Record Labels Change Minds About Sharing MP3s 243
Mass Defect writes "While the RIAA continues to sue people for p2p file sharing, the record labels have made an about-face and given their blessing to users sharing MP3s via the social networking site imeem.com. In May this year the site was being sued by Warner for allowing users to upload photos, videos, and music to share. However to everyone's amazement, instead of being flattened, imeem.com managed to convince the label that this free promotion was a good thing. In July imeem.com signed a deal with the label. Since then the site has added Sony, BMG, EMI, and now the biggest fish of them all, Universal. Imeem now has the royal flush of record labels supporting its media-sharing service, each getting a cut of the advertising revenues generated by their catalog. Finally someone has figured out a way to do 'YouTube for MP3s' without getting sued out of existence."
About time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Give them a way to keep indie music off of Morpheus and they'll embrace it.
The end it near (Score:2, Funny)
here's the answer (Score:2, Insightful)
gee... i wonder why they agreed to drop legal action against imeem.
Re:here's the answer (Score:5, Interesting)
What I wondered is how much it costs an advertiser per page view. A bunch of kids that never buy anything could prove to be expensive to an advertiser. Remember the free Net Zero? I expect the content providers to squeeze the middle pretty hard. They overcharge for any use of their product. This will be no exception. Advertisers payments will go directly to the record companies and the website will go broke. Nobody providing RIAA content is making a lot of money and negotiations often bread down. Look at the fees they were trying to charge webcasters and the higher fees they were trying to push on iTunes. This outfit is next in line for the squeeze. They will be squeezed to the point they have to raise advertising rates to the point the advertisers demand more in your face exposure for the money or they go bye bye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:here's the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wait a tick (Score:2)
Besides, what's to stop them from having the RIAA from going after these downloads? I hope that's in the contracts that give them a cut of the advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Making available (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing changes in the P2P lawsuits. The RIAA has been solid on a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy being as good as the original copy is a bad bad thing. Making a copyable file and posting it is bad bad bad and we will sue...
This website is not P2P. It is a post and broadcast.. There is no download and pass along a copy.. well not without some google searching on how to D/L a copy in violation of the DMCA. The songs are protected by streaming flash and maybe an identifying watermark.
The site is now a web broadcaster. The site pays royalties out of the advertising revenue. There is no P2P. Copies stolen (copyright violated) may be identified for later lawsuits by watermarking or other identifiers provided at the site to prevent theft (copyright violations). This is probably why there is no listening beyond a 30 second clip without an account. With an account the info may be embeded in the clips so if they show up on Kazaa later, they know who to sue for the violation. How much personal information do you have to give to get an account? If it requires a CC number, you are pretty much a sitting duck if you D/L and post on Kazaa.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, it is unclear whether streaming audio is a form of copy protection in the legal sense; Streamripper [sourceforge.net], for example, seems to have survived an earlier DMCA takedown attempt. Depending on your browser's cache implementation, you may have a copy of the FLV file on your hard disk already. In an
Watermarks? (Score:2)
If I create user account A, and also create user account B (perhaps with incorrect information), and download the song on each of them, wouldn't a binary diff reveal whatever watermarking was in effect? I mean, short of transcoding on the fly (for each song for each per user), it doesn't really seem feasible. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
You can only violate the DMCA if you live in the USSA.
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
tag it.. (Score:2)
wow (Score:5, Informative)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
'Loads of ads' is apparently 2 per page. I've learned to tune them out, so I don't care.
The 'download' button is a good alternate (read: not a flash ad) revenue source and I probably -will- use it to buy from Amazon the songs I want to keep.
Registration is free, and what -doesn't- require you to subscribe to get the full benefit these days?
It even lets you create and listen to playlists, so you don't have to play a single song at a time. It's perfect for seasonal music and all those good-for-3-months songs that are oh-so-popular these days.
Personally, I like it and it didn't cost me anything. Plus, the fact that they got some record companies to agree to -anything- is great. Maybe they'll keep continuing to gain some sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You might consider Deezer.com [deezer.com] as well. No ads, instant download, decent selection. I like it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've been registered for a few days since I heard about it.
I have to say, I really like it. Once signed up I can listen to every song in full, and fair enough the site is littered with ad's, but I am getting legal music streaming for free.
