Talk:Grooveshark/Archive 1

Archive 1

Regarding Johnconorryan and Daffydavid (?) disagreement on the content of this article

Johnconorryan notes this disagreement; I have posted references to the legal challenges to Grooveshark from Pink Floyd and King Crimson (and, separately, Robert Fripp); some correspondence between these parties is visible online (e.g. Mr. Fripp's blog) and indicates that these are not minor challenges, but existential - i.e., that Grooveshark's entire business ethos and practice is under challenge. For this reason, and for this reason alone, I believe the challenges are appropriate to keep IN the article and in the summary of the article.

FYI: I have no connection to any party, or any competitor of any party. I just want this article to provide an appropriate picture.

Johnconorryan (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Johnconorryan

Johnconorryan, I have given the reasons for the deletion several times, but I will try again. Blogs are not considered RS (Reliable Sources) as per Wikipedia policy. The dispute does not warrant placement in the lede and is in fact addressed further down in the article. If you would like to add more in that section I doubt anyone will object. Just make sure you add references and ensure that they are RS (ie. not blogs). On another note, please ensure you read the changes you are making prior to reverting as the last time you added back some vandalism inserted by an other user. I will add this note to your talk page as well and will ask a senior editor to weigh in as well. As always - Happy Editing!Daffydavid (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Johnconorryan and Daffydavid,

I really would like to jump into this discussion about the lede on the Grooveshark page. I believe the legal battles are out of date. Based on several sources, it seems that a NY State Supreme court Judge Kapnick has overturned this case and upheld the legality of Grooveshark for the time being. (Fox:http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/07/18/does-revolution-in-music-industry-spell-end-mp3/). How would you guys reccommend I updated the page because last time I tried, Daffydavid expressed I should bring the discussion to the Talk section prior to editing.

Cheers, MannyMannyMasterson 6:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Koda writing on the article

Some danish Koda guy seems to have quoted himself on the article. Should it be removed?

Anon 10:30, 24 Juli 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.62.237.173 (talk)

new logo

The logo used is an older logo. Their current logo is located at http://www.grooveshark.com/webincludes/images/logos/logoVertical.png. Can an Uploader please replace the old logo with the current one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpdvx (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated. KeLopez CL (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Grooveshark VIP

Grooveshark has already launched Grooveshark VIP without any updates to the Wiki page in regards to it's new features and user response. I'm not currently, but due plan shortly to upgrade to this level, unfortunately funds are low. Though with only being three dollars a month or thirty dollars for an entire year I'm surpised that no one has provided insight into this service. If nothing is updated in respected to this shortly, then it looks like it is up to me to start the ball rolling...

Blaczac (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaczac (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

EMI

Grooveshark just announced that they are now licensed for EMI content: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/emi-drops-suit-against-grooveshark-music-service-licenses-it-instead/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpdvx (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mobile presence

Shouldn't there be some mention of Grooveshark's presence on mobile phones? I know for sure there's an app for the Palm Pre when in the US App Catalog (as of 03/26/2010). There also seem to be versions for iPhone, Blackberry and Android. ( http://help.grooveshark.com/faq/mobile/ ) 130.83.244.131 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Issues

From the article: "The website also allows users to upload music files on their hard drive to the search database, resulting in constant growth of its library. However, concerns have been raised (see legal issues) over the legality of this content with regards to copyright infringement." Just one question: are you shitting me?--81.174.45.49 (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any difference if a file is upload to grooveshard or to youtube. Anyway, what is the difference if its a video or a audio file? --93.164.234.198 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Grooveshark's legal challenges are a significant part of the information Wikipedia should offer; King Crimson has been in a lengthy battle over this; Robert Fripp's blog includes correspondence that shows Grooveshark's responses. Pink Floyd has been battling Grooveshark even longer; someone is deleting all references to these legal challenges, and this seems to be an inappropriate attempt to censor the Grooveshark entry.

Johnconorryan (talk)John Conor Ryan —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Johnconorryan, I have deleted the information added for the reasons given when I made the edits. Since you seem unclear, here's why - blogs are not considered RS as per Wikipedia policy. Further your last edit includes an editorial, also not the way Wikipedia works. I have no objection to adding the material in an appropriate section with appropriate references. There are other legal issues ongoing and adding this in the section there would probably be appropriate but it must not be given undue weight. Daffydavid (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

DaffyDavid,

Robert Fripp's diary entries are widely reported in leading media (e.g. [New York Times], Billboard, The Guardian, and the academic press.

It is questionable also whether Fripp's diary entries are considered blogs, since he is the founder, head, and public face of the music company Discipline Global Mobile, and his diary is featured on the DGM website. How can Fripp's public statements on Groveshark's distribution of DGM/King Crimson/Fripp's work be considered less reliable than the CEO of Grooveshark?

