While I respect the record industry’s rights to their content, and agree that deals should be structured in ways that benefit both parties, this is a prime example of what not to do and yet another reason why the record industry is failing more and more each day. Embrace the internet, guys! No wonder artists are leaving these fools and going out on their own. Sue all you want, but it’s just going to drive your audience to other outlets (illegal if need be) to get the tunes…

You know what? EMI can suck it and go to hell, they already lost me when they blocked the release of Danger Mouse’s new record for no reason. Bunch of greedy, TWO-FACED, a-holes, they are. This lawsuit isn’t in the interest of their artists, they treat their own artists like crap (I just gave you the example of Danger Mouse), all the rich fat asses running EMI care about is their pockets, nothing more. Grooveshark is the best thing to come along in years, unlike other music streaming sites, you don’t have to sign up for anything in order to listen to music, you don’t get 30 second clips of songs, all songs play in their entirety, and you can find almost every song from almost every artist, you’re rarely disappointed. I hope Grooveshark wins this. I can’t believe EMI would stab them in the back like this. Grooveshark was on THEIR side by asking them permission for their music, and EMI turns around and accuses them of copyright violation? They’re just pissed that they’re losing their niche: the CD market. Now people can go online get music that THEY want from ANYWHERE in the world, not the crap that is being forcibly served to them. Whoever runs that awful label group should go into politics, cause they certainly have the aptitude for it.

The way I interpret this, EMI is shooting themselves in the foot. You guys at EMI: Grooveshark has not to date charged one penny to listen to the music on their site. WOW…imagine that. Go Grooveshark…groove on!

Hate to say it, but I agree with EMI. Streaming music on demand and streaming radio are NOT the same thing. As soon as it’s on demand at a song level it needs to offer payment to the label, artist and publisher (actually radio and internet radio do this as well…and are about to pay considerably more for this in the future)

This is broadcasting and there are specific rules and laws for this.

The argument that it drives people to illegal sites is flawed. GrooveShark IS an illegal site as well (at least as far as EMI artists go). Embracing the internet and actively giving away your product are NOT the same things.

Turn this into a subscription site, invite labels to participate and compensate them, THEN you have a legal model. (and one that pays the artists)

I honestly am surprised that YouTube is still offering music to the level that they are.

The Majors really are struggling to come up with a new business model aren’t they?

The Grooveshark reps hits the nail on the head with “We hope that EMI Records eventually follows the lead of the many forward-thinking labels we are already working with, who would rather get their artists exposure and a fair share of our revenue than block content access and force customers to illegal networks”

What else are you going to do? Sue EVERYONE? Jeez.

Lee // US Music Jobs

@ Jungleland2:

Actually, Grooveshark wanted to make things legit by making a deal with EMI. However, EMI thought it would better to just stab Grooveshark in the back by ambushing them with this lawsuit. If Grooveshark turns into the website you recommend they should be, you will basically get Pandora. Ever heard of it? It’s a site that is pals with all 4 of the big major label groups, and as a result they’re super restrictive. You create your own personal stations to listen to. You can’t skip more than 6 songs in a 24 hour period, (and if you “thumb down” a song, it counts as rating) an artist can’t be played more than 4 times (sometimes even less) in an hour, even if you name your station after an artist. And it’s supposed to select songs for you based on your preferences, but that’s b.s. You can center your personal station around one particular genre, say heavy metal for instance, eventually you’ll get a song or artist that does not match that genre in any way. If that’s the way a legit music streaming site needs to be, then I might as well listen to the radio, cause it’s really the same thing. And EMI is making a habit of filing frivolous lawsuits, right now they’re suing a fashion designer named Katie Perry because she has the same name as Katy Perry, the lame chick who sings “I Kissed A Girl”. Except there’s a difference in spelling and Katie Perry is the designer’s birth name; Katy Perry is Kathryn Elizabeth Hudson’s stage name. You tell me how EMI is supposed to be taken seriously with this.

Grooveshark is offering a great service for free so of course it would gain popularity, and it could be a great marketing tool for an indie label and even a major label, however, I believe it needs to let that label make that choice on if it wants its content to be marketed and distributed in such a manner.

About time somebody (aka EMI) took a stand to this pressure (and downright bullying) by Grooveshark to giveaway its content through a medium it doesn’t support.

The intellectual property of an artist should be valued and respected. How is what Grooveshark offering legal or fair to that artist? It is up to each label to ensure their artists repetoire is being fairly compensated and represented, and I believe the least Grooveshark could do is give EMI a choice in that matter.

I Agree with EMI. if grooveshark wants to place music online – make them pay the fees. Who are they to come in and just put music that doesnt belong to them for the sake well being of them, screw them, make them PAY!

@Adam Why should record companies embrace a distribution platform that gives their music away for free and doesn’t make enough money to compensate them. Once grooveshark blows through their startup capital they will shut down for sure.

They are being unreasonable when they expect major record labels to accept $.0017 a play because grooveshark doesn’t have a business model. Like someone said earlier, charge people monthly for the service, or maybe put commercials in between songs, but you have to do something so you can compensate the artists. As it stands now, grooveshark is a 100% illegal website.

Dollar, Cents, Dollars, Cents..
Sometimes makes no sense…

Why does EMI sue grooveshark? when youtube is packed full of music that have user-made ‘videos’ that are just used to distribute music, pretty much in exactly the same way as grooveshark. Ain’t youtube providing a platform for a much great bigger breach of copyrights?

The playing and distribution of songs should be governed by public policy law–not contract law–through mandatory licensing. Anyone who wants to trade songs ought to be answerable to a set understandable laws for everyone. People should be charged per play, per listener, per download, or some combination of these things beyond a certain level or beyond a number of traders involved. Let everyone share music. Let the companies and artists get the same rates from everyone. It’s often called ‘free market.’ No more preferences. Let the best sites win by gaining the biggest audience. And stop the copyright censorship too.