In a new game of whack-a-mole, Ars Technica is reporting that Grooveshark is live once again, despite the seizure of the Grooveshark.io
Just a few days after illegal music-streaming service Grooveshark apologized and shut down, a mysterious person identified only as "Shark" reconstituted the site at Grooveshark.io.
In response, the major record labels appear to have obtained a temporary restraining order wresting away that domain name. According to Torrentfreak, the labels filed a lawsuit under seal in New York federal court. The site reports that US District Judge Deborah Batts issued a seizure order "directed at the site’s operators, hosting providers, and domain registrar NameCheap."
[...] Meanwhile, a true game of whac-a-mole appears to have begun, with the team behind the new Grooveshark telling Torrentfreak that they have simply moved their website to grooveshark.vc.
"The harder you come at us, the stronger we’ll fight, and now after this hit we’re more determined than ever to keep Grooveshark alive and kicking," the site's anonymous operator said.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 17 2015, @11:34PM
Yet try telling any upstart band that is starting to make a name for itself NOT to sign the Contract.
You simply can not pound it into their heads.
You think it would be easy with today's tech savvy younger generation, they have YouTube, they have Google Music Amazon Music that will both take indi music and sell it cheap enough that there is simply no point in stealing it, and all without a lock in contract.
But they sign. They almost always sign.
Sure, you can point to a hand full of exceptions. Those just prove the rule. They sign.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday May 17 2015, @11:58PM
You can point to thousands of exceptions with small followings on sites like Bandcamp or Soundcloud. You haven't heard of them, they may not even be looking for money, and they disprove "the rule".
Technology has made it a lot easier to operate outside the labels. We could even talk about successful new artists that don't sign and manage to get big. I don't have a list handy.
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/06/dont-need-a-major-label.html [hypebot.com] (see comments)
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130401/03115322523/macklemore-explains-why-not-being-label-helped-him-succeed.shtml [techdirt.com]
http://pigeonsandplanes.com/2015/04/no-label-no-problem-the-reality-of-diy-artists/ [pigeonsandplanes.com]
I'm sure there's a more comprehensive list somewhere.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 18 2015, @12:05AM
Funny thing - you won't see the RIAA-like organizations enforcing any kind of copyright law for these indies.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 18 2015, @12:16AM
Actually, they are more than happy to do so:
https://torrentfreak.com/universal-censors-megaupload-song-gets-branded-a-rogue-label-111210/ [torrentfreak.com]
Kind of.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 18 2015, @03:29AM
Old news. The song is back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs [youtube.com]
That is a totally different issue that being discussed here, and until changes in the law demand massive penalties for false take downs this will likely continue.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday May 18 2015, @04:35PM
Hey, if someone waves a huge wad of cash in the face of some talent... I say take it!
The music label wasn't going to get any money from me anyhow.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh