Grooveshark self-interest explained

Posted on by
1

The head of Grooveshark Sam Tarrantino recently did an interview with Evolver to explain why his company—which streams music without paying artists and without permission—is not “dodgy”. Grooveshark is of course of doubtful legality and defending its business in court right now.

Tarrantino argued 6 main points in his defence. He didn’t mention the fact that he’s living off the music he plays for free (Spotify’s Daniel Ek is worth £300 million).

1. Record labels want too much money

Music licenses were established for traditional radio, TV, video and live performance. Those businesses have always paid up, otherwise they get shut down. Online companies like iTunes, YouTube and Spotify also pay music licenses.

If they can’t make make money that is not the artists’ problem.

2. Musicians already get paid more by touring

That’s not always true but even so it doesn’t mean the music is free (see 1.).

3. The music business is too slow and partially broken

Tarrantino favours 360° deals. He’s not in the record business but considers himself knowledgeable about how artists should be paid. Just not paid by him, obviously.

4. Grooveshark is modelled on early YouTube

YouTube is now licensed but Tarantino points out that YouTube hosts unlicensed content such as The Beatles. He seems to be arguing that two wrongs make a right.

5. Grooveshark complies with takedowns

In point 4 Tarrantino argued that unlicensed material is OK, now he says he takes it down. But we know Grooveshark doesn’t takedown effectively (and neither does YouTube).

6. Grooveshark’s ad platform can boost an unknown band

Is he really suggesting that screwing some artists is OK because he’s promoting other artists? Yes, he is. He has 30 million users and thinks that’s a great asset for promoting new bands as long as everyone is happy to give him free content.

Or maybe he really thinks Grooveshark is going to make him £300 million. That seems a lot more likely than his 6 rather confused points. Did he convince you?

The tyranny of sameness

Posted on by
1

The mainstream is all about lots of people liking the same thing. People who like other things are just as curious and commercially active, probably even more so, but they are less easy for the mass media to serve.

I never liked the mainstream much. I grew up with pirate radio during secondary school. At break we would head up the field with our transistors and catch a couple of tracks, just half a dozen of us. We rarely liked the same thing with the same passion, instead we shared our enthusiasm for different things.

So the mainstream has always baffled me. There are some benefits in making, storing, promoting, and selling several million of one CD rather than “only” 50,000 of 60 others. And traditional radio and TV finds it easier to feature a few acts rather than many. But all that is for the convenience of middlemen, not artists or consumers.

We are encouraged through charts and so-called talent shows to pick winners. Winners, of course, are also easy for mass media to mass market, it’s much harder to promote diversity and difference. It’s impossible to feature everything people like and pick winners at the same time.

That’s why even BBC 6Music (the UK national “new music” station) conforms to the post-pirate popular radio template: label-driven playlists and prime time personality presenters, with eclectic music shows relegated to off-peak hours. When the BBC launched Radio One in 1967 it didn’t just make pop radio legal it also made it safe for the masses.

Under its charter the BBC should be “distinctive”, but it isn’t. A distinctive new music radio station would be manned round the clock by music DJs reflecting the true diversity of world (and indeed World) music.

Instead the mass audience has the comfort of experiencing and buying the same stuff as everybody else, and record labels—even though the benefits of mass producing a limited number of titles are much diminished with digital—still sell a very small range. What we don’t know is how many of that mass audience will buy more when they can see and hear it, but it’s my guess we’ll find out in our lifetime.