EFF: Google must explain why they nuked the Grooveshark app


16 Responses to “EFF: Google must explain why they nuked the Grooveshark app”

  1. Anonymous says:

    “Cant we just have phones that we really own?”

    Well, not anymore – because then we only have to pay for them once, and that’s not a valid business model in today’s electronics economy….

  2. atman says:

    Grooveshark is available for iOS as well, through Cydia.

    Both Android and iOS have the same “failure mode”: root/jailbreak, then sideload. The differences between the platforms in terms of actual user freedom are vanishingly small.

    • Anonymous says:

      You are mistaken: Android phones do not require any hacking of any sort in order to sideload applications.

      Android phone with AT&T branding do not allow this, however, but they are the exception.

      The very same grooveshark app for Android is freely available to download at their website m.grooveshark.com.

    • Rob says:

      You don’t have to root to sideload Android.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jailbreak != Root either.

      To my understanding there are some sizeable tradeoffs when jailbreaking – so much so that its mostly not worth it (battery performance decline among others).

  3. penguinchris says:

    I hadn’t really looked into Grooveshark before, but I just tried it and it seems that their business model is a) show ads next to copyright-infringing music b) charge money for mobile access to copyright-infringing music c) profit.

    It looks like a neat service, but without the support of the labels (which as far as I can tell they don’t have), how can they possibly get far? If it was hosted in Russia or someplace I could understand – it’d be like the modern equivalent of a pirate radio station – but it’s hosted in Florida.

    I hope that their efforts do some good and help force change in the music industry, but as it stands they’re enabling copyright infringement on a massive scale. I personally don’t think copyright infringement means much, but I can understand why Google is cautious about allowing it in the market.

    And has been noted, the freedom of Android is not that you’re free to put whatever you want on the market. You’re free to install things from other sources. Google has every right to restrict what’s in their market, and in fact they *should* do that, at least in certain cases like this where allowing it would only cause pain for Google.

    I use AT&T (family plan), but I have an unlocked Android phone (Nexus One) and I rooted it, installed a custom ROM, etc. So I can install things from outside the market. I won’t be installing Grooveshark, though, because for mobile access they want $9 a month and it doesn’t really seem like it’s legal! At least if it were free (even ad-supported) it wouldn’t seem like extremely un-subtle subversion of the law (as incorrect as the law may be). If that $9 was spread evenly among the artists who you listen to each month, that’d be something else which I could totally get behind, but that’s not what’s happening here.

  4. brillow says:

    Google is snuggling up to the RIAA so they can launch their music locker service with limited fuss, this was (directly or indirectly) part of that process.

  5. hectorinwa says:

    The native app sucked anyhow – You all know about Tinyshark, right?

  6. pmark says:

    There should be an investigation into why Google removed real-estate searches from Maps.

  7. YarbroughFair says:

    I agree: Google storing code is the same as a bank storing money; a bank has no obligation to define the representation of every dollar it stores, were it came from, how it was used or how it may be used once it’s withdrawn. Additionally, the interest a bank earns on these deposits does not inherit the monies history, good or bad. Finally, Google is responsible on how they “lend” their code; as a bank would too concerning money.

    • dculberson says:

      Banks are actually required to report suspicious transactions and seize money based on law enforcement requests. If a transaction appears suspicious and they don’t report it they can get in serious trouble.

  8. Yano says:

    With all due respect to the EFF they weren’t present during the last last COICA/piracy congressional hearing: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20051248-261.html

    Reps were seriously asking why Google doesn’t fix all the ills in the world and stop all crime and the hearing before that turned into a Google witch trial in absentia.

    So they are essentially under huge pressure from politicians in the pocket of big content.

    Oh, and you can still side-load the app(s).

  9. Anonymous says:

    While I don’t know why Google pulled the app, and it would be nice if Google made it clear why when something was pulled, after reading:


    I’m not at all surprised that there was some reason to pull it.

  10. Anonymous says:

    It just occurred to me: why is the EFF defending the rights of people the way they do? shouldn’t there be like…some sort
    of governmental body for that? Somewhere?

  11. rebdav says:

    This is why I chose the MAEMO powered Nokia N900, default unlocked, free as in beer/speech Linux goodness, every built in phone accessory known to man including a great point and shoot camera, in a far better developed for piece of hardware than the train wreck that was OpenMoko. I have more high quality useful apps than any phone OS I know and still get a native Angry Birds port too.
    Why does every manufacturer even Nokia have to eventually revert to the MSFT or iOS model?
    Cant we just have phones that we really own?

Leave a Reply