Grooveshark’s legal woes are not the end

The New York Times recently reported that Grooveshark, for many a popular alternative to torrent sites, was facing lawsuits from “all major labels.” Although the labels site specific royalty issues, it’s not far-fetched to think that the music industry may be growing more hostile towards sites that offer their content for free. The recent debate over SOPA (The Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (The Protect IP Act) also points to this, as does the fact that Grooveshark has already had to “shut down its operations in Germany” due to “‘unreasonably high’ licensing costs.” What would it mean if their efforts proved successful? What if legal streaming became thing of the past? Should we even care?

I posed these questions to several Columbia students, and the general consensus was that Grooveshark’s demise might be inconvenient, but it would have no impact on their expectations of free music. “It wouldn’t matter,” said bassist Caitlin Kelliher, CC ’15, who admits to getting most of her music through YouTube or friends. “I like taking [music] from people I know,” added SEAS first-year Adam Gayoso, who also agreed that Grooveshark’s demise wouldn’t change his habits. Even musician and loyal Grooveshark user Eli Aleinikoff, CC ’15, admits that it is “hard to say” how exactly its demise would affect him.

Although I have a deep interest in the music industry—I’m writing a column about it, for Pete’s sake—I can’t think of a single way that Grooveshark’s demise would alter my daily habits. After all, I still have Spotify, YouTube, Google, a double-male chord, friends with massive libraries, Pandora, last.fm, Myspace Music, Bandcamp—you get the idea. I’m not attached to any one of these methods, and if half of them went away tomorrow, I probably wouldn’t blink.

Our generation has grown up witnessing a rapidly growing and changing Internet, including the rise and fall of Napster, Kazaa and countless others. Throughout all of this change, the great constant has been our ability to easily acquire free music. Why should they expect anything different? If all the current streaming sites fail, there are dozens of startups that would gladly fill the void. Yes, the powerful old guard is trying to maintain its empire, but it’s a lost cause. The market has spoken—music, up to a point, is now free.

The initial wonder of free music has faded into an unenthusiastic acceptance, along with an intrinsic belief that the status quo can withstand whatever big money throws at it. It is with this reality, and not Grooveshark’s demise that I take issue. Free music may be the reality now, but it doesn’t mean that we should get complacent. This is the time when it’s most imperative for us to keep innovating, keep developing, and keep improving the reality for musicians and listeners alike. For the industry to have a decent future, it must take advantage of the free and volatile world in which it now finds itself. Likewise, consumers need to break out of their stupor and realize that the ball is in their court. They hold the power, and should begin thinking critically about what they want to do with it.

If we glean anything from Grooveshark’s struggles, it should be a reminder of all that we are currently taking for granted. Change may be still be a ways down the road, but if we keep our current attitude, it could catch us completely off guard.

David Ecker is a first-year in Columbia College. Slightly Off Key runs alternate Fridays.