Allen's dashboard

Yeah, as of Thursday or Friday I had hundreds of "Unread" messages, out of the blue -- all old. it seems like a number of them were previously deleted, but I cannot be certain. What I can be certain of is, I can't tell what does and doesn't need to be read without spending hours culling through the messages. This isn't the first time the "Time Saving" other inbox has actually made life more difficult. . .

They refunded my money . . . I can move on. For the sake of future users, I hope they come up with a means of showing good faith to the labels that isn't user rape. But that's no longer my problem, moving on to greener pastures.

I should have known better, sharks bite. ;)

Fine, remove the music--I can respect that. That's good faith enough. But punish PAYING users in this way? Prevent the user from uploading that again -- prevent ANYONE from uploading that again, fine. Simply preventing users from uploading anything else is STUPID. Period.

Ignoring support requests until they are posted in a public forum is absolutely unacceptable. My user account is jarday, refund my payment and delete my account. I do not have any interest in supporting or using an entity that shows "Good faith" by punishing paying users and ignoring their inquiries after the fact. – Allen, on October 29, 2009 13:29

Exactly. And then ignore user's e-mails on top of it. Lala.com works expertly, I can upload my music FOR MY USE and nobody bugs me about it, nobody shuts down my ability to upload and if I e-mail support I get a prompt and helpful response. Exactly the opposite of Groovefarce. – Allen, on October 29, 2009 13:29

Can't add it to my library if it isn't in the service, that's the whole point of uploading. I want my music collection portable, Grooveshark cannot provide that. I want my money back. – Allen, on October 29, 2009 13:23

Yes, they allow you to upload anything you want -- but if something you uploaded is now or some time in the future becomes a violation they IMMEDIATELY revoke your right to upload music. They offer NO warning what-so-ever. After your account has been crippled they send this out:

---
As you may know, all of the songs on Grooveshark are made available by users who have uploaded them to our service.
Similar to a site like Youtube, sometimes content that we do not have the proper license for makes its way onto Grooveshark.
When this happens, third parties can request the content be removed via the mechanisms of the DMCA
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_...).

We're writing you this to inform you that a party has filed a notice of copyright infringement against content you uploaded
to Grooveshark.com. The filing party is RIAA, over the content:

A Victory of Love by Alphaville on First Harvest: The Best of Alphaville 1984-1992
A Better Place by VAST on Music for People
Song Without a Name by VAST on Music for People
A Victory of Love by Alphaville on Forever Young

It is our policy to suspend content claimed in a copyright dispute by default unless you file a counter notification,
so take note that the aforementioned content is
currently not publicly available on Grooveshark. If you feel this infringement
has been filed improperly, feel free to let us know by filing a counter notification (http://www.grooveshark.com/dmca).
Also, you can read more about our policy regarding copyright protection by checking out our terms of service (http://www.grooveshark.com/terms)

This has no impact on you or your Grooveshark account(s), beyond the fact that we've prevented you from uploading further content onto Grooveshark. Please feel free to email us if you have absolutely any questions.

Regards,
Grooveshark

---

I will reiterate, I did e-mail them -- and THEY DID NOT REPLY.

Oh, but I WANT my account removed and I want my money back. The fact that Grooveshark won't do what I need it to do is not something I can just "suck up".

Simply locking users out for uploading something that, it turns out they couldn't, with NO WAY OF KNOWING THEY COULDN'T is absolutely asinine and wrong.

I'll suck it up, after my money is returned and I can walk away knowing grooveshark was a mere annoyance rather than offensive rip off. It's hard-earned-dollars that could be spent on hours of music I enjoy listening to via services that don't treat their users like they're on parole for piracy.

Fine, remove the music--I can respect that. That's good faith enough. But punish PAYING users in this way? Prevent the user from uploading that again -- prevent ANYONE from uploading that again, fine. Simply preventing users from uploading anything else is STUPID. Period.

Ignoring support requests until they are posted in a public forum is absolutely unacceptable. My user account is jarday, refund my payment and delete my account. I do not have any interest in supporting or using an entity that shows "Good faith" by punishing paying users and ignoring their inquiries after the fact.

Good question! I have the same problem, and my THREE E-MAILS TO CUSTOMER SUPPORT HAVE GONE UNSANSWERED. Grooveshark took my pro money, then crippled my account and won't offer support.

I am unable to install it -- clicking on it, I just get a dialog box to download it and can see no way to "install" it. Has Chrome changed how extensions are installed in recent builds? I was able to install xmarks easily enough previously.

The current UI takes up so much space for UI it leaves precious little room for reading messages, another thing this would [likely] address. OIB has some great ideas, but the current UI keeps them from being fully expressed!

I can see the logic in ignoring them . . . on the other hand I do expect to see them if for no other reason than copying/pasting them into a Chrome Search . . . I keep hoping Google will support them in the future.

The other problem would be users developing extensions to try to duplicate Firefox's support of search keyword bookmarks -- there is already one out there (though it's a bit too convoluted to be worth it, to me). – Allen, on September 22, 2009 12:25

I can see the logic in ignoring them . . . on the other hand I do expect to see them if for no other reason than copying/pasting them into a Chrome Search . . . I keep hoping Google will support them in the future.

The other problem would be users developing extensions to try to duplicate Firefox's support of search keyword bookmarks -- there is already one out there (though it's a bit too convoluted to be worth it, to me). – Allen, on September 22, 2009 12:25

I've updated, it is still hanging up. I haven't had a successful sync since this morning. I added two bookmarks around that time, they were added via Firefox and both have keywords. I suspect the first of them is the one causing the problem though I have not yet tried deleting/editing it on the server to confirm.

http://%s:2082/3rdparty/phpMyAdmin/index.php
http://%s/cpanel

Error during bookmarks.create: Invalid URL.
chrome-extension://ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla/xmarks-chromemarks.js:269Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined
Error during bookmarks.create: Index out of bounds.
chrome-extension://ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla/xmarks-chromemarks.js:269Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined
Error during bookmarks.create: Index out of bounds.
chrome-extension://ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla/xmarks-chromemarks.js:269Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined
Error during bookmarks.create: Index out of bounds.
chrome-extension://ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla/xmarks-chromemarks.js:269Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined

For what it's worth, xmarks is not recovering from this -- I have performed several Chrome restarts. – Allen, on September 18, 2009 18:33

Error during bookmarks.create: Invalid URL.
chrome-extension://ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla/xmarks-chromemarks.js:269Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined
Error during bookmarks.create: Invalid URL.
chrome-extension://ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla/xmarks-chromemarks.js:269Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined
5chrome-extension://ajpgkpeckebdhofmmjfgcjjiiejpodla/xmarks-global.js:220Triggering auto-sync

-- This was with 0.4.21, updating now.