Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Record Labels Change Minds About Sharing MP3s

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the seven-years-late dept.

Music 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A couple of choice comments on the announcement (0, Flamebait)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669723)

"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 [google.com] !

"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.

Re:30 second clips are for non-members (4, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669797)

"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"

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 (3, Informative)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670395)

There are two reasons for a track to be limited to 30 seconds: either you're not logged in (easily corrected; creating an account is quick and free and the personal information required is minimal) or imeem has determined that they lack the rights to distribute the track even to members (in which case only the uploader can hear the full track).

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669903)

Oops, I don't mean "steal". I mean "infringe the copyright of". Because the difference totally matters, and makes the latter totally okay.
There is a difference, even though copyright infringement is not, per se, totally okay.

Because the copyright system is so, "broken", you know. Gotcha. My bad.
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.

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.
That's an entirely different argument, Dave. If someone is running a Web server on port 80 and plugged into the public internet, but doesn't have any authentication methods and just assumes that he didn't give explicit permission for anyone to access, therefore no one has access...well, that's just stupid, now, isn't it?

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
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?

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 (5, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669977)

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.

The original system where a copyright:
  • Had to be registered
  • Lasted 14 years
  • Provided for an additional 14 year extension if applied for
was far more sane than what we have now.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (0)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670229)

Um, no, you're confusion copyrights with patents. 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. See the original wording, which is still present in the Title 17 statute [copyright.gov] .

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (5, Informative)

Maniac-X (825402) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670347)

Uh no, sorry. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/copyright/ [earlyamerica.com] (with photographic proof) Original copyright law was 14 years, extendable one time for an additional 14 years. The original penalty for violation of the copyright law was, turn over the infringing material to the copyright holder for them to destroy, and pay 50 cents per page you had to turn over. The act was signed by George Washington and went into effect in 1790, and DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL until 1891 when copyright protections were granted to non-citizens. Currently, copyright does not expire until 70 years after the death of the creator. Research has been done to suggest that 12-14 year copyrights are optimal, as it allows the creator to get a bunch of money out of it, and then after it goes out of print due to lack of salability (NES games?), it returns to the public domain relatively quickly so anyone interested can get ahold of it. This is how it should be, but its not.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670221)

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?

While I agree with your comments re: the radio stations not being allowed to play non-RIAA and RIAA content - if that's true, that's absolutely wrong, I have much less sympathy for the artists being paid 'fairly'. I feel for the smaller artists, but blame the larger ones. The TV writers also feel they aren't being compensated fairly. While I'm not typically a huge fan of unions, I have to admit, their union is handling it perfectly. Band together and stop writing until they get a deal they consider fair.

Big music publishers can be made to pay fairly... nobody has banded together to do it. Perhaps the artists don't want to go hungry in the short term by not working, and turning down contracts. The writers decided it was ok to do, maybe the musicians can too.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670323)

I feel for the smaller artists, but blame the larger ones
The richest lot of the larger artists got that way because they own record labels. Paul McCartney has a significant stake in Apple Corps. Madonna owns Maverick Records. The list goes on.\

Artists get a very very small cut of the wealth -- despite being the product. In almost no other industry does this occur,

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (2, Insightful)

galoise (977950) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670863)

"in almost every other industry does this occur".

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 (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670459)

Copyright has existed for 200 years. However it used to be 17 years. Now it's life of the author + 70 years. It used to weeks, months, years for information to travel from one end of the country to the other. Selling millions of copies of a song use to take a long time for people to even find out about it. Now we have the internet, and media can be spread across the entire country in a matter of minutes. It doesn't take years to gain popularity if you are producing good content.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (3, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670743)

That's an entirely different argument, Dave. If someone is running a Web server on port 80 and plugged into the public internet, but doesn't have any authentication methods and just assumes that he didn't give explicit permission for anyone to access, therefore no one has access...well, that's just stupid, now, isn't it?