Again, the reliable sources seem to treat Fripp with at least as much respect (an understatement) as Grooveshark.

I looked at the history. Per WP:RS and WP:Secondary, it would be best to use high quality reliable sources reporting on litigants' positions, and use the litigants' own statements only for color (so that readers can check details). I gave above reliable sources reporting Fripp's statements, which can be used in place of quotes from DGM's diary---note that DGM's TOS bars linking directly to diaries without explicit permission.

There is no reason for Wikipedia to continue to repeat advertising from Grooveshark and to link directly to Grooveshark's sources, while excluding similar linking to Grooveshark's critics. I do not deny that paid editors may have their reasons, of course.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Apple

It could be good to see some information about grooveshark app for Apple. So far Apple has not accepted it to be included at their app store. A dollar to first one who guess why. --93.164.234.198 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation

This article states that almost all Pink Floyd has been removed. This is false. Please note there is a healthy dose of Pink Floyd streaming to the public's ears on Grooveshark.

vive la resistance!

Tavis 14/08/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.114.229 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DavidZorychta: Isn't the article correct in that Pink Floyd media was removed (as well as many other artists such as the Veronicas), however since the music database is user generated, a lot of Pink Floyd's content was simply re-uploaded. An edit to indicate that their music was reuploaded would be accurate, but ignoring the fact that at one point a vast amount of their music was removed would be the real portrayment of "misinformation". DavidZorychta (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

David and Tavis,

Please suggest edits based on reliable sources, per WP:RS. Please remove statements that may appear to be soapboxing. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

History

The statement that Sam Tarantino was "was on his way to donate plasma" when he came up with the idea for Grooveshark seems completely irrelevant to me. I vote that it should be removed. --Gmarsden (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't get an argument from me.Maxximillian (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Source gone bad

Source 32 article no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarennon (talk • contribs) 13:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This sight is very unreliable it seems to play the songs very strange and a lot of crackling in music... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.229.1 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

last.fm scrobble

Recently Grooveshark also scrobbles to last.fm from free accounts, so that part of the subscription service section is outdated. (68.156.95.226 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Creators?

After reading several articles on the internet, it appears that this was created not only by Sam Tarantino and Josh Greenberg but also by Andres Barreto, a colombian Engineer. Could someone please confirm and correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.163.56 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed "sued by all major record labels" in critisisms

Changed to "As of January 2012, Grooveshark was being sued by EMI Music Publishing, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and Universal Music." as to include the names of record labels with ongoing legal actions against the Escape Media Group (Grooveshark). It was previously vague to say they were "sued by all major record labels" as the quote from the citation does not indicate which other labels have active suits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidZorychta (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The source stated "all", and indeed headlines use the word "All", and so the reliably sourced word "all" has been restored. The article names the four mentioned in the source. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I've had a look at Kiefer.Wolfowitz's recent edits. In the main, I think they are a big improvement: simpler, clearer, and more WP:NPOV. Where I disagree is with many of the inline cn and secondary tags that were added--see Grooveshark#Grooveshark.27s_position. This section is largely devoted to statement of the company's stated policy, so I think that citations directly to those policies are to the point and appropriate. I don't think that a mass revert, "yes or no" discussion is the way to go, though, so (assuming I remain sufficiently energetic) I will address these tags individually. To start with:

• I've removed cn tag here. This sentence is simply a direct and accurate quotation from the company's TOS, and the citation is to those TOS. It seems sufficient, and I can't think of what additional citation might be called for, so I've removed the tag. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked for help from the experts at Wikiproject Record Labels and Wikiproject cooperation. Silver Serene also suggested removing the cn-tags, and instead tagging the section with primary/section. Thanks for the kind words. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would highly suggest, however, adding in a section tag from Template:Primary sources though. The sourcing in that section is definitely a problem, not just the primary-ness of them, but also that they are using a novel interpretation of, say, a generalized DMCA page to make statements that are a combination of things not stated in any of the sources. Silverseren^C 07:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Short, sound, succinct, and simple advice is easy to follow! 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition of See Also links to article that are unclear to those not conversant with the subject is troubling. (Robert Fripp and DMG). Have left a note at editors page. --Daffydavid (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kiefer, For the most part I agree with the edits you have done on the Grooveshark page and related pages but I am unclear why you are linking Robert Fripp and DMG when there is no mention of them in the Grooveshark page nor any mention of Grooveshark at the respective pages. Yes, I get their involvement but, to the uninitiated the links are totally unrelated. Happy Editing. --Daffydavid (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daffydavid,

