Labels Concede That File-Sharing Isn't So Bad After All
from the a-little-late dept
Imeem, a social networking site that was in the recording industry's crosshairs earlier this year for allowing file-sharing on its network, has pulled off an impressive feat. This summer it settled its lawsuit with Warner Music by promising to give Warner a cut of advertising revenues from the site. Now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that it's signed similar deals with all four major labels, meaning that Imeem is now the first website whose users have the music industry's blessing to share music for free. What's especially striking about this is that for the last decade, the fundamental principle of the labels' business strategy is that sharing music without paying for it is stealing. They drove Napster, AudioGalaxy, Grokster, Kazaa, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing services out of business on that basis. As we pointed out way back in 2000, all this accomplished was to drive file-sharing underground where the recording industry couldn't get a cut of the profits. Had they approached Napster in 2000 the way they approached Imeem this year, they could have been collecting ad revenue from every file-sharing transaction over the last seven years. Instead, they wasted a lot of money on lawsuits, angered a lot of their customers, and ultimately still had to concede that music sharing might be OK as long as they get a cut. The only significant difference between Napster and Imeem is that Imeem only allows you to play music on its website, whereas Napster allowed you to download songs to your hard drive. But this isn't as big of a difference as it might appear at first glance. The Imeem website doesn't provide a "download" button, but there's no DRM involved, and it's quite easy to download music files from Imeem using third-party tools. And because Imeem's site doesn't use DRM, Imeem downloading tools are probably legal under the DMCA. So what we have here is the de facto legalization of Napster-like sites, as long as the record labels get a cut of the advertising revenue. It's an exciting development, albeit one that should have happened seven years ago.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, file sharing, p2p, record labels, riaa
Companies: imeem, napster, riaa, universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Here's why it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What The Music Business Wants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Exciting indeed
As much as I'd hate for the labels to get money, I think it'd be a good idea for a flood of people to hit Imeem just to show the idiot's at the top just how good this can be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And the Artist's cut is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unsigned Artists
If it's from Imeem's total ad revenue, does that mean I can post a clip of myself singing an original song, no matter how badly, then go to SoundExchange to collect my share of the royalties? Or do the labels get to keep all the profits as extortion money?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
umm lets get the truth about imeem
Mediasentry emails showed they were using Imeem among other websites to grab IPs to sue. Not that they've sued anyone other than kazaa folks, but obviously they aren't done yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IMEEM, Maybe It's Legal Now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What The Music Business Wants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What The Music Business Wants
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe they've been hiding under a rock?
It certainly doesn't hurt the artists' popularity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No download button -
And Imeem does have a download button, which will take you to your choice of itunes or amazon.com, so clearly they're not intending for you to circumvent their embedding by grabbing the mp3s out of the flash files.
Otherwise, I definitely agree with your article, this is a step in the right direction. The prospect of Google paying content owners to free up their users is looking pretty promising too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]