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 every right to protect that content, and to attempt to continue to determine how, when, and where they distribute it, and at what price. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Or, you can make the moral judgement that you disagree with the system that is preventing you from "sharing" (i.e., taking) it freely, and choose to break the law, and choose to believe that the law is fundamentally flawed, so it's okay. The mental gymnastics are quite amusing. (And when I say "you", I am not directing this at "you" specifically; I am using the royal you.)

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.

A lot of technology makes it easy, quick, and downright practical to efficiently break the law. Technology alone is not a free pass when it comes to doing things for the sake of doing them. We act as if instantaneous digital reproduction should suddenly mean that all music and media should be free. And that represents an awfully, incredibly naïve lack of understanding about where this content came from and the money that paid for it. And if you think it's all so shitty, THEN STOP CONSUMING IT, free or otherwise.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670859)

Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story).

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 framework we have (from GP)

When they start passing respectable laws I'll start respecting the law. My grandpa had a beermaking kit during prohibition, so I assume he had the same attitude I do [slashdot.org] .

before you start tossing around terms like "MAFIAA" (also from the GP)

Music And Film Industries Association of America. I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that!

why not consider that there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content (yes again)

Because the disrespectable law says that it isn't their content! The US copyright law says that recorded music is automatically a "work for hire" and belongs not to the artist who created it, but to the label they signed with. If they actually could legally their own content, The Offspring would have posted MP3s of the entire "Conspiracy Of One" CD online as they wished. Pretty fly for a white guy, eh?

I agree that file sharing is a problem

I don't. I continue to maintain that if the indies would go away, the majors would embrace it. If they were so afraid of their music being free they wouldn't allow it to be played on the radio.

-mcgrew

"Stealing" (-1, Flamebait)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670047)

"* 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."

Shut the hell up.

Seriously. Leave this alone, it's absolute nonsense. Stealing is theft of physical items, depriving another person or entity of their posession.
Copyright infringement is a DIFFERENT THING. Copyright is a government granted monopoly on the distribution of a piece of data.

Does that make infringement "OK". No.
Is infringement OK for other reasons? There's an argument to be made here, especially in light of the fact that copyright was intended to encourage cultural progress and the creation of artistic works for the commons, yet governments have repeatedly extended terms and now try to treat "IP" like real, physical property.

So repeat after me "Copyright infringement and theft are different phenomena that have different laws and different reasons behind the laws."

Or are you too simple minded to hold multiple ideas in your head at the same time and need everything reduced to a nice soundbite?

Re:"Stealing" (4, Insightful)

gutnor (872759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670259)

"Copyright infringement is a DIFFERENT THING."

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) (2, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670957)

The difference between stealing music and infringing copyright

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 anything. If I get caught I'll either pay a $4,000 extortion fee or get hauled to court in a civil suit and pay up to $150,000.

THAT'S the difference between stealing music and copyright infringement.

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (2, Interesting)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670089)

OK. I read your post. I get your logic. But I disagree with what I thought your inferred conclusion was: There will always be artists who want different compensation for their art and allow for different presentation of their art. There will always be record labels. There will always be variation in copyright laws in different countries. Ergo the Status Quo or similar is justifiable.

I don't think the Status Quo is justifiable. I don't think the lawsuits, the intimidation, the harsh penalties, none of this is justifiable against a casual downloader.

I have concluded this, right after I thought a while about the value of music. Live shows have value, just as T-Shirts, Posters, and other physical art has value. A CD without a reasonable media replacement policy has little value and the cover art that comes with CD has almost no value. The actual audio portion of a song I receive from radio has little value.

And thus the Audio portion of a MP3 file has little or no innate value. What gives MP3s greater value are what you can do with them. If you have a collection of MP3's it just as important to have correct & complete ID3 tagging as it is to have the audio portion. This allows you to group, sort, find, and select specific files. Being able to discover new music based on past preference and the current state of the world of music also increases value (you could call this meaningful targeted advertising).

So in my MP3 music collection very little of what has value comes from artists, the record label representing them, or the industry associations that bank role their operations. The ID3 tags are from places like music brainz and LastFM, the manipulation is from applications like iTunes, Song Bird or Media Monkey, the advertising is from blogs, webpages, forums, and torrent trackers.