I just load a playlist, minimize the window and let it play, its not really that invasive, I haven't had to sell a kidney, or hand my sould over to the devil.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New at Amazon.Com: "How to win friends and influence people" by Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich!
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it sucks if you want to download the songs, I'll give you that. But ads? Man up and install flashblock and adblockplus already.
Yawn... (Score:5, Interesting)
What we're seeing here is the Record Companies trying to appeal to our better judgement, while making one last effort to maintain an iron grip over their content. And it's just not going to work.
You see.... last year was arguably one of the best years on record for independent artists and labels for this very reason. The amount of *great* content being released by small labels was staggering to say the least, and I'd be pretty certain that more than a few of these artists got their "big break" via P2P.
Meanwhile, the talent on the major labels was.... crap... to say the least, and it has nothing to do with the inevitable backlash that occurs between generations. Most of the "Top-40" artists are untalented, formulaic, and absolute rubbish.
The crackdown on P2P, and the agreement with Imeem is at least in part trying to mask the fact that the RIAA's members have completely lost the ability to identify and sign new talent. On the other hand, the indie labels have gotten quite good at it.
The days of rock stars with million dollar salaries are over. The labels need to accept the fact that music is going to become increasingly diverse over the next several years, and that their old strategy of promoting a very small number number of superstar artists just isn't going to work any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Led Zeppelin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a geezer, but when I go into a bar downtown to listien to some live music from cover bands, do I see people my age? No, the geezers are all down at the bar down the street shooting pool. The audience at the live shows is nothing but people in their twenties.
Are the bands covering Britney Spears, Finger Eleven, Jay-Z, T-Payn, Shop Boys, Tori Amo
Re: (Score:2)
Opiate and Undertow were on Zoo's label.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately it's like youtube - somebody has to upload it, and a lot of people have been uploading it, so try the site before you criticise it.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree.
You're positing a world full of people who listen to music that they like. While a lot of us do that, there are also a very large number of people who listen to music that their friends like, and
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you.
pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (Score:5, Informative)
End result: free, often decent quality (128 kbps), legal MP3s of music from major labels (where fair use applies; the usual disclaimer about not being a lawyer also applies).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Are we seeing the start of "128kbps are just previews, 256kpbs is what you are prepared to pay for"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not CD quality, but as good as an MP3 you can make from a CD and far better than iMeem or eDonkey.
-mcgrew
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming (incorrectly) that:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All the time all I hear on Slashdot is how all people want is to try before they buy and want to use their own fair use rights to shift from PC to iPod to car stereo etc. Which is fine, dandy, not a court in the land would convict you for the latter and there's enough services for the former that provide 30 second song previews etc (e.g. iTunes).
Now, Imeem comes out with something which allows people to listen to any
Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Vorbis is an excellent compressor, but LAME often beats it, mainly because it's a very mature codebase and it's psychoacoustic model has been tweaked to near perfection. Vorbis can get there - but it'll take time. What's really hurting Vorbis is the lack of support in iTunes/iPods - the most popular players out there. If Vorbis was available on this platform, you'd see a lot more interest in development, I think.
I've ripped all of my CDs to FLAC, then transcode to MP3 as needed for our iPods.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting out of hand (Score:2)
Common sense? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not sure about imeem, but what if -- get this -- you had a site with degraded news stories *about* degraded services? The news stories could be degraded in just such a way that made the degraded services appear *non-degraded* and really cool. Then, you provide a forum for people to bitch about the service and about how it shouldn't have been covered in first place
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant idea! It's like taking a song and adding enough noise to it that people are forced to believe the noise is part of the music.
I think Cher [wikipedia.org] tried this already...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, it sounds like it's tailor-made for people who watch Fox News...
Re: (Score:2)
IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sheet music maybe?
I think (Score:2)
Parallel universe? (Score:2, Funny)
I guess this means Duke Nukem Forever will be coming out next month.
Yes, let's complain about how we can't STEAL SONGS (Score:2)
"these 30 sec peview are dumb u cant even steal songs from here how is ti possible to download. plus these are intended to have em in our page we can never put dem in our ipods and such ya know. get rid of da 30 sec limit quick or da 50 cent guy below u will be right about losing alot of members"
"Oh no! Oh no! Please don't leave our website because we aren't making it easy for you to do stuff that will piss off our partners!"
