative, but many will simply head over to Google and type “US proxy” instead.

Source: Grooveshark Blocks German Users Over Licensing Costs

In his or her comment the individual claimed to be a somewhat disgruntled Grooveshark employee, outlining claims of copyright infringement at the company which if true would destroy any safe harbor protection Grooveshark might have enjoyed.

The claims were picked up by Universal Music and referenced heavily in their recently filed lawsuit against Grooveshark, one which the company says it will fight.

Of course, everyone wants to know who the anonymous commenter is, if only to assess their credibility. Surprisingly, though, the first indication that there could soon be a subpoena to find out hasn’t come from plaintiffs Universal.

“While [Grooveshark parent] Escape [Media Group] certainly denies those allegations, and believes that Universal’s lawsuit has no merit, the anonymous comment in your publication, and related information, may be important to the lawsuit,” wrote Grooveshark’s legal counsel Marshall Custer in correspondence with Digital Music News this week.

“As a result, I must request that you preserve all electronic information and any other records related to that comment, as it can be reasonably anticipated that either Grooveshark or Universal may find it necessary to subpoena such information as the case progresses,” he concludes.

The big question now is what information Digital Music News keeps on its commenters. In order to stop spam and abuse many sites carry IP address information, and if these can be paired with a usable timestamp Grooveshark could then move to the next stage – sending a subpoena to the individual’s ISP in order to obtain their identity – or at least the identity of the person paying the bill.

To date only Grooveshark has indicated they would seek information from DMN.

“Oddly, Universal Music Group has never contacted us regarding this comment, either before or after the legal filing,” says DMN founder Paul Resnikoff.

One can only speculate on the reasons for Universal’s apparent lack of interest in obtaining the individual’s identity, but sometimes the fog of war needs to lift before a precise strategy and what people already know is truly revealed.

So until then the question remains: Is the currently anonymous commenter a genuine whistleblower or simply malicious? The legal difference may yet prove interesting.

Source: Grooveshark Prepares To Unmask Anonymous ‘Whistleblower’

The conclusion drawn by Fripp was that getting unauthorized music taken down from Grooveshark is next to impossible, and that even when music is taken down, it simply reappears. Grooveshark SVP Paul Geller eventually acknowledged mistakes had been made, but also criticized Fripp’s attempts at “doctoring” details of discussions between the band and the company concerning the takedowns.

But on the same day, October 17th, a comment claiming to come from a Grooveshark employee appeared on DMN with alleged details of how the company operates.

“We are assigned a predetermined ammount [sic] of weekly uploads to the system and get a small extra bonus if we manage to go above that (not easy). The assignments are assumed as direct orders from the top to the bottom, we don’t just volunteer to ‘enhance’ the Grooveshark database,” the posting began.

“All search results are monitored and when something is tagged as ‘not available’, it get’s [sic] queued up to our lists for upload. You have to visualize the database in two general sections: ‘known’ stuff and ‘undiscovered/indie/underground’. The ‘known’ stuff is taken care internally by uploads. Only for the ‘undiscovered’ stuff are the users involved as explained in some posts above,” it added.

If the previous paragraphs weren’t enough, then came the killer.

“Practically speaking, there is not much need for users to upload a major label album since we already take care of this on a daily basis.”

According to a CNET report, UMG have taken a keen interest in the anonymous post, going as far as to cite it in a freshly-filed lawsuit that contains claims which if proven true, have the potential to destroy Grooveshark at a stroke.

“[The business records of Escape Media Group, Grooveshark's parent company] establish unequivocally that the sound recordings illegally copied by Escape’s executives and employees include thousands of well known sound recordings owned by UMG,” write Universal’s lawyers in the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Of course, if Grooveshark’s employees have indeed been uploading music to the service, the company’s DMCA ‘safe harbor’ protection is dead in the water. But anonymous Internet postings aside, just how sure are UMG that Grooveshark staff really did upload infringing material? Apparently, very sure indeed.

Last year, Universal filed a complaint in New York County Court against Escape Media Group containing claims that Grooveshark was providing “free access to UMG’s pre-1972 recordings.” As part of that process Universal was forced to hand over a database containing details on music uploads to the Grooveshark system. Items in there clearly piqued the interest of UMG.

The new complaint filed yesterday states that Grooveshark CEO Samuel Tarantino personally uploaded at least 1,791 copyrighted songs to the Grooveshark system, Senior Vice President Paul Geller 3,453, and Vice President Benjamin Westermann-Clark more than 4,600 illicit tracks.

Although it is unclear how many of these are covered by UMG copyrights, in total the label says that more than 100,000 tracks were illegally uploaded by Grooveshark employees. At $150,000 per infringement, by anyone’s calculations that is a staggering amount of money.

This has been a bad week for Grooveshark. Earlier, anti-piracy group RettighedsAlliancen, who are better known by their former name Antipiratgruppen, revealed they had sent an urgent demand to the Danish “bailiff court” (known locally as Fogedretten) to have the country’s ISPs block the site.

Source: “Grooveshark Bosses Uploaded Music” Say Universal In Massive Lawsuit

According to comments originally made in the print version of Politiken, RettighedsAlliancen have sent an urgent demand to the Danish “bailiff court” (known locally as Fogedretten) to have the country’s Internet service providers block US-based streaming music service Grooveshark.