Where are the labels and industry associates in this?
Why should I pay these people a lot money when I so little of what gives the MP3 value comes from them?
Because this is the legal frame work we find ourselves in? This isn't a very satisfying answer.
Because the Artists deserve money for their art? The current system is designed to prevent the end consumer from paying the artists directly and I'm not giving money to the bankers and advertisers they do business with. Besides, they have plenty of opportunity to get my money when they tour in support of their album. And then I'm buying T-Shirts and Concert Tickets, and the occasional CD.

Re:The content is fingerprinted.. (5, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670131)

From the terms of service page...

"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:The content is fingerprinted.. (1)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670493)

Your quoting is a bit selective. The important parts you missed are:

Member Content identified as belonging to a third party can be transmitted on the Site or Service so long as you obtain permission first and the ownership and rights are clearly indicated.

This license does not grant imeem the right to sell Member Content or otherwise distribute it outside of imeem's Site or Service; provided, however that streaming of content on third party Web sites via embedded widgets shall not be deemed a distribution outside of imeem's Site or Service.

Re:The content is fingerprinted.. (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670693)

The important parts you missed are:

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:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670201)

The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd. The RIAA and MPAA just assume that anyone viewing music or video is automatically viewing content produced by the interests that they represent... that is not the case. All video is not copyrighted by a TV station or movie studio. What about my home movies? What about my short film that I make? They don't give a shit about that... just their own interests.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670453)

The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.

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 consistency reasons, and even that is reversing (see iTunes and Amazon) to allow artists and labels who wish to provide un-DRMed content to do just that.

Artists who wish to release un-DRMed music have ALWAYS been able to, and they've ALWAYS been able to be played on all devices that support whatever format they've chosen to distribute the file in, from MP3, to AAC, to Windows Media. Until recently, what they hadn't been able to do was release on some of the major online music stores without DRM, but that didn't stop them from still making the music, or clips, available online. But even that is changing, and artists have more options - not fewer - to release their music, for free or for money, via mutliple online music stores.

So what is the "problem" you were trying to describe, again? Oh yeah, it's saying things that are flatly not true in this tired old debate about how the trade groups are evil. And some of their actions may indeed be, in the eyes of some for other reasons, but not for the one you just outlined.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670319)

What's that? A sensible, reasoned, non-aggressive post on /. defending copyright that's immediately modded "flamebait?" How shocking!

You people are so pathetically predictable.

go ahead. mod me down. you know you want to, you cheap fucks...

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670437)

If I read your comment correctly, you think that the site Imeem is fine-and-dandy, but sharing music via P2P is wrong.

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:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670503)

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.). If the record labels tomorrow said music could be freely shared in the form of musical notation as expressionist body art, yes, I'd think it was "fine and dandy" because it's THEIR CHOICE how, when, and where they distribute it, and for what price.

As I said, different mechanisms have different costs, like a radio license versus buying a CD in a store. It's no wonder you can't reconcile this from the comment you just made. P2P "users" don't have any rights to "share" the music under the current framework of law we have. Imeem does, because the creators and owners of the content grant it to them. If you want to try to get them to make this same allowance for P2P, knock yourself out.

Re:A couple of choice comments on the announcement (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670667)

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 labels.

I don't share your world view.

Slashdotvertisement (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21669727)

Enough said.

About time (2, Insightful)

Yukse (563876) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669731)

About time! When will they get the point that music sharing will ultimately lead to more exposure for their artists, and thus, more revenue?

Re:About time (2, Funny)

Martian_Kyo (1161137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669767)

Yes but RIAA was never opposed to music sharing because of the revenue...but because of the principle and morality.

Re:About time (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670309)

No, because they can't shut indies out of P2P like thay can radio. They have no principles or morals.

Give them a way to keep indie music off of Morpheus and they'll embrace it.

