• (des)mosthenes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        sued into oblivion and they didn’t want to sell out the business; more like being forced into marriage with your rapist

    • Rebels_Droppin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Oh wow! I used to use grooveshark as a kid but my mom thought it was a piracy site and didn’t let me use it on her laptop. Haven’t thought about that site in a while, thanks for your work!

      • (des)mosthenes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 hours ago

        it was literally the same exact business model as youtube. the big four labels were suing youtube at the same time for the same reason as grooveshark. then google bought youtube and they “settled” - grooveshark got sued into oblivion and took a dear friend from me (suicide)

      • paraphrand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        It was at least in part a piracy site. Everything was uploaded by users. It was a piracy site in the same sense that early music content on YouTube was. It was mostly users uploading in the early years. This is why there was a massive lawsuit against YouTube back then. And why we got content ID, etc.

        This also often meant the audio compression was random, and sometimes terrible. On grooveshark and YouTube. And on YouTube the native bitrates were terrible 2006-2010 or so.

        Your mom was right. But she was probally wrong about it spreading malware.