I don't recommend SciLor, Groovedown, GrooveJaar, or one SharkThief. Those programs, while quite nice, have a rather nasty way of connecting to Grooveshark services, and you are at risk of being "locked out" for a while.

However, Groove Shredder is fine. There is also "FreeMusicZilla" and Grab++. And a plugin for Fiddler that works well. These do not interface with Grooveshark's internal stuff, and only try to capture the song as it plays.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Sounds like Grab++ is a media sniffer. Yes, those work too. I prefer OrbitDownloader for downloading any streaming content, but I will try FreeMusicZilla.

thank you so much! SciLor's app was the best one indeed!

you forgot VSO Downloader that is an efficient solution

you can try this app. much easier to use and with just a dew clicks you can download songs you want.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/efbeabpbbkahnnjalakldjfhljboclkf?SOURCE=SAMSON

you can try this app. much easier to use and with just a dew clicks you can download songs you want.

I definetely reccommend that last one. Fast downloads and only a small and simple addition to the Grooveshark website.

why don't you just buy the records? How do you think an artist can survive? If you like the song support them, it's the least you can do after piracy destroyed all chances for any indie artist out there. And if you can't afford doesn't give you the right to grab it for free. Just to make it clear: if you go to the store you have to pay for the groceries, if you need a ticket you pay. So what gives you the right to steal?

Just to put the record straight, when you buy an album very little to no money goes to the artist. Everything goes to the recording industry who uses it to lobby the government to pass bills such as SOPA and PIPA. Rest goes to CEOs and lawyers.

I'm not supporting piracy, but if you think buying records will help your artist, you are wrong.

I am an artist and fortunately I have another job to support me. I don't have a record label because they are not signing anyone these days. So potentially I have full control of my records and could make a living with concert and all. Each record produced cost me money for printing, rights organization, distribution etc. Even if I distribute through iTunes, Amazon, Spotify costs me to manage that. It's not for free so my question is why should it be for free for you if it isn't for me? Let the paranoia, lobby and the rest aside just answer the simple question. Just to put the record straight when you are an independent artist and producer you go through different channels in order to make a business. Labels might give an artist 6 to 12% for the rights which is little but if they cover all the costs of management, marketing, promotion, printing, layout, mastering, mixing, and paying all the people involved in the making because if you are in the business then you know it's not just the artist that makes the record!

I understand your concern, but the expense of marketing, promotion, printing etc doesn't arise when the media is distributed digitally. There is no need to go to a record label to market your own songs.

Try this: select 2-3 of your good tracks and make them available on Spotify, Pandora, Last.fm and other popular music streaming services. If possible give them away for free at Jamendo and similar sites. Sell the rest on your own website.

Once your music becomes popular on these sites, your fans will buy the rest. You don't have to be on the billboard or MTV anymore to sell music.

Make no mistake, the people who listen to music online or download from the internet are the same people who buy music. Unlike what the record labels want you to believe, online music sales is increasing each year. It's the recording industry that is losing money because artists can now promote themselves.

