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'."

8 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. 1108 Thugz by ximenes · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope that I can hear the 1108 Thugz on an elevator soon. Preferably Fast Food Fuckin', but I'm not picky.

  2. Crying shame by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Meh by SargeZT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Meh by The+Other+Nate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The Other Nate

  4. Does this mean by Hangin10 · · Score: 5, Funny

    that we can be sued for using an elevator?

  5. Corporate greed by lukior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 would like to salute the ashes of american flags, and all the fallen leaves filling up shopping bags.
  6. you know, frankly by ch-chuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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); }
  7. what's the problem? by sugarbomb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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