![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Johnconorryan ( talk)John Conor Ryan —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
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)
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)
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 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)
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))
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 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)
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:
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)
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 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)
Thanks Kiefer! Manny MannyMasterson
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. Manny MannyMasterson 6:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Unsigned comment by User:24.250.146.142 ( talk)
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)
http://torrentfreak.com/records-labels-prepare-massive-pirate-site-domain-blocking-blitz-130515/ - 79.66.85.73 ( talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Are it over 15 million songs (which includes lyrics/singing) or are it 15 million musical works (which not necessarily includes lyrics/singing)?
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)
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. [1] [2]
Licensing Agreements: Grooveshark has signed licensing agreements with EMI Music Publishing and Sony/ATV Music Publishing. [3] [4] [5]
Features: A new feature, Broadcast, was released in April 2013. [6] [7] [8]
Thanks for taking a look, I hope this is helpful!! Kind regards,
Erinpickard ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
-- Daffydavid ( talk) 04:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Added titles to citations, Erinpickard ( talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Johnconorryan ( talk)John Conor Ryan —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
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)
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)
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 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)
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))
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 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)
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:
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)
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 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)
Thanks Kiefer! Manny MannyMasterson
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. Manny MannyMasterson 6:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Unsigned comment by User:24.250.146.142 ( talk)
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)
http://torrentfreak.com/records-labels-prepare-massive-pirate-site-domain-blocking-blitz-130515/ - 79.66.85.73 ( talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Are it over 15 million songs (which includes lyrics/singing) or are it 15 million musical works (which not necessarily includes lyrics/singing)?
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)
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. [1] [2]
Licensing Agreements: Grooveshark has signed licensing agreements with EMI Music Publishing and Sony/ATV Music Publishing. [3] [4] [5]
Features: A new feature, Broadcast, was released in April 2013. [6] [7] [8]
Thanks for taking a look, I hope this is helpful!! Kind regards,
Erinpickard ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
-- Daffydavid ( talk) 04:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Added titles to citations, Erinpickard ( talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |