edit

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

RE: The Day Before Friday - What are you listening to?

Lady Strange · 80's Rock Chick

murscclub wrote:
I'm really liking grooveshark. I've added a bunch of songs to my playlist and put it on shuffle. I wonder if there is a max # of songs you can have in playlist?

I couldn't find any info on that, and was wondering the same thing. If you find out, please post for us to see.

MzHartz · Permanent Vacation

I'm over 200 now and haven't had any problems. I'll let everyone know if I hit a limit.

ghostdancer · Ghost In The Machine

So far I haven't hit a limit either; not sure how many songs I have in my different lists but I'm thinking the site can hold a lot. smile

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

Click on Help and you get to a big FAQ section. Here's what it says on this topic:

How many songs can I have in My Library/Favorites?

Regular Grooveshark users can have a maximum of 5000 songs in their Library and a maximum of 500 songs in their Favorites.

VIP users are allowed unlimited songs in both My Library and Favorites.

ghostdancer · Ghost In The Machine

Later on tonight I'm planning to browse through Mz and Murs playlists, see what you guys have. biggrin

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

Feel free, but I haven;t gotten very far with mine yet. Only have 50 songs in it.

WebGuy · Doesn't Do Windows

Something about Grooveshark just doesn't feel right to me. When browsing songs, I see what looks to be other people's uploads because there are many songs with incorrect spellings, typo's, etc in the names.

That uneasy feeling made me dig into their terms of service. Cutting things together from different sections looks interesting:

... a free platform for the discovery and promotion of music, the sharing of information and comments about music, communication with other Users, the posting, syndication of, linking to or uploading of User Content (defined below), social networking and other features, functions, or services on the Site (collectively, the Service). The Service will include the cataloging, indexing, sharing and streaming of User Content.

Unless we indicate otherwise, you grant EMG and its affiliates a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, display, perform, reproduce, publish, and distribute such User Content throughout the world via the Service. You grant EMG and it affiliates the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such User Content. You are solely responsible for any necessary payments that may become due to any third parties as the result of your posting of or linking to the User Content and EMGs use thereof.

User Content shall not be illegal, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable. The following is a partial list of the kind of User Content that is illegal or prohibited on the Service. Prohibited User Content includes but is not limited to content that: (i) is obscene, patently offensive, or promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual; (ii) harasses or advocates harassment of another person; (iii) involves the transmission of junk mail, chain letters, or unsolicited mass mailing or spamming; (iv) consists of information that you know is false or misleading or promotes illegal activities or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory or libelous; (v) consists of an illegal or unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, such as sound recordings, musical compositions and videos in which you do not personally own the copyright (including CDs and tracks you may have purchased), or otherwise do not have the necessary authority from the copyright owner(s);

Build what you want from that, but it looks to me like they are basically a "content" (music) sharing service and you will be held responsible for what you share.

Do what you want, but I certainly wouldn't recommend uploading any of your own music.

I went to close my Grooveshark account and the only way you can do that is to request it through their help system.

ghostdancer · Ghost In The Machine

I read that too Web and decided against uploading any music that I own.

MzHartz · Permanent Vacation

Free is always too good to be true. I was wondering that too, after seeing several listings of the same song.

I'm still debating if the $0.10 a pop at Lala is worth it.

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

I wasn;t planning on uploading any music, and I figured that if I didn;t download any it was all right. But I guess that is saying they could charge me in the future for whatever I have put in my library to that point?

MzHartz · Permanent Vacation

murscclub wrote:

I wasn;t planning on uploading any music, and I figured that if I didn;t download any it was all right. But I guess that is saying they could charge me in the future for whatever I have put in my library to that point?

That's what I'm wondering too. If the RIAA finds out what they're doing and disapproves (likely), and charges them some of those per listener and number of listens royalties, will they be billing the listeners? Or will the listeners be held responsible and the RIAA go after us? Or will it only be a problem for people who uploaded music?

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

MzHartz wrote:

murscclub wrote:

I wasn;t planning on uploading any music, and I figured that if I didn;t download any it was all right. But I guess that is saying they could charge me in the future for whatever I have put in my library to that point?

That's what I'm wondering too. If the RIAA finds out what they're doing and disapproves (likely), and charges them some of those per listener and number of listens royalties, will they be billing the listeners? Or will the listeners be held responsible and the RIAA go after us? Or will it only be a problem for people who uploaded music?

So how is a site like Pandora ok to use then?

MzHartz · Permanent Vacation

murscclub wrote:

MzHartz wrote:

murscclub wrote:

I wasn;t planning on uploading any music, and I figured that if I didn;t download any it was all right. But I guess that is saying they could charge me in the future for whatever I have put in my library to that point?

