Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


From the ashes...
April 15, 2004 9:24 AM   Subscribe

CNET's music.download.com, aka the new look mp3.com beta launches in a week or two. Artists are asked to submit music from now, however. (Previously on metafilter: exhibts A and B.)
posted by nthdegx (13 comments total)

 
Whoa, from their terms of service:
By submitting material to the Service, you represent and warrant that:

- CNET Networks, our customers, and licensees shall not be required to make any payments with respect to material that you submit to our sites, including, but not limited to, payments to you, third parties, music publishers, mechanical rights agents, performance rights societies, persons who contributed to or appear in your materials, and your licensors, unions, or guilds;
So they can do anything they want with your uploaded song, and they don't have to pay you anything for it? That's insane.
posted by mathowie at 9:55 AM on April 15, 2004


Good spot! On the plus side artists get quite a nice www.download.com/artistname url :/

50 megabytes of space for artists isn't acres, either (especially when they're demanding 192kbps mp3s only)...

Just to clarify "anything they want":

"By submitting sound recordings or musical compositions or other audio and/or audio-visual content to us, you grant us, our affiliates, and our business partners a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license to:

* publicly perform, publicly display, broadcast, encode, edit, alter, modify, reproduce, transmit, manufacture, distribute, and synchronize with visual images your material, in whole or in part, alone or in compilation with content provided by third parties, through any medium now known or hereafter devised for the purpose of demonstrating, promoting, or distributing your material, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it and/or storing the work in a remote database accessible by users;
* make your material accessible as audio streams,
* and use any trademarks, service marks, or trade names incorporated into your material and use the likeness of any individual whose performance or image is contained in your material."
posted by nthdegx at 10:09 AM on April 15, 2004


Aren't those the same conditions that MP3.com had? I didn't look too closely then.

Why would anyone want to do this?
posted by Quartermass at 10:21 AM on April 15, 2004


I'll admit upfront that I'm curious what the difference is between mp3.com (which can broadcast, play, modify, and reproduce forever, in a non-exclusive and royalty-free way) and something like a Creative Commons license, which lets you put non-commercial limits on your songs.

They also disallow deep-linking, so you can't just use them for a host, your listeners will need to see your artist page (plastered with ads of course).
posted by mathowie at 10:36 AM on April 15, 2004


Clarification of the TOS posted here on their discussion boards. They're covering their butts so they don't have to pay BMI/ASCAP/SESAC/etc. for performance royalties (the same fees that sank most webcasters after the CARP ruling). They also admit that the usage rights need re-examined.
posted by scottandrew at 10:50 AM on April 15, 2004


Fingers crossed some of the scarier conditions are motivated by an ass-covering viewpoint rather than an evil intentions viewpoint.

I've registered my account, but I think I'll hold off on the uploads for the time being...
posted by nthdegx at 10:56 AM on April 15, 2004


Thanks scott, those concerns are exactly all the worst-case scenarios I came up with, I'll be watching the changes to their ToS closely.
posted by mathowie at 10:59 AM on April 15, 2004


suprisingly music.com.com.com.com doesnt resolve to anything yet
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 11:24 AM on April 15, 2004


Those are not good terms. They took the declining service parameters of the old mp3.com and ground them down further, it seems.

I ain't uploading anything to them, and hell, I give stuff away off my site.

Can't we use our unique WonderBlue powers to make them change their ToS agreement?
posted by chicobangs at 12:37 PM on April 15, 2004


Dear Struggling Musician,

Please give us your music so we can let people download it. Then we'll delete it sometime. Thanks.

CNet
posted by tommasz at 12:49 PM on April 15, 2004


Given the way Cnet screwed over software producers at download.com, I wouldn't be surprised to see them charge artists for the "privilege" of having a listing on music.download.com at all once it gets popular, and remove anyone who doesn't pay up.
posted by reklaw at 1:20 PM on April 15, 2004


Thanks for the post nthdegx. I am glad I read this before blindly giving my music away to a company on their terms.

For any Canadian independent musicians, you can upload unlimited songs at www.newmusiccanada.com, though it is only in streaming format. Still better than this c-net service.
posted by Quartermass at 1:26 PM on April 15, 2004


Dammit, I already uploaded a track to their servers before I read this thread and found out about the horrible terms of service...
posted by Darke at 11:37 AM on April 16, 2004


« Older "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back...  |  Number Spirals:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments