TruSonic Uses MP3.com Catalog As Muzak 230
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'."
Corporate greed (Score:5, Interesting)
Original? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
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?
Shady Dealings (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Black Monday (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
So this is what I am reduced to (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I've got very little to worry about, but still... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Independent Music (Score:1, Interesting)
We also put some tunes up on imntv.com
IMNTV [imntv.com]
at about the same time. That got us exposure on cable TV for a while until they seemed to go belly up back in 2002. A few days ago, my girlfriend saw our band's video on Sprint's "wireless TV" platform. Apparently, IMNTV didn't die, they just switched from cable TV to wireless. Again, I think it's cool to see our material in strange places, but I'm not sure how many people out there are actually going to watch "television" on their 2 inch wireless screen.
What's an independent band to do?
Re:you know, frankly (Score:5, Interesting)
Royalties? What royalties? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The Register article seems to be incorrect (Score:2, Interesting)
And the million and a half songs is a half million MORE than the figure being bandied about prior to mp3.com's demise.
Somehow, they got them all. And Vivendi mysteriously feels as if they suddenly possess infinite licenses for all of those songs, despite the fact that assignation of license is certainly not mentioned in the mp3 Terms of Service Agreement.
Cafepress.com (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
"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)
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 any records about who owns this music, we just have the mp3's".