Re:About time (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670471)

If that superultraawesome indie music appealed to anyone other than holier-than-thou college students with stupid hair who stop listening to a band the moment someone who bathes admits to listening to them, then the band would have been signed to a major label. There's a reason the labels are pushing Beyonce more than The Mars Volta. Beyonce sells zillions of albums and The Mars Volta are unlistenable jizzshit that only appeals to people who think suffering is an awesome side effect of entertainment.

If this is true (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669755)

It's unbelievable. 

The end it near (2, Funny)

Kintarotpc (1143479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669765)

Does this mean that the universe is going to end?

Re:The end it near (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670281)

"Does this mean that the universe is going to end?"

Well, ... duh.

here's the answer (2, Insightful)

rasputin465 (1032646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669775)

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

gee... i wonder why they agreed to drop legal action against imeem.

Re:here's the answer (4, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669869)

gee... i wonder why they agreed to drop legal action against imeem.

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:here's the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670451)

if faceboook has shown anything the relationship between paying customers and company value is still widely off the mark...they could probably still make money with no little or no actual revenue stream... cue the next crash morons

Re:here's the answer (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670725)

Kids are THE target demographic. Most of their income is disposable, and they are quite heavily influenced by media (including ads). Just because they no longer buy as much music does not mean that they don't buy "anything".

Re:here's the answer (4, Insightful)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670121)

So, do they realy get $7500 in ad revenues per downloaded song?

Re:here's the answer (1)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670523)

This is not Funny (well, funny, but more worthwhile than that.) This is extremely Insightful and is precedent for how much the RIAA-types should be making off of file sharing. As alluded to by the parent, most probably not even close to $7500.

Re:here's the answer (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671007)

In France, we have something that looks similar: deezer (sorry, they filter out foreigners), that has a deal with the SACEM (some kind musical author's guild) and most majors (individuals can also propose their own mp3 files). From the web page, you can look for music by text queries or tree navigation, build playlist (if you take the free registration) and listen to anything you want at medium to OK quality. The whole thing works out of redistributed ad revenue but the ads are simple non-intrusive text boxes at the top and bottom of the useful part of the page, and you could simply enter the name of an artist, click on the first song of the list, minimize the window and enjoy the music as the player automatically swith to the next song in the search result list. So someone is paying for an ad I'll probably see no more than 2 min for each hour of played music and the majors signed in for a fraction of that ad revenue. Since I know that site, my music downloading has almost totally drop to 0 and I visit the site more than 4 hours a week.

wait a tick (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669787)

Is this going to stop the RIAA lawsuits at all? This reads like an advertisement for the social site more than that the record companies have done an about face in policy.

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:wait a tick (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669841)

The RIAA lawsuits can and will continue, because they are over sharing that didn't give a cut of the revenue to labels.

Re:Making available (5, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669967)

Is this going to stop the RIAA lawsuits at all? This reads like an advertisement for the social site more than that the record companies have done an about face in policy.


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:Making available (2, Informative)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670303)

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.
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 any case, you've already downloaded the file when streaming it (from a HTTP perspective, and, presumably, therefore, a legal one).

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.
Name, gender, date of birth, email address. Only the email address in checked, and you have 10 days of use before you even have to finish that check. In any case, why would you even want to post any of this on Kazaa, when imeem already contains the material in a legal and accessible form?

Re:Making available (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670345)

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.

You can only violate the DMCA if you live in the USSA.

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

It provides an argument for the defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670819)

>Is this going to stop the RIAA lawsuits at all?

No, because the RIAA lawyers almost certainly get paid for each lawsuit submitted. If it weren't so, they would probably be picking their targets more carefully. They won't stop turning the handle until their masters say to stop, or cease paying them for it.

However, the imeem deals could provide an argument for the defense in any future lawsuits, since the RIAA represents its individual labels. Any label that legitimizes zero-cost downloads through imeem and at the same time is suing for damages from unauthorized downloads is in a tricky position, since its public message is at odds with its legal action. It will be interesting to see whether any defense lawyer can use this to their advantage.

tag it.. (1)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669821)

sudden outbreak of common sense?