I realize this is offtopic, but holy HELL, our society is doomed.
Yeah, I know, get off my lawn, et cetera.
Last.fm (Score:2)
Anybody know what the deal with that is?
Re: (Score:2)
No point in buying at all then (Score:2)
Classical music as defined by imeem.com (Score:2)
Here's what I got:
http://www.imeem.com/music/ranked/classical [imeem.com]
I guess the kids have gone and changed the definition of classical music. Back to iTunes for me. Clicking on classical in iTunes brings up a page of Beethoven and stuff. Pretty old fashioned, I suppose. I guess I'm just an old fogey.
Last.fm (Score:2)
Re:30 second clips are for non-members (Score:5, Informative)
Clipped right from a song sample page...
"You must be logged in to hear the full song. Click here to create an account."
You can listen to the entire song.. With an account. That is why there is so much Google information of how to cheat the system and download the songs. Nobody wants a bunch of 30 second clips of songs except as ringtones.
Re:30 second clips are for non-members (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that file sharing is a problem, but there are plenty of problems in the music industry and these problems have more to do with their lost revenue than file sharing itself. If the record labels had gotten off their ass and got into online music in a big way when it started, we wouldn't have this problem.
Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the copyright system isn't broken. Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story). Now laws like the DMCA that criminalize what would otherwise be legitimate acts...that's broken.
Some would argue that the current copyright system is broken.
Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (Score:5, Informative)
Citation needed (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright, as it was originally set in the United States at least, was originally for a term of 28 years, after which it could be renewed for an additional term of 67 years. That was up until the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which changed the term to 95 years.
But where did the 67 in the current statute come from? It was 28+28 under the Copyright Act of 1909 (use Google). Then a change to 28+47 was phased in starting in 1962, ending in the Copyright Act of 1976 (use Google). The Bono Act is where the 67 came from.
See the original wording, which is still present in the Title 17 statute.
That's the original wording as amended by the Bono Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but accessing a Web server on port 80 plugged into the public internet without any authentication methods is legal.
Copyright infringement is not.
A better analogy would be reaching in to an open car window and removing something that doesn't belong to you: it's easy, quick, technically and physically possible. And it was made easy and quick because the window was down, and you happened to be in the area. So just because it was possible, enabled, or made easier doesn't mean it's okay.
But wait, in my analogy, someone was "deprived" of something, right? And in copyright infringement no one is "deprived" of anything (except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit under our current system of law, but we'll just ignore that for now).
Ok, then. What if you invent a really nifty contraption that makes it easy, practical, and quick to go into Borders and quickly photograph every page of the selected book in a very low key and unobtrusive way, and then have a mechanism that converts the content to a nicely formatted PDF, so that the final product is as desirable and functional as the original, albeit in electronic form.
Copyright infringement? Check.
Something made easy/quick by a technological improvement? Check.
No deprivation of a physical object? Check.
So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)?
That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the record labels are totally benign and that artists get paid fairly. That's also not the case, as recording artist after recording artist has come out and said. You also make it sound like the RIAA don't try to control what gets played on the airwaves. They have rules, you know, for radio stations that says that if they want to play RIAA content, they can't play it alongside of non-RIAA content -- i.e., indie rock. Some radio stations have even expressed this view as completely ridiculous, but abide by it because they feel they have no choice. Doesn't this sound like the tactics of another big monopoly? One that starts with an 'M', ends with a 't' and has a Vista in the middle?
That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the artists were forced into signing contracts with record labels. If they did so because they believed it was the best thing to do, that was THEIR CHOICE. There is ALWAYS a choice. And any organized framework for managing media content, distribution, and sales, will inevitably involve organizations or groups, no matter how informal or loosely organized, that act on the behalf of their artists. They'll take something for this. Whether it's "too much" is completely subjective, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care of the label takes 99% and the artists gets 1% for the purposes of this argument: it doesn't matter, because that is the arrangement THEY entered into of their own free will, and THEY granted the right for their label and the industry trade organizations to vigorously protect the content that they essentially now legally co-own.