That's what I'm wondering too. If the RIAA finds out what they're doing and disapproves (likely), and charges them some of those per listener and number of listens royalties, will they be billing the listeners? Or will the listeners be held responsible and the RIAA go after us? Or will it only be a problem for people who uploaded music?

So how is a site like Pandora ok to use then?

Pandora pays royalties and uses ads to supplement those costs. I suspect that's also why they limit listening hours to free users. But that's also why you can't request specific songs on Pandora or build a playlist.

Grooveshark says they pay royalties. But it also says if your music is on their system and you want it off, to let them know, but they'd rather pay you. I'm not sure how they get around the RIAA rules about streaming online music.

I suspect that Lala gets around that by not actually sharing music (when you upload music, it's yours only), and for charging for adding a song to your online library. I also noticed that Grooveshark has some songs that I know aren't available for MP3 downloads. And Lala has some that aren't available, and some that are available for download only but not web streaming.

ghostdancer · Ghost In The Machine

My thoughts are since it isn't exactly a file sharing program they can't charge those of us who do not upload music. A true file sharing program is one like Napster used to be.....gave you the ability to download whatever you wanted and it was your's. Grooveshark is more of a file streaming program...all you can do is listen to the file on their website; you can't add it to your own music players, mp3 players, or iPod. If any fees were to be levied, it would have to be against the site and/or the people that uploaded the music.

I'm not jumping ship because I honestly don't believe they can/could come after us.

MzHartz · Permanent Vacation

Yeah, saying all this, I still have Grooveshark on right now.

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

From Wikipedia:

[edit] Legal issues

Operating in similar fashion to other online services like YouTube and Vimeo, Grooveshark does not indemnify their users for any unlicensed uploaded content. Users have complained about the lack of indemnification protection found in their EULA.^[17] Despite these concerns, no user to date has faced legal action from Grooveshark or third-parties. Parties in the USA claiming copyright infringement may use mechanisms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to request that their content be removed. Repeat offenders, users who have uploaded unlicensed content more than two times, have had their Grooveshark accounts suspended.^[18] Grooveshark makes a Label List available of all record labels with which they have royalty agreements, though noticeably absent were any major record labels.^[19] This changed on May 8, 2009^[20]EMI filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Grooveshark,^[21] which was dropped on October 13, 2009 and replaced with a licensing deal.^[22]

In March of 2010, Pink Floyd sued EMI over the amount of royalties the band should receive for digital sales of their music, and as to whether tracks from their concept albums can be sold as singles.^[23] Pink Floyd won, and almost all of their tracks have been removed from Grooveshark.

ghostdancer · Ghost In The Machine

That explains why I couldn't find many Pink Floyd songs. hmm

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

MzHartz wrote:

I suspect that Lala gets around that by not actually sharing music (when you upload music, it's yours only), and for charging for adding a song to your online library. I also noticed that Grooveshark has some songs that I know aren't available for MP3 downloads. And Lala has some that aren't available, and some that are available for download only but not web streaming.

LaLa is actually owned by a couple of the labels. I remember from when they debuted, there was a big story about the site in Billboard magazine.

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

This morning anyway I'm nervous enough about Grooveshark that I opted for Pandora. Obviously I love being able to pick the exact songs I want on Grooveshark, but I haven't found the 'radio' option there to be nearly as good as Pandora's ability to give you a nice variety of songs within your requested mix. It is nice sometimes to not know what the next song will be exactly, but to know that you will very likely like it. Just like FFR was..... cry

One thing I think I notice is that the sound quality doesn;t seem to be as good in Pandora. Anyone have that opinion?

WebGuy · Doesn't Do Windows

I agree, mursc. Pandora sounds more compressed, which I suspect is partly to try to get you to upgrade to the paid version. That is part of the reason I've settled more on Slacker . . . I think Slacker sounds better.

It was pretty fun yesterday. I worked outside most of the afternoon with my bluetooth headphones and Slacker playing on my phone.

murscclub · Chairman Of The Board

I agree Web - Slacker sounds better than Pandora to me, and at least based on listening to it for the first time today I like the mix of songs/additional artists it derives from my artist choices better than what Pandora gave me.

CSCase · Living Legend

I just signed up for Grooveshark. My user id is CSCase.

ghostdancer · Ghost In The Machine

I added you CS. smile

I've been having fun with Grooveshark. I've already got over 1,100 songs in my various playlists. I like that I can type in an artist's name then arrange it in album order and choose what I want from it. By doing this, I've discovered some fantastic albums that I currently don't own but will buying to add to my collection!