[m010001]

I don't like the BPI, they investigated me and made me take my website down (they came to my house, it was a fun day).

However, I must credit them as they warn people before taking them to court. So, if you're a website owner in the UK. I'm just giving you a heads up to say that if you're being investigated, they will probably contact you in person.

I do think the BPI have definately gone too far, they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry.

[citricsquid]

> they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry.

Grooveshark is a company that profits off of content that they have no rights to. They hide behind the DMCA and are complete scumbags who pretend to engage in fair business practices and then turn around and renege on agreements, all the while people defend them as if they're making some form of moral stand against the oppressive music industry, when in reality they're choosing to make money on the back of the hard work of others.

Spotify is a fantastic alternative to Grooveshark that has a wealth of music in their library, they're compliant with labels and the law and have millions of users, I don't see the BPI trying to shut them down. Maybe, just maybe, there can be an instance where the "music industry" is in the right. Grooveshark is a shameful business.

I look forward to the day that Grooveshark shuts down. I'm all for revolutionising the music industry and changing the world, but there is a serious line crossed when a company consistently uses others work to profit, without permission. Spotify is doing it legally.

http://www.theverge.com/policy/2013/8/6/4592346/grooveshark-...

[patrickaljord]

Spotify is not a fantastic alternative. They keep on losing money in spite of growing revenues: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/31/4575506/spotify-doubled-re...

The only reason Spotify doesn't have too much competition is because few are those willing to waste so much money on such a low margin business, not because they have a ground breaking technology or business model. The fact that they now have to compete with rdio, pandora, apple and google streaming will probably deepen their losses.

A fantastic company in this field will be one that will print money like it streams music.

[citricsquid]

The CEO of Spotify has stated that they are choosing to forego profits at present so that they can invest in the long term success of the service, however they could be profitable if they needed to be. The comments on that article you linked to provide a valuable example of the value of what Spotify are doing: Amazon.

http://allthingsd.com/20121206/spotifys-daniel-ek-on-profits...

[revelation]

Amazon isn't faced with a non-rational business conglomerate with complete control over every product.

Spotify is simply hoping to grow so big so fast that labels can no longer afford to bleed them to death. They are not exactly building warehouses.

[m010001]

I'm already aware of Grooveshark being gray-area, however, the law is the law. They are not breaking the laws in the UK or the USA, as far as I am aware. Spotify is good, I continue to use Grooveshark because Spotify has only popular musicians, I listen to underground music. If Grooveshark gets closed down I will switch to YouTube. The reason I use Grooveshark over YouTube at the moment is purely because of the 'Now Playing' lists.

If the BPI is unhappy with Grooveshark because of their music being on it, either make a deal with them or DMCA all the artists. If they block the whole site, they're only making it harder for me to listen to the type of music I want to listen to. As I said, it's a monopoly.

[angersock]

That's all well and good, but when I need to stream music instantly Grooveshark has my back--no fee, no sign-in, no bullshit.

The piracy wars are going to be won or lost based solely on user experience, mark my words.

[anoncowherd]

> That's all well and good, but when I need to stream music instantly Grooveshark has my back--no fee, no sign-in, no bullshit.

You're completely missing the point. It's irrelevant that you can get music for free, because it's not produced for free. It costs money to produce music and to arrange it to be available on Amazon or iTunes or where ever.

It's not unreasonable to expect you to pay for music. I don't mean to imply anything about "stealing", but you wouldn't walk into a supermarket expecting to just take stuff either. It's about someone producing something of value that you want.

[angersock]

And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.

Look, I'll happily debate intellectual property structures and incentives and all the rest, but the thing--the big elephant in the room--is that everybody just wants to be able to push a button and get music.

At the end of the day, the core relationship is between the artist and the listener--everything else, be it recording or ticketing or distribution or whatever, is secondary fluff.

Grooveshark offers the most compelling experience to the user right now, regardless of how scummy (and I do mean scummy!) their business practices are.

[anoncowherd]

> And I'm telling you that nobody gives a shit, because they just want to listen to music.

I do realize that people are selfish and just want everything for free, and that computers & the Internet enable them to circumvent having to pay for music.

That doesn't change anything about my point, though.

Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced? Again, it costs money to produce music and to make it available for purchase. I've downloaded music, just like everyone else, but as a genuine music lover, I've also happily paid for some 200 - 300 CDs back in the day, and those comprise roughly 95% of all the music I listen to.

Do you get it? It's alright to pay for music. It's downright expected by anyone producing it. There is no free lunch. There aren't many things of real value that you can expect to get for free. Open-source software is a rare exception, but that doesn't really apply on the desktop, so.. yeah. Think about this stuff. You need to see beyond yourself.

[angersock]

I ask again: so what?

Musicians don't need producers--in fact, this has been a role only recently filled in the 20th century. They don't need them to perform, they don't need them to record, they don't need them to make money. In fact, you can very easily find examples of producers doing more hard than good...just ask any fan of Streetlight Manifesto.

Technology, both in recording and broadcasting, has advanced to the point where we don't need these gatekeepers. The market will adapt to supply good-but-cheap recording gear for musicians who can't afford lots of studio time. The market will create cheap online labels--already has.

You didn't say a damn thing the artists, man. You just kept trying to find a way to fund the middlemen. People like you are what'll kill music, if anything.

[spacelizard]

>Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced?

I cringe whenever I hear someone express this sentiment, it's the equivalent of the nuclear option. Do you really think these companies are just going to get frustrated, pack up their toys and go home? No, of course not. It's the same reason I don't buy into these "starving artist" sob stories: no one can escape market forces. The fact of the matter is, that business landscape is extremely competitive and typically requires a large initial investment. It's always been this way. The one force that seems to be an equalizer is technology in general getting cheaper and cheaper, NOT the protectionism known as copyright.

[aspensmonster]

>Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced?

No, I don't realize that. The overwhelming majority of music never makes any money because making money isn't the point. Making money is the point for a small contingent of entrenched players who carved out a market for themselves decades ago and are now seeing it disrupted. Far more artists fear obscurity and irrelevance than could ever fear piracy. Any residual coin they make due to any eventual popularity is just icing on the cake.

[epochwolf]

What I think you're missing is people don't believe them not paying for music causes harm. Even if they did, I suspect a large number of them simply won't care enough to pay.

[icebraining]

Do you realize that if music producers can't make a satisfactory profit, then music will just not be produced?

I doubt it, but if that is true, then there's a natural incentive to pay for music, and there's no need for copyright law; if people want music to be produced, they'll be forced to pay.