As a particular indie gets more popular, they'll realize they can't do it all themselves, and they'll have their own labels and proxy representation. And if someone doesn't care about how their content is distributed or shared, maybe they'll be able to find labels and trade groups who share this philosophy.
The game may change because of the digital realm. It is changing. But it's not going to happen overnight, and the persons and organization that OWN THE RIGHTS to content under the current system of laws have ever
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the artists were forced into signing contracts with record labels.
They practically are. Because of the tactics of the RIAA and other industry groups, content that is not from an RIAA label doesn't get exposure. You either sign a contract with an RIAA label or live in obscurity. Doesn't sound like much of a choice does it?
And lastly about the DMCA: you appear to believe that copyright works and is more or less okay, but the DMCA is wrong/bad
The DMCA prevents me from legally playing my legally purchased DVDs on my Linux machines. It doesn't stop me from doing it, but it still stands that the act of playing a legally purchased DVD on a Linux machine is a criminal act in violation of the D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)?
"Right" and "wrong" are moral judgments. You're looking for the word "legal."
And lastly about the DMCA: you appear to believe that copyright works and is more or less okay, but the DMCA is wrong/bad. The DMCA is an attempt to allow the continued enforcement of copyright in a realm that makes it quick, easy, and cheap to reproduce content in an instant. Should this realm change the way we think of and handle information as a society and as a world? No doubt. We're only still at the very beginning of the Information Age. But in the meantime, I don't think it should be the least bit surprising that content creators and owners would be a little stunned that people believe it's suddenly right to take their content without paying for it just because it's been made easy by technology.
Copyright infringement has been illegal for years, so why is the DMCA necessary? The DMCA shifts power from the people to the copyright owners. It primarily removes fair use--or more specifically, it allows the content owner to decide whether or not to grant fair use. That's not within their purview. It also provides methods for anyone in the world to remove anything online that they don't like for 14 days (by sending a fals
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that the patent system works and copyright doesn't, because at least with patents they RUN OUT. You can get generic Paxil, you can manufacture and sell generic Paxil, but you can't share the late John Lee Hooker's music that was recorded before I was born over half century ago.
There is no longer an uproar over the poatent on GIF because it ran out (or is about to).
But that's the current legal fra
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is broken. At least in my view. Now the people who pushed to get it "fixed" didn't think it was working as it worked 200 years ago and so to "fix" a working system that they deemed broken, they broke it. (Well, lobbied for the changes which broke it.)
Or do you maintai
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There, fixed that for ya.
Unless you really believe that direct producers get something above a very very small cut of the wealth in some other capitalist industry. wich you don't, do you?
Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (Score:4, Insightful)
If the artists don't like record companies making the majority of the money then maybe they should stop agreeing to terms where the record company gets the majority of the money.
If you can find people stupid enough to sign their right over for you to make money on then that's just capitalism. The artists are most of the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the Status Quo is justifiable. I don't think the lawsuits, the intimidation, the harsh penalties, none of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The content is fingerprinted.. (Score:5, Informative)
"Any audio that you upload to the imeem service will be filtered by an audio fingerprint filtering system that prevents registered audio content from being full-length streamed to any users other than the user that uploaded it. "
This is why some tracks are fully playable without an account and other tracks are 30 seconds. They also frown on uploading content that you didn't create.
"You must not upload or present any media or content in which you do not have the appropriate rights to do so. You may be in violation of copyright laws if you do not have the appropriate rights to the media or content you upload or present on imeem. imeem will not tolerate known infringements or misbehavior by its users."
Most disturbing part of the terms of service is they claim you retain your copyright when you upload, but in uploading you provide an unrevokable license to them.. This is bad.
"Member Content, you agree to and hereby do grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, imeem, its contractors, and the users of the imeem Site an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully sublicensable, fully paid up, worldwide license to use, copy, publicly perform, digitally perform, publicly display, and distribute such content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such Member Content on the imeem Site or Service."
Basicaly you give them a permanant license to use your content in any way they want forever including distribution. They could compile your work and then sell it worldwide and you would get jack for royalties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is tons of jucy stuff in the TOS. I started with one point and then started rambeling as I kept finding stuff.. I just cut it off. Go ahead and post the rest of the TOS. It's a good read.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why some tracks are fully playable without an account and other tracks are 30 seconds. They also frown on uploading content that you didn't create.