“When you want to offer music on the Danish market, one must have an agreement with rightholders to do so. Grooveshark does not and has been completely uncooperative,” explained RettighedsAlliancen chief Maria Fredenslund.

In recent years access to authorized streaming services such as Spotify has increased for Danes, says Fredenslund, so now is the time to give those types of companies protection.

“There is a burgeoning market for online music that we believe it is necessary to support. We are in a situation where the market will die if Grooveshark continues,” she adds.

Previously other sites have been blocked on copyright infringement grounds in Denmark including AllofMP3 and more recently The Pirate Bay, but the situation with Grooveshark is more complex. Since sites like TPB do not honor DMCA-style takedown requests, arguing that they should be blocked becomes a greatly simplified process. For Grooveshark the situation is much more complex.

Senior VP of Information Products at Grooveshark, Paul Geller, is on record stating that “there is nothing illegal” about Grooveshark since like its video counterpart YouTube, by responding to takedown notices it enjoys Safe Harbor under the DMCA.

Rightsholders in Denmark, however, say they don’t have the patience to deal with the process and that taking down content effectively from Grooveshark has proved impossible. Just like the RIAA, they suggest that the DMCA swings too far in favor of service providers, and official label licensing is required for a service to be considered legitimate. (Grooveshark is in fact licensed by EMI and dozens of other labels)

Nevertheless, Geller’s position on takedowns is widely supported. Piratgruppen spokesman Troels Møller describes this new move against Grooveshark as “censorship.”

“Grooveshark reacts to takedown notices, but that is not good enough for the copyright industry – they want complete control,” Troels told TorrentFreak. “And I can see why since Spotify, partially owned by the record companies, was just launched in Denmark. It is a very convenient time to get rid of the competition.”

“Denmark is becoming a censoring state, much like Syria, Tunisia, China, etc. They are effectively destroying the internet. It’s becoming less and less neutral and free,” Troels adds. “Luckily they are only using DNS-blocking so far, which can be easily circumvented.”

Troels, who is also co-founder of
internet think tank Bitbureauet, is concerned that should a block against Grooveshark be approved, it would set a worryingly low blocking threshold for other sites in the future.

“If the same logic is applied throughout the internet, the next logical step would be to block Facebook, YouTube, Soundcloud and similar sites, which also host potentially infringing material until notified,” he concludes.

Jakob Willer of the Telecommunications Industry Association of Denmark says it’s not for his group or the ISPs to decide whether Grooveshark is legal, but hopes the service will get a chance to defend itself.

“I hope that Grooveshark will be consulted in the process because they are the ones who where applicable, will be barred,” Willer concludes.

Grooveshark’s Geller says he is unaware of any case pending against his company in Denmark.

Source: Anti-Piracy Group Asks Court To Order Grooveshark DNS Block

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.

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

There is no need to register, everyone can search for, and play as many tracks as they like. There is even a queue feature in place for those who want to play more than one song. Registration is free, and offers several benefits, as it enables users to create playlists, add favorites, download tracks, and includes all of the other features Grooveshark offers. This is when it gets even more interesting.

TinySong is linked to Grooveshark, which is best defined as an online version of iTunes, including a store where you can buy songs and a social network where you can connect with other users. Grooveshark allows users to import their music library, which they can then access from any computer with an Internet connection. Users also have unlimited access to streaming music they don’t have in their own library – for free.

Perhaps one of the more interesting features of Grooveshark, for TorrentFreak at least, is that it is a P2P based service. Users who upload their local music library to the site will make it available to all other users. Users are rewarded for every song they share and receive “song credits”, which they can use to buy new tracks. The end result is one of the largest P2P music libraries around with millions of tracks in the collection.

There is also a commercial aspect to the site of course, as Grooveshark offers paid downloads. The downloads are available in different formats, high quality and DRM-free. Individual songs cost 99cents, and can be downloaded to a local computer once purchased. “FLAC, OGG, MP3, anything that’s available online will eventually be in our catalog,” Grooveshark’s Josh Bonnain told TorrentFreak. “We’re currently the only music company, or media company for that matter, that could easily one day offer a selection of over 50 million files.”

Grooveshark has potential, as it’s basically iTunes “in the cloud”, powered by P2P and with a social network on top of that (yes, a lot of buzzwords). All you need is an Internet connection, and you’re hooked up to one of the largest music libraries in the world. Josh told us that there are no deals with any of the major record labels yet, but they are working on it. They do pay royalties though.

“Due to the fact that all content which enters Grooveshark is monetized and made legal to purchase, we will in actuality be able to collect most every song in the world in due time,” Josh told us. “Many members like this, as they don’t need to store music locally, and can listen to all of the live, rare, unreleased, lossless and so forth content which there was no access to before.”

In sum I would say that TinySong is one of the easiest ways to share single tracks with your friends. The Grooveshark service is promising as well, and a great way to access your music library (and more) if you’re not at home. The paid downloads are still too expensive though, even though they offer high quality and DRM-free songs. Getting the labels behind it will be a challenging endeavor, as we already spotted some prerelease tracks (and the Beatles), that made their way from BitTorrent to Grooveshark.

TinySong Search (gotta love BuckCherry)

Source: Find and Share Music with TinySong