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.
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.
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.