Re:tag it.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670643)

I don't get the whole 'sudden outbreak of common sense' meme. Unless it is a movie reference, how can it be happening so often lately - except if it's really a suddenly not blowing everything out of proportion by summary writing people. Otherwise this is just a typical outbreak of common sense.

wow (5, Informative)

mincognito (839071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669833)

Wow. How amazing that the record companies agreed to this. Low quality streaming with loads of ads and a "download" button that sends you to the iTunes store or amazon. The annoying registration box that pops up after listening to 30 seconds of a song (you must register to hear the rest) is a nice touch.

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669973)

You call it 'low quality', but it sounds as good as radio to me. I'm not real picky about the bitrate of music I stream... In fact, low bitrate is better, since the whole office uses this crappy little connection.

'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:wow (2, Informative)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670187)



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:wow (1, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670763)

its not really that invasive, I haven't had to sell a kidney, or hand my sould over to the devil.
The first time is for free...

Re:wow (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670225)

The record labels don't mind you sharing your music, just as long as the "sharing" is so annoying and hassle-ridden that no one will bother. It's like a dictator saying "My people are free to speak their minds and criticize me, just as long as they do it between 2am. and 3 am. at this spot deep in the forest with cotton balls in their mouths."

Re:wow (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670383)

Low quality streaming with loads of ads and a "download" button that sends you to the iTunes store or amazon. The annoying registration box that pops up after listening to 30 seconds of a song (you must register to hear the rest)

New at Amazon.Com: "How to win friends and influence people" by Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich!

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

Yawn... (5, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669865)

Imeem's missing the point. One of the biggest positive points of P2P is that the record companies, radio conglomerates, have absolutely no say over the selection and presentation of content.

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:Yawn... (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670045)

The days of rock stars with million dollar salaries are over.

Tell that to Led Zeppelin.

Re:Yawn... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670263)

Only if I can kick those overrated bastards in the balls first.

Re:Yawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670431)

Led Zeppelin rules, bitch.

Re:Yawn... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670209)

Imeem's missing the point. One of the biggest positive points of P2P is that the record companies, radio conglomerates, have absolutely no say over what you get for free. What we're seeing here is the Record Companies trying to make money, while making one last effort to keep cheap fucks from taking things for free because it's easy. And it's just not going to work. You see.... last year was arguably one of the best years on record for people who want free stuff for this very reason. The amount of *easily pirated* 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 by "fans" who insist that somebody is going to pay for a t-shirt or ticket... just not them. Meanwhile, the immensely popular talent on the major labels was.... "crap"... to say the least that you can say to justify all the music you stea... er, infringe copyright, 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, which makes it *really* odd to see how many people are downloading Beyonce and Alicia Keys torrents at this very moment. In fact, if the "Top-40" artists are so fucking awful, why is it that they're inevitably the most *pirated* artists? Oh, well. I guess there are a lot of political protesters out there pirating shitty music in a consolidated effort to stick it to TEH MANG! 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 get paid for the music they distribute. On the other hand, the indie labels have gotten quite good at it... and by "gotten quite good" I mean "consistently failed to attract artists who have anything other than a niche appeal." The days of music piracy being limited to people with any sort of technical knowledge are over. The labels need to accept the fact that the culture of entertainment as something worthy of financial support is over and music is going to become increasingly unfunded over the next several years, and that their old strategy of making money off music that is wildly popular to the listening audience is over.
Fixed that for you.

Needle in a haystack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670405)

The only interesting part of your "fixed" version was:

>> music is going to become increasingly unfunded over the next several years

More is not always better than less.

Re:Yawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670227)

The amount of *great* content being released by small labels was staggering to say the least...

That's cool, and I agree, but please don't refer to music as "content". Even when you want to write content instead of "film, books, and music", please just use film, books, and music. The other people I know who create things and I don't want our best work referred to by a term that only gained widespread popularity during the dot-com boom.

Re:Yawn... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670497)

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.