Yes, that I know. We have tried all of the above. The truth is that most people want everything for free here and now. Yes, I am one of those who listen and buy but I have a lot of friends that just download for free and never buy anything as much as they can. It feels sometime as if they think they have the right to do so and complain of course about prices of CDs (they don't even buy). As an artist to survive I need to also have a physical CD, that's the one thing you still sell when you do a gig and it works all right if you play a lot. It covers a lot of costs and it gives satisfaction to have your product circulating other than mp3. I do have loads of songs on these channels. Over 15 records so far. But I was ahead of time already a few years back. Always kept an eye open to what was happening in the industry so I signed up to the likes of Vitaminic, Hypermusic, Emusic, etc. All sites that have died now in the meantime many of the records uploaded have leaked everywhere else. Good idea to have online radio so that people can listen to the music but not a good idea if everything is available for free. Then who does profit from it:
- The site (with adverts, visibility, users, traffic etc.
- The user (who gets everything for free)
The artist get heard, visibility but honestly it doesn't seem to me a good pay back.
I'm perhaps a bit old fashion. I still buy my movies, DVD, Bluray, Records. I respect the work of others and of course I am upset when I buy a record and it sucks but then again since I bought it I think it gives me the right to even complain or comment it.
It's so funny when I read reviews on blogs and sites of spoiled brats who didn't even pay for a movie tickets and talk about it. I think the way things are going are just not an evolution but the arts are losing their values if you know what I mean.
Years back, I was so happy when I finally got hold of the record of my favourite band. I would listen it for days, now people merely even finish listening a song. They load up their iPods and lazily listen to the stuff. That is because they can get whatever they want.
I agree about the labels but things have changed throughout the years in that area (as well as in every entertainment business - I work within the movie biz) there are possibilities that before weren't even in the picture. Now you can produce your own indie film with little and edit yourself same for music. You can make your record with little, costs have reduced. Music Videos are cheaper. Years back I was involved with one of the last expansive videos for Radiohead. Today those figures are merely a dream. It's fine when the artist decides to give his tracks for free but is not when someone else do it. I think.

I must had a point with my reply because comehow is gone, is that why you have deleted it?

Sorry. The comment was automatically flagged as spam. I have cleared the flag now.

Yes, you have a point and to be honest, I don't have an answer. Only self policing can prevent piracy.

Hello, thanks. Perhaps it would be interesting to write an article about all of that.
When I played live there were other "sharks" artist had to defend themselves from:
accountants and manager. In most cases those people would take advantage of the artist spirit and habit of not taking care of practical matters ending up taking all of their money or big part of it. Not just indie or small artist, big names have also been victims. Nevertheless today there are so many people making money out of the artists for example all of those sites "offering" services (and I have signed up to a few myself) which ultimately they make profit from artist. The difference between them and the label is just in number and percentage but they surely don't do the job of a label (and I am not defending the labels' work), yes they sell you distribution deals but you have no control about that and most of all there is no choices about quality. For example a label would have invested a lot of money on an artist so their interest would be to promote and sell as much as they can in order to make a profit. It would be impossible for a label to have hundreds of thousands of artists and to do the proper job for each of them. Those sites just packs everyone in there and everything becomes so anonymous. Yes some of them gives tools (not always for free) that an artist can use for promoting but all the job remains to the artist. Once again people are profiting from them. What would be interesting for once is to read stories from the artists' point of view, what they really think of piracy, labels, CDs vs Mp3. What are theis costs on being independent. Pro and Cons. Tips and Advices.
In my line of work there are a lot of people that always have something to say about everything but very few of them are actually competent in the areas or know what they are talking about because of personal work experience, they just talk without knowing the real facts.

Your viewpoints are certainly interesting and offers a different insight into the problem, from the angle of an artist.

Have you tried to raise this issue in a file-sharing pro community, describing problems artists face with streaming services? Everybody knows how labels treat artists, but what about these free legal sites? I believe TorrentFreak.com will be a nice place to start a discussion.

Oh yes I have tried but depending on the target, age, country and other aspects you get different opinion. For example almost everyone is pro-piracy but they like to find different justification for it as if they are entitled on downloading for free. I personally still buy records, but I would be an hypocrite if I say that I never download. Why I do it?
because I maybe want to hear the album as soon as it gets out but I can ensure it that I always buy my favorite artist's records at the end.
Because I can't find something, like some odd vintage record that are not available anywhere
Because I get lazy and don't want to wait my order to be shipped to me (I prefer buying physical discs I never buy downloads. It feels like I am buying nothing concrete but I know it is the future).
I never download films for example. I rather buy them but all of my friend even download series. They do it because they say are expensive (when I point to them sites where you can buy for much cheaper prices they nag about something else).
Some people have been saying that they don't buy records because they don't want to support record labels but none of them is a musician and does not know really how the machine work. But then I see that in general they are just used to download because is quick and easy. When it comes to software I have professionals friends that don't own a single program in their computers even though they use the software professionally, the funny thing is that they complain when the software is not working. Ahah such maturity. A friend in NY once said "you gotta take what you can get" and basically this is the general attitude, why buying something when you can get it for free? It's in everybody's nature you give the opportunity and everyone is a thief.

