Spotify may be about to lose one of its most high-profile competitors, thanks to a copyright infringement lawsuit filed at the end of last week. Grooveshark, the streaming music service that recently relaunched itself with a new site, has been hit by a suit brought by Universal Music Group, which claims that the company has uploaded more than 100,000 songs without permission.

What’s unusual for this type of lawsuit, is that the UMG filing goes as far as naming those it suspects of illegally uploading material, including accusing Grooveshark CEO Samuel Tarantino of personally uploading at least 1,791 songs without permission. UMG is seeking maximum damages of up to $150,000 per infringement from Grooveshark, which could mean more than a $15 billion payout if the lawsuit is successful.

This isn’t the first time that Grooveshark has found itself facing allegations around issues of copyright; not only has UMG previously sued the company’s owner, Escape Media Group, for releasing access to the label’s pre-1972 catalog, but a group of Danish rights-holders filed sued against the company earlier this year, and Google pulled the company’s app from the Android market earlier this year over copyright worries.

The UMG lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against Grooveshark, which could result in the service being forced to permanently shut down. The company’s VP of external affairs, Paul Geller, told CNET that the company hadn’t seen the complaint yet and would refrain from comment until it had.

[This post republished from Techland.]

A legitimate secondhand marketplace for digital music has never been tried successfully, in part because few people think of reselling anything that is not physical. But last month a new company, ReDigi, opened a system that it calls a legal and secure way for people to get rid of unwanted music files and buy others at a discount.

The service has already drawn concern from music executives and legal scholars, who say it is operating in a gray area of the law. Last Thursday the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major record companies, sent ReDigi a cease-and-desist letter, accusing it of copyright infringement.

Google Music screen shot as shown on TecnoDroidVE.

Android, meet your not-so-shockingly exposed dance partner, Google Music, and Google, meet another Google Music store rumor roundup, this one bolstered by screens that may indeed depict the upcoming Google-powered online music boutique.

We’ve heard rumblings about a Google Music store all year, since before Google launched its Google Music cloud service last May. But Google Music arrived, ironically, music-free—a blank online storage locker into which Google hoped users would pour unlocked tunes ripped direct from personal media or rival services. The theoretical reason: Google hasn’t been able to shore up relations with labels, prompting it to forestall Google Music’s “store” component. Until now, the service has looked the online equivalent of a Self Storage acreage.

That may all change this week. The Wall Street Journal said as much weeks ago, citing music executives in the biz, who claimed Google would launch a music store at some point between late October and early November. What’s more, the service is said to include Google+ integration, giving it a social networking one-up. For instance, users of the service would have the option to recommend songs in their online library to Google+ contacts, giving those contacts the option to listen to the songs once for free. After that, the MP3-format songs would cost in the vicinity of 99 cents each.

Last Friday, CNET suggested Google would announce its long-rumored music download service at a press event on Wednesday, November 16, but that the launch would occur without publishers Sony and Warner onboard (though talks are said to be ongoing). On the other hand, Google appears to have things tied up with Universal Music Group, and possibly EMI as well.

And on Saturday, Spanish tech site TecnoDroidVe published what it claims are screens from Google’s anticipated music service “running on the Android Market.” The site claims that by “doing tricks” Google’s new music service was accessible on the author’s HTC Inspire 4G. The author goes on to claim the ability to “play previews of songs” but not purchase them. The following day, the author claimed to have discovered the option to open a “free song of the day” (see shot up top), comparing it to Apple’s iTunes freebie music feature.

Google’s two chief competitors in this space are Amazon and Apple, both of which offer access to compressed MP3 music—available as songs or full albums—from extensive music catalogues. Neither service offers original CD-quality versions, otherwise known as “lossless” media, and it doesn’t sound like Google’s Music store will buck this trend (sorry audiophiles).

T-minus two days and counting to Google’s media event, and the probable opening salvo in what looks to be a three-way online music war.

[This post republished from Techland.]

Once shared, the tracks can be played a specific number of times by the recipient at no cost, say Business Insider’s sources. It’s not clear exactly how the process will work, although it probably would involve some kind of link to the purchaser’s music “locker,” a feature that launched with the beta of Google Music in May. The move certainly signals that the music industry may be ready to soften its stance.

Previously, the record labels had been pretty steadfast in their opposition to share music that they had purchased legally. But the launch of Spotify here in the US shows that the industry may have realized that the tight controls it has placed on digital content may actually be doing the opposite of what its intended to do: stop piracy.

Just think about it — if your friend tells you about a hot new track, is the 60 or so seconds that iTunes or any other service gives you as a preview enough to tell if you really like it? Why not give the opportunity to listen to the whole thing, in a controlled environment. Who knows, you just might buy it!

Jambox–Jawbone’s nifty super-small, battery-powered Bluetooth speaker/speakerphone gadget–got even a little niftier this week. Jawbone released version 2.0 of the Jambox’s software. It’s available on new Jamboxes, and current owners can download the free upgrade via the MyTalk service. The big new feature is LiveAudio, a technology that’s designed to make sound more multidimensional, including support for binaural recordings–ones recorded using a special technique that only needs two speakers to create a 3D audio effect that can be spectacular. Jawbone provided me with a unit with the new software for review.

Binaural recordings have been around for decades, and are generally meant to be heard over headphones. In fact, the Wikipedia article on the technique specifically says that the 3D effect doesn’t work over speakers. But Jawbone has figured out how to make it work on the Jambox.

When the Jawbone folks demoed binaural audio for me using sound files they’d chosen, the effect was dazzling. My ears and brain thought that they heard different sounds coming at them from different directions in all 360 degrees. I also had fun using my iPhone 4 to stream audio I knew was recorded binaurally (such as Pearl Jam’s appropriately-named album and some demo tracks) to the Jambox.

As for random other music from my collection and streaming services, games, and movies, probably not recorded binaurally: some of them sounded meaningfully richer and more multidimensional with LiveAudio turned on; in other cases, it didn’t seem to make much of a difference. But even when LiveAudio isn’t a factor, the Jambox still sounds great for a speaker system you can hold in the palm of your hand.

With LiveAudio turned on, the maximum volume of the Jambox is much lower than when it’s off. (You can easily toggle the effect by pressing both the volume buttons at once.) I didn’t find this to be a crippling flaw. You want to be sitting within three to four feet of the Jambox to hear the binaural effect anyway, and it wouldn’t really work in a room with much other noise. It’s for personal listening, not for parties. You might have a bigger issue with low volume if you like to listen to music loud, though–some of the folks discussing the new software at Jawbone’s site aren’t pleased.

LiveAudio works only over Bluetooth, not over a cabled connection between the Jambox and an output device. (I get good results with music-over-Bluetooth from an iPhone, but tend to use a cable for my Mac–when I push music to the Jambox or any other wireless device over the Mac’s Bluetooth connection, it sometimes gets garbled.)

Jawbone says it’s going to work with artists and others in the recording industry to create binaural recordings. I wish it luck; I’d like more of them. And while I wouldn’t invest in a Jambox under the assumption that binaural will be everywhere, the Jambox is still a very cool smartphone accessory–especially if you use it for both music listening and speakerphone calls, which helps make its $199.99 pricetag sound a little less intimidating.

Walmart’s neat Vudu streaming movie service–which, full disclosure, my wife has done work for in the past–remains available.