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 Amos, Hinder, Stayned?*

No, they're playing ACDC, Steve Miller, Zepplin, Stones, Nugent, Van Halen, Quiet Riot.

The young people are listening to the same music I listened to when I was their age! There is no longer any generational gap when it comes to music. IMO the only decent band to come from an RIAA label this century is Buckcherry, and what's more, my young friends all agree with me.

-mcgrew [slashdot.org]

Re:Yawn... (1)

arktemplar (1060050) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670973)

Don't know much about the RIAA etc. but wouldn't tool also be from an RIAA company ?, not sure just asking.

Re:Yawn... (1)

cavemanf16 (303184) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670915)

Imeem is missing the point, but not because it doesn't understand the money to be made in representing the indie bands and singers who don't get recognized by the RIAA companies. In fact, their terms of service state that you have to have legal permissions to upload ANY content. In other words, unless you're an artist or the recording company, you can't upload music (legally, according to them) to their site. So yes, their site is crap compared to the ability of a true social network with the viral ability to promote any given indie music/video artist based on a small minority of rabid fans, but they do at least get the concept of allowing indie artists to promote their stuff via the Imeem site. Unfortunately, I don't think Imeem has the clout or the right following to act as a psuedo-bittorrent or -IRC service, which is what most college kids seem to be using these days to share their music and video content with one another. And here's the key reason that Imeem may not be very successful: the marketplace for recorded music has set its price for digital music and video: free.

Sure, we'll pay big bucks to also get cable, HD, DVRs, movie tickets, concert tickets, and swag from our favorite entertainers, but we (the consumers) are simply not willing to pay money to perform an activity that we can perform for ourselves with little to no additional investment. (burning a CD or DVD on our computers) iTunes is obviously an anamoly in the world of digital, online music, but that's because it is worth it to consumers to have not just the music, but also the DEVICE that makes listening to digital music ON THE GO easier than we could otherwise do for ourselves. And Apple has the iPod nice and locked up, unlike our computers which cannot be easily locked up by DRM - there are too many workarounds that don't require soddering teeny tiny parts together to do so.

I wonder how much that cost them? (1)

stevie.f (1106777) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669887)

The record companies must be getting a significant cut from the advertising then. I can't help wondering the amounts involved that cause such an abrupt about face. In reality they are benefiting in two ways though. First of all monetarily and secondly with artists getting more exposure. The best kind of advertising is a friend mentioning something cool. More fans = more money being spent.

pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (4, Informative)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669891)

I checked this out earlier when CNN pointed it out. While imeem doesn't make it easy for you to download music, they are streaming standard Flash video with MP3 soundtracks, which makes it easily downloadable e.g. using DownloadHelper [mozilla.org] . The MP3 files can then be extracted using e.g. MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] ("mplayer -dumpaudio -dumpfile foo.mp3 foo.flv").

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:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21669951)

decent quality 128 kbps mp3? an oxymoron!

if you must have lossy compression, use VBR or preferably vorbis (oggs). if it's decent quality you're after, use flac.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (4, Insightful)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670063)

decent quality 128 kbps mp3? an oxymoron!

if you must have lossy compression, use VBR or preferably vorbis (oggs). if it's decent quality you're after, use flac.
My perception goes something like: less than 64 kbps MP3 or 48 kbps Vorbis = awful, 64-112 kbps MP3 or 48-96 kbps Vorbis = bad, 128-192 kbps MP3 or 97-128 kbps Vorbis = decent, higher lossy rates = good, lossless = excellent. YMMV (although I'm curious as to what you'd call good quality if lossless audio is merely "decent", especially since FLAC goes up to 8 channels of 32 bit PCM at more than 600 kHz). In any case, the sound on imeem is better than, for example, Youtube. Of course, if the uploader is just re-encoding a 32 kbps WMA file...

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (3, Interesting)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670293)

There are quite a few comparisons out there of lossy audio quality across multiple music types and listeners. LAME encoding MP3 usually comes out on top for higher bitrate lossy compression, followed by Vorbis. Vorbis comes out better at lower compression rates, but AAC is close.

