Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Your Rights Online

TruSonic Uses MP3.com Catalog As Muzak 230

Posted by simoniker
from the cha-cha-cha dept.
Wacky_Wookie writes "Well, it looks like all the artists who put their songs up on MP3.com are about to break into a whole new market - elevators! The Register is reporting that Vivendi, who had control over MP3.com's archive of over 1.5 million songs even after the site's sale to CNET, has sold rebroadcasting rights to TruSonic.com, who sell them as piped music to hotels, restaurants and other businesses, passing on royalties along the way. I guess this is Vivendi's way of 'lifting' artists into new markets." Unfortunately, according to the TruSonic site FAQ, the site "does not support any type of artist page that is accessible by the public", and, according to another independent page, "any song that any artist [uploaded to MP3.com since a certain date?] got enrolled into TruSonic unless the artist 'opted out'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TruSonic Uses MP3.com Catalog As Muzak

Comments Filter:
  • 30 years from now it will *still* just be
    elevator music...
  • by akejay (173331)
    They are using the mp3.com catalog as background music.
  • 1108 Thugz (Score:5, Funny)

    by ximenes (10) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:07PM (#7979373)
    I hope that I can hear the 1108 Thugz on an elevator soon. Preferably Fast Food Fuckin', but I'm not picky.
    • There was a great band on MP3.com called Skasmapolitan, a kinda Sublime/No Doubt sort of thing with a chick singer.

      And all their songs were so funny, like 'Slut Named Rachel'. Jesus, I'd bust a nut if I heard that in an elevator. Weird, you never hear ska music as musak. Wonder why.. it'd be so great to bop your head to *g*
    • Who wouldn't want to ride up to their office or hotel floor while listening to the soothing sounds of The Shizit's 'Gak Bitch'?
  • Brings new meaning to the term "going down..." :(

    Seriously, isn't elevator music bad enough already? Ugh, I think I will have to quit my job and find one on the 1st floor :(
  • Crying shame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin (116525) * <jhummel@NosPam.johnhummel.net> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:07PM (#7979386) Homepage
    That actually depresses me a bit, as I had bought some music off of mp3.com when it was around (believe it or not: the Megatokyo soundtrack. Yeah, I'm a geek.).

    It was one of the few places where an independant artist could try and sell their wares without RIAA influence.

    Now, it seems that Vivendi is doing everything they can to kill it off and make sure that the independant artists have no options to be heard by the public except through "established channels" - aka, through the Music Cartel.
    • Re:Crying shame (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gnu-generation-one (717590) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:42PM (#7979732) Homepage
      "That actually depresses me a bit, as I had bought some music off of mp3.com when it was around"

      Great place to buy music.

      You already know it's good music, because all the songs are available to download. When you buy the CD (at a third of the price they're sold in the high-street), you even get MP3 versions of the songs on the data directory. No more CDEXing, just copy the MP3 files in seconds, and the tags are all accurate and ready to put on your Zen.

      Then if the CD gets damaged (all CDs get damaged), you already have a backup copy, legally. And if someone asks you what you're listening to, you can send them a link to download the song from the website. Chatting on IRC, "listen to this", post a link. Or email a link.

      Discover new music. Amazing what you find when you only have to spend 2 minutes of download time to sample a new band, rather than $20 and a trip to the shops. Find music in the charts there. See which music your bands like, from links in their homepages...

      Yes, it's crap that they deleted MP3.com. And you just know, that as long as we live, nobody else will figure out that that's how a music shop should be run...

    • lulu.com allows artists to sell CDs.

      mp3.com's main draw was that they built communities and social networks of artists, which I don't think there is any replacement for--yet.
  • Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SargeZT (609463) * <pshanahan@mn.rr.com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:08PM (#7979395) Homepage
    As good of an idea as this is, the system should have been made opt-in instead of opt-out. Some people might not mind being heard on the web, but being heard through other mediums may not be in their plans. And, also, there is no way for an independent artist to have been heard by say, a record label, and contact the person, as there is no interface. Good idea, bad implementation.
    • Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Misch (158807) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:30PM (#7979621) Homepage
      Maybe the artists should have considered RTFA'ing before signing? (In this case, the A is agreement/contract).
      • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Other Nate (137833) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:48PM (#7979790) Homepage
        The 'A' grew and morphed extensively since the time that I 'signed' it. (many emails informing me, yet no recourse for declining the service once they had a copy of my songs.)

