Slashdot Mirror
MP3.com To Restart My.MP3.com
retep writes: "MP3.com is planning to restart the My.MP3.com service that launched the lawsuit against it. However, it will probably launch without any music from Universal Music Corp. Instead it will probably offer music from record companies that have reached licensing deals with MP3.com Full story online at 32bitonline. " This had actually been submitted earlier, but this story had some additional information. The Universal is a key part because those are the ones who won the lawsuit against MP3.com, while they've managed to settle with almost everyone else.
I agree.
Clearly the sociopolitical and economic ramifications of this dramatic intersection between so-called new economy companies and the established purveyors of copyrighted material warrant sober consideration. Any attempt at facetious commentary demonstrates a profound disregard for the implications this issue has on the marketplace wherein intellectual property is exchanged - to say nothing of the impact of the internet mindset on the established concept of rule of law.
Furthermore (not to put too fine a point on it) the practice on this interactive discussion forum of submitting whimsical messages for internet display and perusal reflects a general immaturity on the part of these so-called "trolls" and their disrespect for the time and energy of their peers who attempt to have meaningful and productive e-dialogs within these cyberwalls.
--Shoeboy
As far as I can see, from this article, the recording industry gets paid TWICE for each track you own, if you use the MP3.com service.
The software scans your CDs to ensure you have already got access to the CD (so, you could cut your own if you so needed.. Copying isn't hte issue here).
So, you've already paid the recording industry once, for the CD you've already bought.
However. If you want to access this online, without having to take all your CDs with you, or spend hours ripping and uploading to webspace (hideously wasteful on bandwidth and storage space.. All that replication that rarely even hits a webcache on the net), a SECOND fee is required, as MP3.com are now required to pay a licencing fee on those tracks that you've already paid for!
This reeks of that 'lets slap a tax on blank CDs because they may, on some occasions be used to copy music'.
This bullying by the recording industry really has to stop. They get more than enough per CD sold, without having to charge (effectively) multiple times for the same music.
If they're going to charge a licence fee, then I feel that it's only the same as paying for the music in the first place, so MP3.com should stop checking for ownership of the CD in the first place, as they are effectively paying the licence fee to distribute this music anyway.
This, then, is not piracy, but a new distribution method.
Cutting out the CD manufacturer middleman would save me a packet on my music purchases...
Malk
The article mentions on going royalties being paid to the record companies.
I have to wonder how long it will be before mp3.com's capital dries up. Considering their lawsuits have probably cost in the region of $0.5bn they surely cant have *that* much left.
Also you can imagine the bandwidth charges they must be incurring by allowing users to stream 128kbit audio from them.
Just how long can you keep afloat such a hugely loss making website in the hope that it will one day be profitable?
Similary can anyone see any nice routes for how mp3.com could become profitable?