Android Apps
Grooveshark gets ganked from Google Android Market. Should Amazon Cloud be nervous?
April 6, 2011 | by Andrew Kameka
Entertainment
Grooveshark is gone from the Android Market. The popular music streaming service was removed from the Market yesterday because it violates Google’s terms of service. The exact terms were not revealed, but CNET notes that Grooveshark’s ongoing dispute with record companies over music streaming – and Google lawyer Kent Walker testifying before the U.S. House Judiciary committee on copyright violations – may have had something to do with Grooveshark’s removal.
If Grooveshark truly was removed for copyright violations, should Amazon Cloud users be nervous? You may recall my excitement about the just-launched Amazon Cloud Player, but record labels were far from thrilled because Amazon released the product without their permission. Labels argue that purchasing music gives users the right to listen to their locally-stored media; streaming music over-the-air is a different service that requires a license (read: more money).
Record labels made the same argument against Grooveshark, which allows paid members to upload their own music collection and stream it to their desktops or Android phones. You can also listen to some files shared by others, which led to Universal Music Group filing suit against Grooveshark on grounds that the service supports music piracy.
Amazon currently supports streaming of music purchased through an Amazon MP3 account or uploaded to your personal Amazon Cloud account, so there is a difference between the two services. However, record labels are still upset about the lack of licensing agreements and are discussing a strategy of how to force Amazon to pay them money or face legal actions. Similar predicaments have reportedly led to months-long delays of Google Music and a Spotify launch in the U.S. If Google is pressured to remove apps deemed to violate copyright, Android phones may have less options for music streaming.
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
There is one big difference between the two services, on Amazon Cloud you CAN NOT stream to other people, only yourself.
- Jonny (@DevJonny)
Yes, I mention that in the article. I'll underline to show there's more of a difference, but both are essentially under threat of a copyright dispute.
One other big difference – Amazon now has their own independent app marketplace, and I double they'll be removing it.
Ya this is a little different than amazon music. Groove shark was letting me listen to music that I didn't own, even without a subscription. Frankly, I don't use too many streaming music apps but still upset that this is happening. but still, I have collected music since I was 13, I admit not all were bought so I don't want amazon to be giving my information willy nilly to the RIAA; I don't trust them. I'll hold out for something better.
I see the RIAA ramping up the lawsuits on mobile apps because that is where the $ is. As for Grooveshark (GS), I have no experience with that app. If GS did indeed allow streaming from a user's library to anyone then that can be seen as multicasting and that is a different license. Read that as big bucks.
Amazon may bite the bullet and pay off RIAA even though it (Amazon) has a good position. Amazon sells music which makes $; court case could effect that part of business. It would be good for users if Amazon fought and won suits brought on by an overreaching RIAA.
I checked out Spotify and it is a fairly decent system, however, getting the same level of usefulness in USofA is nil. [/ramble
-d
My recent post Silver Bengal Kitten Eating video of audio
tinyshark is still on the market as of right now
Grooveshark = audio-only Youtube. In both services, users upload content and the sites take it down if they receive a DMCA request.
If Youtube is legal, then so is Grooveshark.
Two words:
Winamp Remote.
Amazon should definitely fight any action since uses only have access to music that they've purchased or that they've uploaded to their own account.
All this prooves is that the Record Companies are a group of greedy tyrants only interested in making more maney than they need at the expense of the artists they apparently represent – and I guarantee that the artists are not seeing any of the money that they are raking in from their court action, yet the artists are the ones that truly deserve the money.
What's next, a tax on personal media players fro every file that users put on it, even though they've already paid to purchase the track in the first place. If they're planning court action against Amazon for alowing to streat music that the user already owns, then nothing is beyind them.
Personally I'd love to see all the big earning bands/artisits pool their money and create an independant online media distributor that allows all users to produce and distribute their own music. That way the consumer is paying the "artist", and the artist isn't loosing 70. 80, 90 percent of what should be "their" profits, to these greedhy middle men who essentially get paid a small fortune for sitting on their butts and ripping of artists and consumers alike.
Has someone pointed out, Grooveshark is like Youtube for music and is taking the necessary measures to remain legal. Here's how. You can use both a paid account to have access to the mobile app or stream for free from their site just like Spotify. Obviously if you;re streaming for free you'll have to deal with the ads. Their revenue is than shared with artists. They have an artists program called Grooveshark Artists. They respect any DMCA take down notice. In fact they already reached a deal with EMI for streaming their content.
This type of actions make Android less appealing in my opinion.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/emi-drops-…
I cannot tell you have flipp'n pissed I am right now about this! I've always thought of Grooveshark as making one of the best efforts to protect downloading songs to your phone and respecting "its just streaming" rule. I must say, If Grooveshark is going to charge for account access, they should have maybe made some agreements with the music industry [who are probably all riled up from the Amazon Cloud Player thing]. Ooooooh, so mad. If Google will throw Grooveshark out, they should take all of the other music streaming apps with them. I mean, if Google will not bow to Government pressure to remove police checkpoint apps, then why this? Frustrated Frustrated Frustrated!
My recent post 10 Top Android Market Alternative App Stores