Slashdot Mirror
TruSonic Uses MP3.com Catalog As Muzak
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'."
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
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
And why did you staple the trout to the RAM?
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.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.
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.
use Blunt::Instrument;
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 choose to sue George if George's new song sounds like BoyBand2004's new song... But, if George can prove that every sufficiently-long (8 notes should do, based on what I've read of cases such as these, though I do not claim to have a degree in law) section of his song comes from known PD works, BoyBand2004 wouldn't really have much of a case (since, by the same precedent you cite, they arguably copied the earlier works subconsciously).
I've actually considered setting up a web site to catalog exactly such sequences for aspiring indie musicians to protect themselves with. Perhaps this makes a good chance to see if anyone wants such a website... Anyone? Good idea, bad idea, useless? Suggestions for defining "sameness" (ie, does a note sequence need to follow the exact original, or would a series of halfstep-intervals suffice? And how to best deal with chords?).
(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.
ascii art
I don't see what the problem is ...
a) if they play your music, you will get paid
b) if you want out, you can get out
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'd guess any particular artist will probably only get very limited play; but then again, since most of the stuff on MP3.com was usually just some 12 year old screaming "taco taco taco" into a microphone, I wonder how much is really useable.