        Oh wait! I should have aimed my retained legal department at them, and used my massive financial assets to bring the bastards to their knees.

        I don't have a large stake in this (i.e. day job and only a handful of songs), but the artists who do this for a living have indeed been screwed.

        • Re:Meh (Score:3, Informative)

          by wishus (174405) *
          According to the TruSonic FAQ the article linked to, you can log in and withdraw your songs at any time.

          In addition, only the artists that signed up specifically for TruSonic (before the demise of mp3.com) were imported. I checked and my stuff wasn't on there, even though it had been on mp3.com since '99 or so.

          I think their royalty structure sucks, but I don't think they've screwed anyone ... yet.
      • The fact that what they did may have been within their legal rights is irrelevant. What they did was like the Taliban shooting the Buddha. What they did was like burning the Library of Alexandria. What they did was destroy a cultural treasure that was effectively in the public domain.

        What they did was WRONG. And it will be an example used in discussions of our idea ownership system for years to come.

    • by Tom7 (102298)
      When you used to sign up as an artist on mp3.com, there's a page with checkboxes, and it says something like, "Careful! It's important that you know what you're agreeing to here!" It is actually fairly obvious what they're doing, and I for one signed up for it because I prefer my music [tom7.org] to be heard more than I prefer it to be sold.
  • Yes, I can just see that, trance/techno, house, gangsta rap or hard rock in shopping malls.
  • by Hangin10 (704729) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:11PM (#7979432)
    that we can be sued for using an elevator?
  • cool biz (Score:5, Informative)

    by tedtimmons (97599) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:12PM (#7979445) Homepage
    Trusonic is pretty cool. They are an offshoot of MP3.com (before MP3 died and the domain name was sold to cnet) called "Retail Music Services". They used to use small, rugged PCs with a couple of audio output jacks, running Linux. They probably have something better now, but it was cool to see Linux boxes at the back of businesses.

    -ted
  • I know the half-dozen craptacular tracks I uploaded to MP3.com back in the day. At the very least, the BPM is WAY too high for use as elevator music. Wouldn't want to the be person who has to review all the music to determine if it's appropriate or not.
  • Corporate greed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lukior (727393) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:14PM (#7979462)
    I'm sure the artists did not envision this for there music when it was uploaded to mp3.com. This is certainly not going to increase sales of an artists music. Who while sitting in the elevator says, "I wonder who that is." If people were curious they wouldn't have the ability to ask. According to the article the artists are complaining about royalties. It looks like a way for the corporations to circumvent licensing agreements and make money off of content they shouldn't own.

    • "I'm sure the artists did not envision this for there music when it was uploaded to mp3.com."

      Whether they envisioned it or not is fully beside the point -- they surrendered distribution rights, wilfully and knowingly and legally.

      If they wanted to avoid these consequences, they should not have taken the actions that led directly to them.
    • They had you check boxes for this kind of thing, and it really wasn't misleading.
    • Although it's really not a big issue for me, I did upload 6 or 7 songs to MP3.com a while back (mostly electronica or trance/house genre tunes). It's pretty weird to think someone might be reviewing my work to decide if it's good elevator music to put in retail outlets though!

      Quite frankly, I suspect the vast majority of songs taken from MP3.com won't lend themselves well to this purpose at all. They'll probably just focus on certain genres first, review the songs, and trim the list down considerably fro
  • Original? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:15PM (#7979471) Homepage Journal

    From the article:

    Please note, not only are you responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions, licenses and consents prior to submitting any songs, you may be held liable for any and all costs and expenses (including legal fees) incurred by TruSonic as a result of your unauthorized use of copyrighted materials.

    Subconscious copying of a copyrighted work into a new work is actionable infringement. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) [columbia.edu]. Given this precedent, what steps can a recording artist (call him "George") who writes his own songs take (a) to avoid subconsciously copying copyrighted songs, or (b) to minimize potential damages to George should another copyright holder discover that George had subconsciously misappropriated his copyrighted song?

    • Re:Original? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pla (258480)
      or (b) to minimize potential damages to George should another copyright holder discover that George had subconsciously misappropriated his copyrighted song?

      Simple - George just has to "limit" himself to using short sequences of notes already found in works prior to the modern copyright hell.

