Well... no, because that was violating copyright like mad. On the bright side, that led to Opentape (http://opentape.fm/), which is much more open for use.
> Well... no, because that was violating copyright like mad.
That's the point. By doing so, it allowed users to discover music in a new way, like a traditional "mixtape." It's no accident that "muxtape" is extremely similar to "mixtape."
I'm familiar with opentape, and while it's a great project, the appeal for me with muxtape was simply the fact that I could go click on some random tape on the front page and hear new music... analogous to finding a random mix tape on the floor of a concert, with a track listing.
Yeah, but the "point" was illegal. Gawker wrote an article about this that made a pretty good point: "Make something somebody wants" is only a valid tactic if you can legally provide that thing.
Well, the question of legality is just that, a question. The terms of services specifically stated that you must not upload music that you don't have permission to let Muxtape use.
Muxtape is a service for creating mixtapes.
Users may not upload multiple songs from the
same album or artist, or songs they do not have
permission to let Muxtape use. Individual users
may not create multiple muxtapes. Accounts not
meeting these restrictions are subject to
termination without notice. Muxtape will never
reveal your email address to a third party.
Muxtape is alive.
Wasn't there some ruling that said that websites that host user contributed content aren't liable for copyright infringement, iff they comply with take down requests in a timely manor? I would think that would apply here.
Also, if I remember correctly, by the end of the original muxtape, they were linking out to Amazon for purchases. I wonder how much money was actually paid out to record companies from this?
Another tought: would muxtape have been able to get a license similar to the one Pandora uses for it's service?
Wasn't there some ruling that said that websites that host user contributed content aren't liable for copyright infringement, iff they comply with take down requests in a timely manor? I would think that would apply here.
That exists for sites that purportedly have a purpose other than copyright violation. Muxtape was made specifically to play other people's music. It wasn't billed as a site for musicians. That means most of its content was geared towards illegality.
Another tought: would muxtape have been able to get a license similar to the one Pandora uses for it's service?
Probably not. Pandora's deal exists because it helps people find new music, and because people can't directly play whatever they want. The other big deal, Last.FM's, allows only three plays of a song before that song is locked off. A completely open model like Muxtape's couldn't have worked like that.
On their FAQ page, it mentions future plans to offer utilities for bands to sell downloads, create and sell merchandise, and sell concert tickets. Presumably, those would be pay services. (They could also sell premium packages that allow artists to put up more tracks, get analytics, etc.).
I mean, this is all conjecture, but figuring out the business model for a site like this doesn't seem too difficult.
Whether or not indie bands will pay for that sort of thing, and how much, is a completely different issue.
Looks like there might be some planned synergy here between muxtape and Normative, Jakob Lodwick's music label. Reggie Watts--one of the featured artists--is signed to the label, and Lodwick is an (the?) investor in muxtape.
Reggie Watts, Francis and the Lights, Adron, and Vulture Realty are all from Normative. Eric Lodwick - Jakob's younger brother - is a member of Vulture Realty.
Not to mention Lodwick payed Justin O, the developer of Muxtape, $95,000 to work on Muxtape, and Lodwick and Francis of Francis and the Lights used to be roommates.