Thanks for writing. Per WP:See also, usual practice is to avoid listing articles that are not mentioned in the text. I have suggested adding some mention of Robert Fripp's diary and the DGM complaint in the article, using especially the New York Times coverage. The scoop was by Digital Music News, I believe, whose story then spread to other news media. If nobody else adds some mention, I may add something. After an in-text discussion is added, I would remove the see also mention.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The state of this article before I arrived was troubling. The one-sided reliance on Grooveshark sources and the shameless quotation of Grooveshark's spokesman's rhetoric ("Some would have you believe") remain troubling. My adding "see also" is consistent with WP:See also, and should trouble only somebody needing to be troubled. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:See also what I was getting at is a note describing the relevance of the links. I apparently was unclear. Your thoughts on this? Happy Editing. --Daffydavid (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daffydavid,

I trust the updated page is more to your liking! :)

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a vast improvement and I see you took your own advice. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Illustration of user interface: Listening to Robert Fripp today

The article has a description of the Grooveshark interface, with no illustrations, unlike the articles for e.g. Windows Vista (with its innovative sound system).

Today, I made a snapshot of a GoogleChrome (incognito) on Gooveshark, listening to---talk about exposure!---Robert Fripp and Daryl Hall's North Star! Besides illustrating the interface, this picture may suggest why Mr. Fripp has been unhappy.

How do I remove the .jpg file's listing of "Owner" and "computer" before uploading? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A later screenshot was taken (17 July 2012) and has been uploaded with the kind help of User:Sven Manguard. The screenshot shows c. 12 recordings by Fripp and 16 albums by King Crimson (for some of which no or limited selections from KC albums are offered). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit warring on the legal section in the lede

A couple of SPA editors have recently excised the paragraphs on Grooveshark's legal issues from the lede, which have been restored by other editors. My own view is that Grooveshark's involvement in today's copyright wars is certainly an important element of their notability, and therefore belongs in the lede, but that the topic is treated in too much detail there, especially given its full treatment in later sections. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hobbes Goodyear,

You made good comments before, so I am glad that you responded to my request for another opinion with further good comments. :)

Following your suggestion, I shortened the lede's discussion of legal complaints and application removals. I don't see how anything else can be removed without baffling the general reader.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, good job, much improved. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hobbes Goodyear!

Thanks a lot! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Hobbes Goodyear and Kiefer.Wolfowitz,

I really would like to jump into this discussion about the lede on the Grooveshark page. I believe the legal battles are out of date. Based on several sources, it seems that a NY State Supreme court Judge Kapnick has overturned this case and upheld the legality of Grooveshark for the time being. (Fox:http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/07/18/does-revolution-in-music-industry-spell-end-mp3/). How would you guys reccommend I updated the page because last time I tried, DaffyDavid expressed I should bring the discussion to the Talk section prior to editing.

Cheers, MannyMannyMasterson 6:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Any editor without a coi is welcome directly to edit the page, faithfully representing one reliable source at a time, to update things. I think the NYT had an article with a title like, winning the battle, but perhaps not the war, some months ago..., which could also be used.

I haven't had time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kiefer! MannyMannyMasterson

Kiefer, Is there any reason that you are removing the sources and references in the lede for the NY State Supreme Court ruling, along with the name of the Judge? I think this is an important piece of information and am not sure why you are deleting it. MannyMannyMasterson 6:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manny!

Sorry for my delay in responding. Please leave a note for me if I miss another posting like this.

Ledes don't have details and ledes usually don't have citations. The citations and details belong in the body. Giving the name of a judge in the lede seemed like excessive detail imho.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues with article

• Under "Critical Reception" the article refers to an Entertainment Weekly article that gives Grooveshark a "B". However, it appears that the article has been revised to omit Grooveshark. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20663844,00.html. Should the section be removed? Mguentz (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• The contract dispute between EMI was settled and EMI has sued them again, separately from the settlement they reached: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/emi-sues-grooveshark-for-third-time-seeks-1007938782.story
• The copyright section currently is missing relevant counter-claim information against UMG and the win in the NY case of UMG Escape Media Group: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/grooveshark-wins-dmca-argument-in-universal-1007548152.story
• The mention of Time's "50 best websites" is mixed in in the "Copyright" section for some unknown reason.
• UMG didn't cite internal documents, they made an accusation that there was proof and cited a comment by an anonymous user on digital music news in the court case.
• The lede focuses more on the lawsuits of the parent company than the actual service. This hardly seems neutral given more than half the article is about the service rather than the lawsuits. Ledes should represent the topic in full.

Unsigned comment by User:24.250.146.142 (talk)

Hi Mr./Ms. IP!

Please sign your comments with four tildes.

I haven't worked on the article in months. You and other editors are encouraged to improve the article using high-quality (most) reliable sources.

The Time top-50 story looked pretty weak to me (like a blog of summer interns..., if my memory be correct), so I moved it next to the mention of Time. You can judge for yourself, and move it to a better section.