      I use "limit" in quotes because I strongly suspect that, if George looks hard enough, he can phrase just about anything he composes into some combination of notes from public domain works. BoyBand2004 might still c
      • Don't forget that you can copyright any "holes" you find and subsequently release them into the public domain, assuming there's a limited number of them.

        You can not, of course, just do a mass copyright of all possible music, but if there weren't too many of them you could deliberately use them in some music piece of your own (I suggest the title "Unheard Music" ;-) ) and then you'd have a copyright on that. This won't work if there's too many phrases in there; a judge is not likely to buy a fifteen-year so
  • you know, frankly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ch-chuck (9622) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:15PM (#7979476) Homepage
    I have *never* heard music played in an actual elevator. In restaurants, hospital lobbies, stores, lots of public places, but can't ever recall it in an elevator, and I've been in many that were packed with sleepy commuters going in to the office.

    • Re:you know, frankly (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fishbowl (7759) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:01PM (#7979891)
      The term "elevator music" didn't have anything to do with the music being played in elevators -- it refers to musical characteristics that are supposed to elevate your *mood*. Dictionary etymology notwithstanding -- I *know* the term had widespread usage before 1979 (where Merriam-Webster places it without a cite.) It wouldn't really surprise me if there was elevator music before there were elevators or even recorded music, but I'll be a while checking music history sources.

      • You should start a sister site to groklaw, but for music. You could call it "grokrock" :)
      • The term "elevator music" didn't have anything to do with the music being played in elevators -- it refers to musical characteristics that are supposed to elevate your *mood*.

        Actually, I'm pretty sure it does have to do with elevators. Widespread usage before 1979 means nothing. Elevators were in widespread usage before 1979. Our parents did have SOME technology. Sure they still lived in caves, but they had recorded music, radios, and elevators.

        IIRC they started playing music in elevators when the
        • What I'm getting at, is the possibility that there was "elevator music" before 1920 -- before audio recording was widely available. 1979 is not the issue here. Neither are elevators. Ok maybe elevators had radios. So I'm up against a great deal of inertia, but I'm only trying to validate or repudiate an informal statement of a music professor who explained "what elevator music means" in terms of certain chord progressions that will indeed have an emotional effect on the listener, at an unconscious leve
          • What I'm getting at, is the possibility that there was "elevator music" before 1920

            I suppose it all depends on what your definition of elevator music is. If you look at it like a music major, you'll be right. If you look at it like a sociologist, I'm probably right.

            I consider it to be more than just notes and chord progressions, but commercial music specfically for elevators, stores, doctor's offices, etc.
            It seems quite plausible to me that the first major instance of commercial soothing music, was
      • We were calling it elevator music in the 70s. That was replaced by calling it "muzak" after the brand name provider of "elevator music" systems. I do not know if the company took any steps to protect its brand, but it was free advertising for them. You heard the same "music" on radio stations being billed as "easy listening", meaning music that did not require any brain-power. (I think that phrase disappeared because by the late 90s, as almost all new pop music could be heard without any brain-power.)

        I
  • Shady Dealings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NeoMoose (626691) <{neomoose} {at} {despammed.com}> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:16PM (#7979482) Homepage Journal
    Pieces of shit didn't ever inform me that I had to opt-out of this. I had a catalog of over 40 tunes on MP3.com. Now without even informing me about this I am looking at having my stuff licensed out as elevator music. Fuck that.

    I can't believe I had to opt-out of something that they didn't even begin to tell me that this was happening in the first place. I'm not really surprised. Just angry. MP3.com's management has always been a pain in the ass. /me begins firing off angry emails.
    • Sorry about your predicament, but music is just product to many people, especially those involved in reselling music.

      Apart from Apple, of course ;-)
    • Re:Shady Dealings (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DingoBueno (461129)
      (Not trying to preach to the choir, just thinking aloud...) Now you can say you've experienced first-hand what professional musicians signed to major labels deal with on a daily basis. Your art gets sold off without your permission or compensation, and you don't even get to provide some input as to what pieces get released. It really is an amazing industry.
  • Now, granted I didn't RTFA (surprise surprise) but I know that when MP3.com was still up and running, they had a service where members could be compensated directly by people buying their music. Will the artists be compensated in any way whatsoever for this? Or is this just another example of a label screwing the artists over?

