I think it's the best way to listen to music for free online. There's an android app for it as well.

Anyone else use this service? What are your thoughts and opinions?

It doesn't seem like it's legal, especially because they don't pay most royalties to the artists. Morally, I can't stand by it so I don't use it.

glue-gun wrote:

It doesn't seem like it's legal, especially because they don't pay most royalties to the artists. Morally, I can't stand by it so I don't use it.

i dont think youtube does either…

jukyter wrote:

glue-gun wrote:

It doesn't seem like it's legal, especially because they don't pay most royalties to the artists. Morally, I can't stand by it so I don't use it.

i dont think youtube does either…

besides how much royalties do you think artists get?

jukyter wrote:

jukyter wrote:

glue-gun wrote:

It doesn't seem like it's legal, especially because they don't pay most royalties to the artists. Morally, I can't stand by it so I don't use it.

i dont think youtube does either…

besides how much royalties do you think artists get?

Grooveshark pretends to pay royalties to artists, though, even signing deals with record labels for their music to appear. However, they've complained (I think specifically it was EMI) that they didn't pay royalties. Although the value would be very small, it's the concept that counts here.

Spotify is much more organized, and respects copyrights alot more.

NeilWest wrote:

Spotify is much more organized, and respects copyrights alot more.

On Grooveshark, you can choose what song you want to listen to on mobile devices for free.

On Pandora/Spotify, you're stuck with stupid radio that knows nothing about you.

PonyoPenguin wrote:

NeilWest wrote:

Spotify is much more organized, and respects copyrights alot more.

On Grooveshark, you can choose what song you want to listen to on mobile devices for free.

On Pandora/Spotify, you're stuck with stupid radio that knows nothing about you.

+1

glue-gun wrote:

jukyter wrote:

jukyter wrote:

glue-gun wrote:

It doesn't seem like it's legal, especially because they don't pay most royalties to the artists. Morally, I can't stand by it so I don't use it.

i dont think youtube does either…

besides how much royalties do you think artists get?

Grooveshark pretends to pay royalties to artists, though, even signing deals with record labels for their music to appear. However, they've complained (I think specifically it was EMI) that they didn't pay royalties. Although the value would be very small, it's the concept that counts here.

i mean from music sales
artists make most of their money from concerts and merchandise
(one direction & other megastars probably get more though)

jukyter wrote:

glue-gun wrote:

jukyter wrote:

jukyter wrote:

glue-gun wrote:

It doesn't seem like it's legal, especially because they don't pay most royalties to the artists. Morally, I can't stand by it so I don't use it.

i dont think youtube does either…

besides how much royalties do you think artists get?

Grooveshark pretends to pay royalties to artists, though, even signing deals with record labels for their music to appear. However, they've complained (I think specifically it was EMI) that they didn't pay royalties. Although the value would be very small, it's the concept that counts here.

i mean from music sales
artists make most of their money from concerts and merchandise
(one direction & other megastars probably get more though)

I speak mostly towards independent artists, who usually get to keep a high percentage of music sales.

PonyoPenguin wrote:

NeilWest wrote:

Spotify is much more organized, and respects copyrights alot more.

On Grooveshark, you can choose what song you want to listen to on mobile devices for free.

On Pandora/Spotify, you're stuck with stupid radio that knows nothing about you.

On Pandora, you can discover new music, and Spotify you can play whatever you want it just has ads.

Honestly, I couldn't care less if some big name artist couldn't buy his son a private jet just because I use Grooveshark.

Grooveshark for the win.

LeDerpy123 wrote:

PonyoPenguin wrote:

NeilWest wrote:

Spotify is much more organized, and respects copyrights alot more.

On Grooveshark, you can choose what song you want to listen to on mobile devices for free.

On Pandora/Spotify, you're stuck with stupid radio that knows nothing about you.

On Pandora, you can discover new music, and Spotify you can play whatever you want it just has ads.

on mobile

My broadcast

i like this site

I use it

Grooveshark's the best of the music sites. You just choose what you want to listen to, unlike having to pay money (spotify), a dumb radio that knows nothing about you (pandora), and not needing a account for a crappy radio (iheartradio)

Grooveshark doesn't pay a significant amount of owed royalties to artists though and they're currently being sued by like every major music company.

Animeboy975 wrote:

Grooveshark's the best of the music sites. You just choose what you want to listen to, unlike having to pay money (spotify), a dumb radio that knows nothing about you (pandora), and not needing a account for a crappy radio (iheartradio)

I know! In class my teachers play easy listening music when we read. When McDonalds got those Fish McBites the class used to sing it.
Edit: a quick explaination: The ad would play every like five songs on Pandora.

Animeboy975 wrote:

Grooveshark's the best of the music sites. You just choose what you want to listen to, unlike having to pay money (spotify), a dumb radio that knows nothing about you (pandora), and not needing a account for a crappy radio (iheartradio)

Spotify is actually… believe it or not… FREE so don't put down my spotify. it has all the music I need…

I however, think groove shark isn't the best way to listen to any music you want. While they do have a lot of music on it, a lot of it is not official. I keep trying to find songs, then find like 5 hour versions, or one that only lasts for 5 seconds of silence… The music quality is bad, and it takes forever to load on my phone, which is a 6 month old LG 4G phone with T-Mobile (In other words, it's not my phone). I just don't find it to be good. I'd rather just buy songs on iTunes or use Spotify.

glue-gun wrote:

jukyter wrote:

jukyter wrote:

glue-gun wrote:

It doesn't seem like it's legal, especially because they don't pay most royalties to the artists. Morally, I can't stand by it so I don't use it.

i dont think youtube does either…

besides how much royalties do you think artists get?

Grooveshark pretends to pay royalties to artists, though, even signing deals with record labels for their music to appear. However, they've complained (I think specifically it was EMI) that they didn't pay royalties. Although the value would be very small, it's the concept that counts here.

Groove SHark music, is mostly posted by users, not even the real bands. this results in some of the worst music quality I've ever seen, plus your right. Bands don't even get payed for it.

PonyoPenguin wrote:

Honestly, I couldn't care less if some big name artist couldn't buy his son a private jet just because I use Grooveshark.

Grooveshark for the win.

I think you should be a little ashamed for posting that. What if you wrote a hit song, and people just listened to it over grooveshark, and you made no money over it, after you payed like $300 to copy the CDs and for advertising, and then you ended up getting like, $50 back. I'd like to see you pay for something like a “private jet” or even just a paper bag to put on your head and hide in the shame. Most bands either put it in savings, or spend it on stuff like their family. If you look at Zayn Malik, he spent over 300,00 dollars on a new house for his family because their old one was way to small to fit all of them…
Lesson: Don't listen to Lorde. She lies, and celebrates don't spend it on golden leashes for illegally imported (and bought)endangered exotic animals…