Grooveshark: Trolling The Sea Of Artists To Make A Buck?

Article From

So what does Grooveshark do? When you click the “about” link on their website, a little pop-up box appears that says: “Grooveshark is the world’s largest on-demand music streaming and discovery service.” What this means is that anyone can go to Grooveshark, and, for FREE, type in the name of an artist and then play any recording by that artist in the Grooveshark system. Users can make playlists, stop, start, skip and basically listen to what they want, when they want, with little-to-no restrictions. And guess what, allowing anyone to listen to anything they want with basically no restrictions got them a whole bunch of users. How many? According to their little pop-up box: “Over 30 million users flock to Grooveshark…” Wow. 30 million users that “flock to Grooveshark,” and, again, I quote from their own site: “…to listen to their favorite music, create playlists, discover new tunes, and share it all with friends via Facebook, Twitter, social news sites, and more.” Well, when you have 30 million people coming to your website, you have a lot of web traffic. This means you can start making money by charging entities to advertise on your site. After all, you reach tens of millions of consumers. Just think of all the money Grooveshark makes by selling ads. There is just one really big, big problem: they don’t get licenses and don’t pay the artists, the labels and/or the songwriters for the use of the music that’s making them tons of money. I can assure you, 99% of the hundreds of thousands of TuneCore Artists whose music is in Grooveshark have not been paid a single penny. Said more simply: ARTISTS SHOULD BE PAID FOR THE USE OF THEIR MUSIC! In order for Grooveshark to pull off their “aren’t-we-so-clever-f**k-the-artist” scheme, they use copyright law in a way it was not intended to be used.



Senator Paul Speaks Out Against Corporate Welfare

Published on March 20, 2012

I rise today in opposition to corporate welfare. At a time when our country is borrowing over a trillion dollars a year, I think it makes no sense to loan money back to countries we are borrowing from. For example, we borrowed $29 billion from Mexico, and yet we’re sending them back $8 billion of the money we borrow from them to subsidize trade.
A lot of the subsidized trade goes to very wealthy corporations. You know, when 12 million people are out of work in the United States, does it make sense for the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize loans of major multinational corporations?
The President’s big on saying “Well, these rich companies need to pay their fair share.” Well, why then is the President sending loans out to these very wealthy corporations and he’s actually giving them their fair share of our taxpayer money? Why is that occurring?
I have often asked the question, is government inherently stupid? Well, I don’t think government is inherently stupid, but it’s a debatable question, but what government is government doesn’t get the same signals that your local bank gets.
Your local bank has to look at your creditworthiness, your local bank has to make a profit, your local bank has to meet a payroll. But once the government gets in charge of these things, Katie, bar the door. We don’t have a good track record with government banks because they don’t feel deep inside the same pain that an individual banker feels when he gives a loan.
So we have got Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae losing $6 billion a quarter of your money, and what do they want to do? They want to expand another government bank. So get this right.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are government banks are losing $6 billion a quarter. Just recently, they wanted to give them multimillion-dollar bonuses. They said well, you have got to pay people if you want to keep good talent.
You know, my question is how much talent does it take to lose $6 billion a quarter? I think there are people here today watching the Senate that would take $19 million a year to run one of these government banks to have your only record be that you lose $6 billion a quarter, that’s outrageous.
And they are wanting to expand a new government bank and give money to very wealthy corporations that are making a profit. It makes no sense what so ever.
Now, Jefferson said “That government is best that governs least.” Now, what did he mean by that? He meant that he wanted government to be small because government is inherently inefficient.
Government doesn’t get the same signals. That’s why we should only let government do the things that the private sector can’t do. Banking is something the private sector can do.
We’re not talking about starting new companies for the most part, we’re mostly talking about subsidizing very wealthy multinational companies. With the start-up companies, though, let’s look at the companies that the export-import bank is subsidizing. One of them is called First Solar.
Now, you may have heard that a lot of these solar companies are big contributors to President Obama. I wonder if that has something to do with them getting loans. But here is the loan that First Solar gets from export-import.
You know what? They get paid and they have a loan that says that they’re going to make solar panels, and then who is going to buy the solar panels? Themselves.
So they made a deal with another company they own, and the taxpayers is stuck financing a loan, so First Solar can make solar panels and then buy them from themselves. Well, that sounds like a good deal. You get the government to subsidize a loan to buy your own product.

Example of a basic READ MORE