    • The artists are apparently being paid royalties for the songs based on number of plays but I doubt the money will be anything worthwile. From a link in the article

      Playlist preference and selection is based on our clients' needs and discretion. Royalties are calculated based on the number of times your song(s) are included in one or more playlists. As TruSonic grows the business, the royalty fund may be re-evaluated and any fair and necessary adjustments will be made.

      Fair and necessary. Right.
    • Now, granted I didn't RTFA (surprise surprise) but I know that when MP3.com was still up and running, they had a service where members could be compensated directly by people buying their music. Will the artists be compensated in any way whatsoever for this?

      Wow, you didn't even read the article summary on Slashdot, let alone click to the linked article. The Slashdot summary says:

      "The Register is reporting that Vivendi, who had control over MP3.com's archive of over 1.5 million songs even after the site'
  • by Loadmaster (720754)
    What rights? I just had my songs sold for muzak because I didn't opt out. Let's go further, forget rights, how about a little decency and ask? You'd think, since the artsists made that site what it is, they'd actually give us a little respect. I guess not when you get lots of money for screwing some person you'll never see.
    • by Aardpig (622459)

      I just had my songs sold for muzak because I didn't opt out.

      According to their FAQ, you can opt out at any point. If you don't like your music being sold as muzak, opt out right now. It's not like they've just shagged your mum, is it?

  • Black Monday (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blackmonday (607916) * on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:29PM (#7979611) Homepage


    My band [blackmonday.info] was at one time an MP3.com artist, and let me tell you, if they want to pipe Wrapped In Red [splitsevenrecords.com] into an elevator, they couldn't make me happier!

  • by Mullen (14656) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:29PM (#7979612)
    Makes me glad I was born with no musical talent, now I can't get fucked over by the music industry.
  • by skinfitz (564041) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:31PM (#7979642) Journal
    Speaking as an artist who was formerly on MP3.com I suppose it's kind of amusing that I could end up as elevator music.

    At least I have always given some material away for free [skinjob.co.uk] but I cant help wondering what elevators I am going to be heard in.
  • (...) MP3.com's archive of over 1.5 million songs (...)
    It seems to me all this indignation by artists here is probably exagerated. I mean, in the middle of 1.5 million songs to have *yours* picked would be more an honor than a shame. You should be proud! (what if someone listens to you in an elevator ? how much does that hurt ? I listen to myself in the shower every night and it causes me no harm !)
    • It seems to me that if I write and record a song then it is me who decides when a where it is played and how much I get for it...
      Try that same dummass argument on Madonna, or The Rolling Stones and see how glad they are you picked them to screw over.
  • by dhowells (251561) <slashdot@domhowells.com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:37PM (#7979685) Homepage Journal
    Although there *may* be a limited revenue stream from the comission from these lift-music systems, that not what independant music is really about. A lot of MP3.com artists hoped to start by giving their music away and/or selling it cheaply and by gaining popularity to get a record deal, i.e. get famous and repected first.

    On the other hand having your music played in some random lift with noone knowing who you are will never get anyone musical success. I feel this is just another facet to the exploitation of the artist by the industry.
  • by The Other Nate (137833) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:42PM (#7979738) Homepage
    I'm a little irked that...
    1) I never was notified that I had to opt-out
    2) I've vitually lost the copyright on my songs through some fancy corporate wheelin' and dealin'.

    The thing that I'm most worried about, though, is that someday I may be sued for having an 'unauthorized' copy (the masters) of my own music. :)

    Actually, I put my music on mp3.com so that others could enjoy it (not to make money, not to advertise). I guess if there's even the slightest chance that another person will hear my works, it coincides with the original intent. Incidently, I have a day job, but have a great deal of sympathy for those who do this for a living.
  • Like spam.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by herrvinny (698679) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:44PM (#7979752)
    You get opted in by default....
  • by sugarbomb (22289) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @06:48PM (#7979786)
    I don't see what the problem is ... a) if they play your music, you will get paid [trusonic.com] b) if you want out, you can get out [trusonic.com]
    • by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:10PM (#7979966) Homepage
      Oh come on, take all the fun of bitching about music companies and big business away, what's left? Oh. A perfectly reasonable deal...
    • So TruSonic budgeted a total of $60k per year to pay out in all royalties for their service. That's assuming they don't set it up so that each artist makes $24, in which case they don't have to pay anything. How fucking generous.... Perhaps they should just mail out WalMart job applications and call it even.
    • I don't see what the problem is