I download to try stuff out and because I'm poor. I always buy from artists whose music I consume eventually. $1+ per song is too expensive, when you consider how much cheaper it is to produce and distribute professional music these days. Other markets support lower prices for legit music downloads (Russia, developing countries). US market have higher prices because our infrastructure (payments industry) taxes transactions too much. We haven't caught up to the 21st century yet. There are transaction bundlers who are willing to help with the transaction cost issue, but the big sites won't pass the savings on because they're greedy bastards. Pro artists who sign with big labels are getting raped by the record industry, not by downloaders. They can all go independent and distribute online like Radiohead or a dozen other artists I know. It is SO easy to publish and distribute your own music these days guys. The overhead is a fraction of what it used to be. The lower costs should be reflected in the price for music. Most downloaders would prefer to go legit because the music quality, data integrity, and download rate would be optimized, and they know they can't get in trouble. I don't care who you are, artist or producer, your audiences have gotten smarter and we're not willing to put up with the lies. The game has changed but you want to charge $13-$15 per album. That is complete nonsense. You can proliferate your music at a fraction of the cost, both from production and distribution perspectives. I would pay for everything I have if the price matched supply and demand. And anyway, you stooges who complain about downloading: you really think true artists don't want people listening to their music for free when otherwise they'd have no option to listen to it? You know how we used to get more music than we could afford in the old days? We'd make mix tapes; we'd copy that stuff and distribute it. People would try it out, and if they liked it they'd buy it. Same damn deal now but it's streamlined. When I buy music, I feel I should have a right to let friends sample it--whether by borrowing the CD or the download, or whatever. It's always been that way, you didn't complain then, why are you complaining now? Music sales are up. You just look at these stark numbers and multiply them by $1 per song and think, holy SH**, I should be making $XXX,XXX and I'm only making $XXX,XXX. Grow up and get real. The key to making it in the business of music is making great content and getting your business side in order. Produce and distribute independently and get your music on to as many iPods as possible. Your concerts will sell out and you'll be rich as Midas-- If you have the talent. A good portion of your listeners will by your music, and your t-shirts, and your stuff. You don't think this is true? Put down the pot and Jack Daniels for half a minute and have a good think for once in your life.

This Chrome extension is much more simple and effective: http://groovesharkdownload.net/

I used groovedown for a little while and wasn't too excited, so I looked for something else. I came across Torch Browser and it's amazing!
I downloaded a lot of songs from grooveshark and other music sites really easily. I'm really pleased and think you should try it and include it in this review!
It's quite easy to use, but if you want an explanation- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9no8zurYt9Q

EMG grants you a limited license to access and make personal use of the Service. You agree not to download (other than page caching) or modify the Site, or any portion of it, except with express written consent of EMG. Any musical work made available via the Service is intended for Streaming only. Streaming meaning the transmission of an audiovisual work via the Internet from the Service to a user's device in such a manner that the data is intended for real-time listening and not intended to be copied, stored, permanently downloaded, or redistributed by the user. Accessing any musical work for any purpose or in any manner other than Streaming is expressly prohibited. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of the Site, the Service, or its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant. The Service is for the personal use of Users only and may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those may be specifically endorsed or approved by the management of EMG from time to time. Use of any automated script, program, and or mechanism to collect, scrape, retrieve, and or gather any information and or User Content from the Service is strictly prohibited without written consent for EMG.

Copied this statement from grooveshark's terms. How is grooveshredder intended to be for educational purposes only? Doesn't this add on directly violate grooveshark's terms?

Tubemaster works very well. I have used it on both Windows and OSX. I've never been locked out of Grooveshark either.

http://tubemaster.net/