"You must not upload or present any media or content in which you do not have the appropriate rights to do so. You may be in violation of copyright laws if you do not have the appropriate rights to the media or content you upload or present on imeem. imeem will not tolerate known infringements or misbehavior by its users."
So if I write a song and record it, how do I know whether or not I have the right to upload it? How can I tell whether my song is original, or whether it'll be the next "My Sweet Lord" [vwh.net]?
Re: (Score:2)
It is fingerprinted and compared against a database of registered songs.
"Any audio that you upload to the imeem service will be filtered by an audio fingerprint filtering system that prevents registered audio content from being full-length streamed to any users other than the user that uploaded it. "
As far as any writers rights, fingerprinting only goes so far. An infringing song might not be registered in the fingerprint database and later lead to a legal challang
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot reconcile this. What is the difference? That Imeem makes money and a P2P user doesn't? That's exactly backwards from my thinking, where commercial infringement is worse than non-commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, different mechanisms h
Re: (Score:2)
Imeem is fine and dandy because the CREATORS and OWNERS of the music, or their agents, have agreed that the music can be "shared" there, via the mechanisms Imeem has in place (e.g., playlists, online streaming, no download, etc.).
You're aware that Imeem only started getting agreements with the owners in July? At least, that's my recollection. Imeem got popular first, the dirty pirate way, and only later signed the agreements.
But hey, the dirty pirate way worked for YouTube as well. And as long as it is these nice corporations, who cares if they are dirty pirates.
Non-profit users, on the other hand, should be sued into ruin. They can't just throw up their hands and say, "Gosh, we'll start buying music now," once approached by the la
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intent does mean something when you're evaluating the morality of someone's actions.
Indeed. And that would mean something if YouTube's founders gave some money to copyright holders to make amends for their "accidental" profiting from copyrighted works. But, they didn't. Imeem started up AFTER YouTube, and it is run by an ex-EMI executive. They cannot claim innocence. They very deliberately gained a following by hosting copyrighted material, and then used their huge userbase as a negotiation tool with the rightsholders.
If someone creates a non-profit Imeem, that still delivers the same benefits to content creators and their investors that Imeem does, I don't see why it wouldn't be backed by the same group. Or are you seeing evidence that such an organization exists, and it's being ripped to shreds by the music industry? Who is this mystery organization?
What kind of straw man is this? Who mentioned NPOs? When I say non-com
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know I know. "What about recording from the radio?" "Shouldn't I be able to preserve sound waves that I have heard with my own ear, and re-listen to them on any device, anywhere I choose?""
The courts have stated that time shifting media is legal.
Media shifting is also legal.
Back in my high school days I would buy records and then record them on tape to t
Re:"Stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed with stealing you can get away with a mild sentence or some community service when caught. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, will probably put you in debt for the rest of your life.
Re:"Stealing" (vs copyright infringement) (Score:3, Interesting)
If I go to WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart no longer has the item; it's gone. If I get caught stealing that $25 CD, I'll be arrested for misdemeanor retail theift, released on my own recognnisance (which I can't spel and don't care to look up) and will have to go to court and pay at most a couple hundred bucks in fines.
If I infringe copyright the copyright holder still has copyright, and still has his music. He hasn't lost any
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.
I think you're confusing this with online media stores historically needing to DRM all of their content for reasons for practical, technical, and consistenc
Re: (Score:2)
What about my home movies?
Who owns copyright in the posters and television shows that your camera incidentally passed? How will you find the money to pay a lawyer to convince a judge that your copying was de minimis or fair?
What about my short film that I make?
Who owns copyright in the soundtrack that you added to your short film? How will you find the money to pay a lawyer to convince a judge that your short film's original score was not accidentally copied from an existing work [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have the radio, which has always been free and legal. In the US in the 1970s they passed a law called the "home recording act" that explicitly said that it was LEGAL to tape the radio.
Now we have computers and CD burners [kuro5hin.org] but it works the same way. If you live in St Louis you can have seven albums per week [kuro5hin.org] this way, uncut and uninterrupted, some of which haven't even been released to retail yet!
-mcgrew
Re: (Score:2)