One wonders how Spotify is succeeding where Grooveshark is failing.

adamcw · on Nov 22, 2011

Grooveshark did this without inking the necessary deals. If I understand correctly, their library is provided by their users uploading.

cookiecaper · on Nov 22, 2011

Right, Grooveshark's entire business model is centered around DMCA protections. Only "user-generated content" affords a DMCA safe harbor defense, so all the copyrighted music they host has to be uploaded by individual users who each assert that they have the rights to distribute the song.

jessriedel · on Nov 22, 2011

Why can't the labels just send mass DMCA takedown letters? Are users really uploading songs faster than they can be taken down?

ethank · on Nov 22, 2011

They have and the tracks pop back up*

*According to the leaked emails.

jessriedel · on Nov 23, 2011

Do you have a link to the full story? DevX101's link doesn't say anything about DMCA takedown notices.

ethank · on Nov 22, 2011

They have legal agreements (deals) and equity incentive for the labels.

v21 · on Nov 23, 2011

I think one reason they've been luckier legally is that they sold a fair fraction of the company to record labels for a pittance early on.

bookwormAT · on Nov 26, 2011

Spotify is opt-in while Grooveshark is opt-out.

Both Spotify and Grooveshark pay royalties to labels that they have a license agreement with. But if you don't want your stuff on a streaming service, users will upload it to Grooveshark anyway.

This is also the reason why there is so much cool stuff on Grooveshark that is not on Spotify. Forgotten albums, bootlegs, remixes and mainstream music from certain bands. Grooveshark will also never show you a "this song is not available in your region" message.