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:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (2, Interesting)

m94mni (541438) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670139)

Hmm....

Are we seeing the start of "128kbps are just previews, 256kpbs is what you are prepared to pay for"?

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (2, Insightful)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670245)

No, I mean, that would be far too anal for the slashdot crowd wouldn't it? I write and produce music, albeit at an amateur level.. That said, having done so for 20 years now, if a decent 128 MP3 vs OGG or whatever is seriously ruining your enjoyment of the music then I would say you have other issues.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670547)

You can get top 40 MP3s in higher quality simply by plugging your radio's headphone jack into your sound card, sampling [kuro5hin.org] a top-40 station for a couple of hours, then spending ten minutes making MP3s. Less trouble, better quality than this OR eDonkey.

Not CD quality, but as good as an MP3 you can make from a CD and far better than iMeem or eDonkey.

-mcgrew

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (1)

Novus (182265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670753)

You can get top 40 MP3s in higher quality simply by plugging your radio's headphone jack into your sound card, sampling a top-40 station for a couple of hours, then spending ten minutes making MP3s. Less trouble, better quality than this OR eDonkey.
You're assuming (incorrectly) that:
  • I actually care about current top 40 stuff.
  • I don't want to search for specific tunes instead of listening to a radio station's choices.
  • I have a radio that outputs a high-quality signal on a headphone jack.
  • Cutting up a recording by hand into MP3s is less trouble than extracting from a SWF.

Re:pHR33 L394L /\/\P3z!!!1!! (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670617)

A user making a convenient Firefox extension out of that procedure in 3... 2... 1...

Last.fm (1)

decowboy (1083777) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669919)

Since both here and at last.fm you can only listen to 30 secs of a song, how are they different? And if I don't get the full mp3 anyway, I'd prefer last.fm since they can track what I listen to, and generate radio stations with music that gets uploaded by the record companies themselves! No need to go the awful looking imeem site..

Money to artists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21669979)

I wonder if there's a defacto music industry contract item which says any profits made by the label through promotional work are to be retained by the music company in lieu of services rendered.

They then do a promotion only deal with this website saying that you can use the music as much as you want as long as you don't sell it, the labels make money from a cut of the advertising which is defined in such a way that it's a by-product of the promotion campaign and the relationship so they don't have to pay the artists a cent, nickle, dime, groat or rupee.

It's almost as if it's the record label and the website that are doing a deal, not the website and the artist represented by the label!

Holy fucking shit (0, Redundant)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670017)

Jesus, I've been saying that file sharing is GOOD PROMOTION forever (just check my slashdot comment history). I've also been saying that these goobs can't be stupid enough to understand that, that they're against file sharing to keep the indies out of their ears. (So maybe I shouold be modded "redundant?)

Yesterday I posted that the indies were going to eat the dying RIAA labels' lunch (not in those words).

Is it April already?

-

-1 "Redundant" (0, Redundant)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670587)

Mods have a sense of humor today. Good job!

This is a huge surprise. (1)

Edie O'Teditor (805662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670025)

This is a huge surprise. Based on the evidence, I didn't think record labels had minds...

Ztaco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670037)

Getting out of hand (1)

Lispy (136512) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670101)

Frankly, I really don't care what is allowed today and what is illegal the next day or vice versa. The record industry is confused, I know. But it's not my fucking problem. If they can't speak with one voice and come out every day with a new law/copyright/drm/ or whatever, I just don't care anymore. I share my stuff now without regret. They have proven to be clueless and it's not my job to follow every press release to have a semiidea of what is legal or illegal today. Now sue me for rebuying my LPs in the 90s as CDs and not doing the same with your DRM-ridden songs last year that you are now reselling as DRMfree MP3s. You can have your LedZeppelin Revivals, I have my LedZeppelin records and everything you produce today is rubbish anyway.

Wait... (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670125)

I still have to pay for my music? No fair. I want it for free because it makes me happy.

