Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Record Labels Change Minds About Sharing MP3s

Posted by kdawson on from the seven-years-late dept.

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."

1 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. A couple of choice comments on the announcement by daveschroeder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "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"


    (Imeem is not intended for you to download the music, have it on your iPod, etc...that's the whole point. Oh, so sorry; will they really be losing a lot of members unless they make all the songs full-length and downloadable for free? Why didn't they think of that before!)

    "I think this is a good news for all who want to make some good Ipod downloads for themselves or want to have the good music on there PC."


    (Yeah, it's great news for people who want to do nothing else other than try to figure out ways to steal* music, and ruin an idea like Imeem for everyone else.)

    * Oops, I don't mean "steal". I mean "infringe the copyright of". Because the difference totally matters, and makes the latter totally okay. Because the copyright system is so, "broken", you know. Gotcha. My bad.

    Good thing there's so many honest people out there not constantly looking to scam the system!

    "Imeem.com is a site that offers users to upload songs, make playlists, and embed them on web pages for free with a Flash player. When visitors visit that page, they have the choice to listen to whichever songs the imeem's user has on his or her playlist from the Flash player, but they can't download it. On imeem.com you have the choice of buying it on Amazon.com or on iTunes."


    O, the humanity. Yeah, that would be terrible indeed.

    "[Some justification about some of the songs not being able to be purchased.] So, do you really think I accept of not owning those songs [...]? I found a way to download them."


    Good for you! After all, if something is technically or physically possible to do, that must mean there is an implicit grant allowing you to do this.

    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?"

    Yes, the convenience and ease of each of those things is why there are, and always have been, different costs for different privileges. Think it's bullshit if you want. Call copyright out if you want. But that's the current legal framework we have, and before you start tossing around terms like "MAFIAA", why not consider that there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content, and think they should be paid X, Y, or Z for it. Some might even price things -- like the right to play it on a radio station, or be streamed in a web page, or be downloaded from an online music store, or purchased on a CD -- differently. Some might group together under common legal and marketing representation. They may call it, oh, I don't know, a music label. Some might also realize that it's smart to pool their outward legal representation under an umbrella industry trade organization, even given the drawbacks. There may be different frameworks in different countries, necessitating differing systems of handling sales, releases, and legal issues in various places to maximize one's own return on your investment as you see fit, as is your right.

    If you really believe in individual freedom AND the notion of compensation from your work, allow others to do it as they see fit.