      I'll take a stab at this:

      Maybe the problem is that a large media company has effectively destroyed MP3.com, formerly (possibly) the best place for an indepent/non-RIAA artist to get themselves heard. This devestaion is now so complete, that even if the artist's music does get played, it will be impossible for the listener to find out who's music they were just listening to. Sure they'll get paid some paltry amount, but no one will start attending their concerts or buyin
  • how DO you opt out? I have some music that I was planning to remove from their site, but they went under before I had the chance. I'd like to cut off any relations with them. I DON'T want to be receiving royalties or be making any money off the music.
  • Yeah but, (Score:2, Funny)

    by kaoshin (110328)
    have you ever listened to Muzak... ON WEEEED??
  • Whiners! (Score:5, Informative)

    by geekd (14774) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:00PM (#7979884) Homepage
    You people (the complainers) are so stupid.

    This program has been going on for years. TruSonic has been around since 2000. Mp3.com artists have been used as elevator music for over 3 years already.

    All that happened is that division of mp3.com called TruSonic got sold seperately from the rest of mp3.com.

    Maybe try reading the artist agreement before you give your music away.

    dumbasses.
    • You people (the complainers) are so stupid.

      I have a picture you shouting your post aloud that in the voice of that guy from the beginning of WarGames.
      What's his name, Melvin?:

      "You guys are SO dumb, I've got it all figured out, all by myself!"

    • I'm not going to disagree.

      Honestly, I'm glad they're preserving the database at all. I also think the whole "independent music for restaurants and such" thing is kind of neat.

      However, it bothers me that this entire thing is kept just so entirely under lock and key. You can't just go to TruSonic and say "I want to purchase for download the entire Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie discography". You can't even set playlists if you're a restaurant owner, only select from the predetermined playlists. I think that
    • Yes, but previously it was a program you had to opt-in to. And you had to pay MP3.com (Premium Artist Service) for the opportunity to do so. Now, everything that they said was going to be deleted on Dec 2 when they shut down is now in the hands of TruSonic for rebroadcasting.
    • I never agreed to MP3.com to use my music in whatever situation/tool/firm they think sees fit. I don't recall signing a contract which says so.

      When MP3.com was sold to cnet, the word was that the files would be deleted. I then thought: ok, fine by me. However now I have to find out that my music isn't deleted but stored somewhere in the dungeons of TruSonic waiting to make them money and I don't know about it. I never signed a contract with TruSonic.

      Perhaps you should read some lawbooks. I'm not in the US
  • Opt-out Link (Score:3, Informative)

    by MunchMunch (670504) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:02PM (#7979903) Homepage
    I was an MP3.com artist and for obvious reasons wanted to opt out. Here's the link [trusonic.com].
  • by IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:03PM (#7979906) Homepage Journal
    Years ago, I was in an elevator that was playing muzak.

    Normally it's easy to ignore, but in this case the tune was maddeningly familiar. I listened, started humming with it and realized what they were playing:

    Black Sabbath's "Paranoid"

    It's been all downhill after that.
    • I heard Zeppelin's "Tangerine" that way once. The original is pretty mellow, but the muzak version was like being in a pink padded cell with nothing but an ice pick to gouge my brain out of my left ear and end the suffering.
    • Might have been about the same time... I was in a store, and I start to hear the Muzak... George Throughgood, Bad to the Bone. I would have never gone back, but I kinda worked there.
  • I found some odd stuff on mp3.com. I'll be impressed the day I get in an elevator that's playing Bethoven's 9th in speed-metal style.
    • In fact, such a recording exists, tho I don't recall who did it -- this was from shortly after Switched-On Bach came along a few decades ago (great, now I feel old) -- Beethoven's 5th and 9th got metalicized/electronic'd by someone. Well, I've always said there's a thin line between classical and punk. :)

  • I wonder how their selection process for the muzak is, I'm not sure if anyone besides a hardcore Something Awful.com fan would love to hear some "Semi Automatic Turban" musical stylings on their next elevator journey.