UMG is reported as having cited internal documents. The Grooveshark lawyer stated that UMG was using documents delivered by Grooveshark, which presumably does not include the blog posting. UMG also cited the blog posting.

The first part of the article is built mainly on Grooveshark news releases and blogs, not high-quality reliable sources independent of Grooveshark. Per WP:AGF, I assume that reliable sources can be found for most of that material, so I have not removed it. The discussion of lawsuits is based on high-quality, most reliable sources that are independent. When I look at HQMR sources, their coverage is focused on lawsuits, not on whether Grooveshark upgraded its HTML, etc.

Indeed, the lede under-represents such material, imho. (For example, the article does not use The Guardian's coverage, which seems to have been the most critical of Grooveshark.)

Thank you for writing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Image

Hey Hobbes Goodyear and Kiefer.Wolfowitz,

I am writing you in regards to an image that Sven Manguard posted of King Crimson content on Grooveshark on behalf of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. The uploaded image does not support that Grooveshark does not uphold it's take-down policy. The way take-downs work is that as soon as content is seen and flagged as inappropriate, it is subsequently taken down (exactly like content on Youtube). I believe this image falsely portrays Grooveshark. I hope to hear from the community soon in regards to discussing this image, and its presence on the Grooveshark page.

Cheers, MannyMannyMasterson 6:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manny!

Of musical artists on Grooveshark, King Crimson and Fripp have the most coverage in the article, and so the KC/Fripp material on Grooveshark seems like an appropriate image for the article. The caption is WP:NPOV. A (blurred, per fair use copyright) screenshot is usual articles on computer applications. If there are other screenshots, then we could discuss which is most appropriate.

BTW, the image is used for the Grooveshark article on Youtube (which was generated by Wikiplay)! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Premium

The information about the subscription model seems to be out of date, and a couple of the references are bad (refs 14 and 15, as of now).

Wikiusermike (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

UK to block Grooveshark

http://torrentfreak.com/records-labels-prepare-massive-pirate-site-domain-blocking-blitz-130515/ - 79.66.85.73 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

songs

Example 1: "Grooveshark’s catalog streams [...] over 15 million songs".

Are it over 15 million songs (which includes lyrics/singing) or are it 15 million musical works (which not necessarily includes lyrics/singing)?

Example 2: "The ID3 information of the uploaded song is linked to the user"

What happens, if a user uploads a musical work, which is not a song (i.e. does not include lyrics/singing); or is it impossible to upload a non-song? Etc. -91.63.240.124 (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Updates Re: Legal settlements, licensing agreements & features

My name is Erin Pickard and in order to remain in compliance with guidelines for WP:SCOIC, I want to disclose that I work for Grooveshark as director of social media. More information is available on my user profile, but I signed up here to keep the community apprised of updates that are available for the Grooveshark article. I won't be making direct edits to articles about Grooveshark, but am using the Talk page to offer suggestions. Also, I'm new to the Wikipedia community, so I ask that you please bear with me and would welcome any feedback/recommendations!

Following are the updates I'm providing for the Grooveshark article that are accurate as of November, 2013.

Legal Settlements: Grooveshark has reached legal settlements with EMI Music Publishing and Sony/ATV Music Publishing. The agreements, the terms of which are confidential, resolve all matters and disputes between Grooveshark and EMI Music Publishing and Sony/ATV Music Publishing to their mutual satisfaction.

Licensing Agreements: Grooveshark has signed licensing agreements with EMI Music Publishing and Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

Features: A new feature, Broadcast, was released in April 2013.

Thanks for taking a look, I hope this is helpful!! Kind regards,

Erinpickard (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

--Daffydavid (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Added titles to citations, Erinpickard (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Who uploads and why?

It is no secret that the vast majority of material on Grooveshark is uploaded in breach of copyright. I don't see any explanation in the article of who makes these uploads and why they do it. We know from recent Court cases that some files have been uploaded by Grooveshark employees, but presumably this accounts for only a minority of all the many millions of files. As far as I can see from Google-searchable sources there is no financial incentive for people in general to upload (unlike with Megaupload). Grooveshark's terms of service also make it clear that uploaders will be personally liable for any breach of copyright, and that Grooveshark itself may seek financial reimbursement for any copyright penalties. So why do uploaders do it?81.157.67.87 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Loss of Neutral Tone

I was editing this article about a year ago, and was surprised to see the article's tone took a turn for the promotional. Looking back at the edits, it's mostly good work, but looks like a user:Missralleyt made an account, made this edit, and then deleted their account. There's some good sourcing that's worth keeping, but removing the legal aspects from the lead and turning the court cases into an "overcoming adversity" story is not how to write a quality article. Forbes72 (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Done with my best effort to keep the good parts of the edit in the article. Forbes72 (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1