Point/Counter-Point: The RIAA vs. MP3.com
Point: My.MP3.com is Dangerous and Illegal
by Wolfgang Spegg, CEO of
musicmusicmusic.com
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) sued MichaelRobertson's mp3.com company, a company with a stock market valuation ofovera billion dollars over its policy of allowing consumers to post their CD'son mp3.com's website.
As the only RIAA licensed webcaster, we at musicmusicmusic inc. seem to beunique in the belief that the owners of musical copyrights should be paidfor the dissemination of their properties over the Internet. We evensuggested pro-actively that featured artists and back-up artists shouldalsoget a piece of the action. radiomoi.com, our showcase product allowsInternet users to play what they want when they want and it is legal.
Mp3.com's Michael Robertson is threatening the music industry with hispolicy of allowing Internet users to store their CD's on his site and toallow them to play them back from any computer at any location. Up untilthis announcement mp3.com stored mainly unrecognizable tunes from unknownartists on its site. You would have to listen to 500 songs before you heardone you liked. This service benefitted the artist and the songwriterthroughexposure of their new material. The musicians involved were more than happyto 'give away' their material. Without the hype created by mp3.com theirmusic would not have been heard by as many listeners. Promotion is ever soimportant in the music industry and I applauded mp3.com's initiative.
Unfortunately the same approach is not a benefit when millions of dollarshave been invested in a musician's career. There has to be a payback. Andthere has to be a system for assuring that the users of the artists'material pay for the use, especially if they run a business that hopes tobenefit financially from such use. Even if all of mp3.com's subscriberswhopost 'their' music on the site only use these digitized tracks for theirpersonal pleasure, mp3.com has a business to run and must return a profittotheir investors. I suspect that many of mp3.com's investors are of thebelief that the company owns the trademark mp3. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth. Michael Robertson was smart enough to register the url(mp3.com) and did not get or need the permission from the patent holders.The company is founded on a stroke of luck. I strongly urge MichaelRobertson to come to terms with the RIAA, to negotiate a contract with themas we have, and to abide by the rules and regulations of the DigitalMillenium Copyright Act, which is, after all, the law of the land.
musicmusicmusic inc. operates a programmable and largely interactiveInternet radio station, radiomoi.com. The over 70,000 hit songs that are inthe radiomoi database and that are owned by members of the RIAA are notavailable on demand as specified by the DMCA. Only the 20,000 or so songsfrom independant labels (such as Richard Branson's V2) are available ondemand. The Internet users can, however, hear all of the hit songs in theover a thousand different ways they can listen to radiomoi andmusicmusicmusic pays royalties each and every month to the RIAA.
My vision of the future is a giant database from which music fans can playwhatever song they want whenever they want. Be it tin pan alley or thelatest hip hop or trip hop track, be it Furtwaengler's version of thesymphony or Ozawa's, or Mack the Knife done by Lotte Lenya, Bobby Darin orElla. But there must be a revenue model that compensates those that createdthe music.
A precedent of sharing 'my music' with all of 'my friends' is dangerous andcould endanger the production of new music. I hope that Michael Robertson'sirresponsible action will not go down in history as 'the day the musicdied'.
Counter-Point: No, It's Not
by Michael Robertson, CEO of MP3.com
I think the element missing from Wolfgang's argument is that musicmusicmusic is playing music the consumer has NOT paid for while my.mp3.com is letting the consumer listen to music they HAVE already paid in full for. My.mp3.com lets music fans listen to CDs they've already purchased in a new and versatile way which makes CDs more portable and more valuable. This is actually selling more CDs. Our three "Instant Listening" retail partners have seen their sales boost by more than 100% since deploying our technology which lets a consumer hear all the songs immediately after buying the CD.
The real question is will consumers have to ditch the billions of CDs they've already bought and re-purchase all of their music to listen to it in a digital environment? (Just as they moved from vinyl to cassette to CD.) Will they have to pay ongoing fees to listen to CDs they've already bought for their personal use? Does a consumer have the right to listen to their own CDs in the living room without getting out their checkbook each time? What if the CD is played on a PC in the same living room? What if it's played on a PC in the living room, but the hard disk is upstairs or next door?
The music industry shouldn't be allowed to double-dip. Those in bed with the industry or dependent on the record labels naturally will side with the old guard. We believe when a CD is sold for personal use - a consumer should be allowed to listen to that music on any device, in any format, anywhere. This is all about consumer's rights and it's a shame that we're the only music company which stands up for the consumer.