« Andy puts the IP war in context | Main | Fiber to the People »

mp3.com, we hardly knew you (II)

Andy Orlowski has a wonderfully argued but sad piece about the sale of mp3.com to CNET. As he reports, the archive of music that was mp3.com will be destroyed. As Andy writes,

"Not since the Great Leap Forward has there been such a destruction of the commons. Back then, for political reasons, millions of books were burned. Now, for very sensible commercial reasons that we must not question, millions of MP3s will be lost to the commons. You have precisely seventeen days to grab the good stuff (and, Steb Sly - we hope you have a backup) ... CNET will follow Wal-Mart, Real Inc. and Apple Computer into the DRM business, infecting as many computers as they can with restrictive software controls that close what for a brief period has been an open computer platform. They all hope that this tentative business model, the terms of which are set by the entertainment "industry", will somehow turn them a profit. Or at least give the illusion of doing so, until a better idea comes along.

One of those better ideas that he discusses is the "compulsory license" -- which he rightly says had a stupidly "Stalinist name" but not quite rightly says the EFF has "thrown its weight behind." Some of us within EFF push the idea of a "statutory license" (the sort that the music industry was built on, see this), but EFF is just pushing the idea of alternatives.)

I've been lamenting the fast slide of mp3.com for sometime now. Now there's nothing more to lament. CNET's got a great domain name. And beyond that, Michael Robertson's vision of a new industry is over.

| | technorati

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1074

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference mp3.com, we hardly knew you (II):

» destroying mp3.com from meta-roj blog
mp3.com's been through a rollercoaster of changes in recent history, but the last one finally drives a nail into the businesses of hundreds of thousands of musicians. more than a million songs, from more than a quarter-million artists are going... [Read More]

» rip mp3.com from cholly.com
I live in the dark. How else could you explain my surprise finding out mp3.com had been purchased by CNET,... [Read More]

» rip mp3.com from cholly.com
I live in the dark. How else could you explain my surprise finding out mp3.com had been purchased by CNET,... [Read More]

Comments (11)

That piece doesn't do anything to raise my very low opinion of Orlowski's journalism (after the various hatchet-jobs he's written about blogging.)

MP3.com was a commercial storage and distribution system for other people's content, one that failed because people apparently didn't find it worth paying (or clicking ads) for. The fall of MP3.com has nothing to do with the MP3 platform, any more than the closing of a bookstore has to do with the burning of books.

(Not to mention that it's facile to call MP3 an "open" platform, when it is infamously encumbered with patent licensing issues.)

The commons has lost nothing here besides a bunch of hard disks and OC-3 lines. It is a sad loss, but the people who made that music still own it and can host it on their own websites if they want to. I'm sure they would rather have continued to let MP3.com host the tracks for free, but that didn't turn out to be a sustainable business. (Information wants to be free, but it turns out that servers and networks don't.)

I'm surprised that you could call Orlowski's piece "wonderfully argued" when it's based on a fundamental misconception what the "commons" means. The "commons" isn't any particular piece of free content or place for storing free content, it's the fundamental right of free content to exist. The real fight is to preserve people's ability to freely create, use and improve content. Mr. Lessig, you have done a great job in exposing and resisting the continual attacks on those rights. But to imply that those rights include an obligation for someone to provide free hosting for all that content, whether or not it makes market sense, is just nuts.

November 21, 2003 4:51 PM Anthony Zacharzewski:

I too was surprised by the Orlowski piece, but perhaps in the opposite direction from the previous comment. I've always thought that Orlowski's scepticism about blogging's glorious future was basically right, even if not always diplomatically expressed. But in respect of compulsory licensing, his critical faculties appear to have deserted him. In the first-posted version of the article, he referred to a "global consensus" growing up around CL (what, even Tibetan monks?) - I am glad that CL is now merely a "tremendously popular notion".

But why? I admit, having read some of the supportive sites about it, there is a certain pleasing liberalism to some of the schemes proposed, but there is also a breezy certainty that any little teething problems with CL could quite easily be overcome.

Could they? Here are the problems with CL as I see them from my intial run over the territory. I'm sure that some of them have been answered already elsewhere, but I just haven't found the places in question.

  • 1. Inefficiency - the costs of administering the system are not zero, and with the number of artists who would no doubt want to take part, they are unlikely to be small. CL-farming, like tax-farming, could keep the costs lowish through competition, but if file-sharing explodes? And if measures need to be taken to prevent people gaming the system?
  • 2. Gaming - how are the artists to be paid? Per download? But downloads have zero marginal cost for broadband users: why not just set up a script to download the song over and over? Or get friends to download over and over? Or write a virus that gets infected computers to download over and over? And why go to the trouble of writing a song? Any .mp3 file will do, even if it's just a recording of you snoring.
  • 3. Deadweight - there are many (many) wannabe musicians out there, who currently make their music at their own expense. Perhaps they should be paid for their trouble, in a moral sense - but actually to do so adds a huge cost to current music provision from day one, and public (or pseudo-public) money will drive out private provision.
  • 4. Funny money - I am no libertarian, but a solid centrist in the European mode. However, it seems obvious to me that setting up a parallel system of funny money, or credits that can later be switched for cash, or a currency of downloads is just asking for unintended consequences. Markets might not always be pretty, but they have the great benefit that the terms of trade are well-known, and they are all using a real, valued currency.
  • 5. Extraterritorial legislation - Being a Brit, and hence from a country that does occasionally produce a little popular music, I don't fancy the US legislating for how the Internet's music industry works. God knows, it's bad enough that the leader of the free world is elected by a small subset of that world (and, judging by the current incumbent, a subset with distinctly poor taste). It would just add insult to injury to have a National Music Service set up over our heads.
November 23, 2003 3:06 AM three blind mice:

on preview: what jens and anthony said.

Not since the Great Leap Forward has there been such a destruction of the commons.

as jens pointed out in his excellent post, this was apparently a business decision by CNET motivated, one might assume, by profit motives - not revolutionary zeal.

CNET's actions suggest that this was a rational economic decision. there were apparently few economic incentives in keeping the content. indeed, it would seem that the economic incentive was to get rid of it.

how is this anything like the wonton destruction carried out during the chinese cultural revolution?

if anything, what may properly be associated with the great leap forward is the revolutionary zeal of the "growing concensus" behind mandatory licensing schemes.

referring to them as "stalinist" is a kind adjective.

Sadly, my band will be losing the 100 songs that we put up for free download over mp3.com. We paid for a year of service, but sadly we will not even receive our full year. That doesn't seem fair.

Hey people,
The mp3.com music collection won't be destroyed, just DISPERSED. Almost every bit of it has been downloaded by somebody. The challenge will be to re-asemble it at one site.

- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

Very informative post. And in general, I Wash constant reader! Very interesting to read you! Mentally thank you!

I understand some people may or may not understand, but I think If we could return, I will not reelect entertainment and practicality election, but the best is neutral, the two sides have, in the Habbo I really Understand that their own and others know of the value of the trust between people, you must have Habbo credits, otherwise you will not get more bloods and equip, whether you recognize not know him, as long as you put aside concerns of the minds of friends can do, you can as long as you do its best all is possible, when New to you to help, not only will his novice pleased very happy.

Post a comment

By entering the words in the box, you are also helping to digitize texts that were written before the computer age. The words that you see were taken directly from old texts that are being scanned and stored by the Internet Archive. This CAPTCHA helps proofread the books. If the sample is too hard to read, click the recycle button to get another two. A space between each word is required. And thanks for the comment and help.