    But seriously, if they got almost ALL of the MP3.com tracks, that's a lot of sift through and determine if it's elevator-worthy. I doubt it will all suit the occasion (or non-occasion)
  • This is theft, pure and simple.

    Oh well... I guess any exposure is good exposure.
  • by serutan (259622) <(moc.nozakeeg) (ta) (guodpoons)> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:31PM (#7980191) Homepage
    ...sell them as piped music to hotels, restaurants and other businesses, passing on royalties along the way.

    Passing on royalties? All the The Register article [theregister.co.uk] says about royalties is:

    Artists who created the 1.5 million song archive have already expressed some disquiet about royalties. TruSonic has a very limited pool for the 250,000 artists, based on the number of plays, but has said it may re-evaluate this.

    The TruSonic FAQ [trusonic.com] says:

    How do artists benefit?
    The main benefit for artists whose music is used in this program is increased public exposure to listeners who might not otherwise hear that music. An additional benefit is the royalties earned should your song be included in one or more playlists.

    It's been repeated many times here and elsewhere [iwritethesongs.com], musicians do not make money from royalties, they make money from gigs. Because of the way their contracts are written, all expenses of production, distribution, advertising etc are deducted, usually leaving Zero. The only benefit of signing a recording contract is exposure (fame). TruSonic acknowledges this (sort of) in their FAQ.
    • Considering MP3.com never paid one dime of production costs and isn't specifically promoting any of the artists, I really doubt that's a relevant point.

      The royalties are based only on how often the song is played and follows the same agreement MP3.com offered back when people first submitted their song. No one's going to make much off it I'm sure, but has no terms like you're referring to (where the producers give you money up front then deduct any costs from the proceeds).

      Given the size of the catalog, I
  • I have tunes , or did have .. on MP3.com , how am I going to know if i am deserved royalties?
    • how am I going to know if i am deserved royalties?

      I had tunes on mp3.com, too. I never could figure out if I had earned royalties under their system. I got a few checks & a couple of nice mp3.com logo gig bags, though.

      I knew a few people who were making fairly decent royalties from mp3.com but I always got the impression they were doing something, um, untoward to stoke their "pay per play" stats. I never got to a high enough number of plays to get any pay to speak of...

  • by AsnFkr (545033)
    I had some *BAAAD* music on mp3.com. Grandma killing bad.
  • Cafepress.com (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slorge (722786)

    Cafepress.com [cafepress.com] offers to create a music CD (or data CD) for ya, similar to the way MP3.com did, 'cept you can do more customizing of the cover and disc. You can't download full songs, but you can stream samples of tracks.


    Here's mine [cafeshops.com]


    Anybody find anything else out there to replace MP3.com, yet?

  • Fake opt-out? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MP3Chuck (652277) on Thursday January 15, 2004 @12:46AM (#7982618) Homepage Journal
    So I found their Opt-Out page [trusonic.com]. My band had music on there way back when, so I put in the email addy and password, told it to opt-out, and submitted it.

    "Thank you for considering truSONIC, Your request has been recorded."

    Only I'm pretty sure I typed the password wrong. So I typed in gibberish for the account name and password. And I get the same message. What's up with that?
    • Same here :) (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Otis_INF (130595)
      I first couldn't find my password, then found an old email with the password, but I'm not sure if I've changed that during the years, but anyway I tried the opt-out page as well and also had the feeling I typed it wrong but got the same message. I too thought: "This is pretty fake"

      I don't think they check it at that time, because I couldn't login with the same credentials in their new system and they couldn't check if my music was up for a future music set from them. That's pretty close to "we don't have a
  • I didn't agreed to TruSonic to grab my music I put up on mp3.com for commercial exploitation. TruSonic says that they can't say if your music is/will be used. You can only test if your music is in the current set of tunes send to the customers by logging in with your old account. If that fails, your music isn't part of their current set of tunes. However you can't see if your music was selected for future sets. So you can't check if TruSonic rips you off or not.

    I don't mind if people play my tunes on whate
  • Here's a loophole in "viral licenses": abstention. We contributed our music to MP3.com and our album playlists to CDDB.com, giving our labor to the community. We expected that the servers to which we submitted our data would be accessible to the public: the servers were a means to that end of sharing with the community. But the owners of CDDB.com closed access to the database, opening it only to licensees with a new, commercial license. Now MP3.com has done the same to the music. If the data is not "distrib

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...