Re:Wait... (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670651)

still have to pay for my music? No fair. I want it for free because it makes me happy.

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:Wait... (1)

stevie.f (1106777) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670817)

In the UK we have the MCPS-PRS alliance. They require payment for the use of a radio in any workplace.

"The rates in this section vary depending on the number of days in the year music is played in the workplace, canteens or staff rooms; the number of half-hour units per day music is played in the workplace, the number of employees in the workplace to whom the music is audible and the number of employees to whom the canteen/room is available." http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesses/officesandfactories/Pages/officesfactories.aspx [mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk]

Still, it's reassuring that things are taking a step in the right direction in America.

Common sense? (5, Funny)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670207)

This isn't an outbreak of anything but more crap. Who would use this service? It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story...

Re:Common sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670369)

Who would use this service? It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story...

Mods, I think he was going for Funny, not Insightful. He did, after all, post this comment on Slashdot.

Re:Common sense? (2, Funny)

mincognito (839071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670955)

Who would use this service? It's like going to a news site where all they do is provide a brief, degraded version of an actual news story..
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. What do you think?

IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me! (2, Interesting)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670239)

To view music and video on imeem, you'll need at least Macromedia Flash Player 9 and JavaScript enabled in your browser.
What the hell does that even mean? Can I opt to not install flash player and just listen to the music?

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670599)

What the hell does that even mean? Can I opt to not install flash player and just listen to the music?
No, it means that they're only going to show you a spectrograph of the music's waveform. Have fun reconstructing it in your head.

Re:IMEEM Confuses and Infuriates me! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670703)

To view music... What the hell does that even mean?

Sheet music maybe?

I think (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670279)

that it won't be very long before they start adding in a clip at the start, middle and end of each song saying something along the lines of "You're listening to this song on Imeem.com"

"signed a deal". It's about control. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670415)

Like with Napster and others, they "signed a deal".
As long as MAFIAA believes it is in control, then that's ok.

Missleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670449)

For every story having a missleading headline I'm now going to post this exact same entry.
Please feel free to +1 me.

This is nothing new (2, Insightful)

sudden.zero (981475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670465)

there are other sites that have been doing this for quite a while (i.e. http://www.deezer.com/ [deezer.com] ) and it doesn't change a thing about how the RIAA feels because without violating the user agreement you can not download only listen.

Parallel universe? (2, Funny)

nevurthls (1167963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670479)

Did we switch to one while I was asleep?
I guess this means Duke Nukem Forever will be coming out next month.

Upload your address book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670491)

Did anyone notice they actually encourage you send them your Outlook/Yahoo address books?

Are they kidding? Even stupid people can't be that stupid! Surely anyone smart enough to figure out HOW to transfer data from Outlook or Yahoo would also be smart enough to know better? Surely somebody that tech savvy wouldn't even USE Outlook, right?

This has to be some kind of elaborate phishing scam, after all why write a virus to steal your personal information when you can just ask them to hand it over - and they do?!

No wonder Britney Spears has 440,000 plays. All their users are airheads!

imeem is crappy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670749)

imeem was in the news a few days ago for some deal they had made with NBC Universal...so I checked them out. Put simply, it fell miserably short of my expectations. It came across as a poorly implemented, over-capacity youtube knockoff without the interesting content. They try to force you to signup to do just about anything worthwhile. And on the music side, there are so many other sites that are far more interesting. I'm not sure how imeem is getting the deals inked because the site and technology seem to be behind everyone else in terms of infrastructure, usability, and volume. They must have someone from the music, movies, or tv industry behind them. It also seems clear that this story was submitted to drive traffic to their site...maybe that is how they continue their smoke and mirrors routine.

Yes, let's complain about how we can't STEAL SONGS (1)

glindsey (73730) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670827)

"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 (1)

blhack (921171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670909)

Isn't this the same thing as last.fm? Or Pandora? I have always wondered how last.fm hasn't been sued into oblivion; from what i've seen they have music from big-name labels.

Anybody know what the deal with that is?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?