"...Ask my wife? "
Huh? When did J.Lod get married?

@Hez: He might be talking about his mustache.

An illegal service with NO revenue stream... FAIL. Lodwick likes to mention the "elegant simplicity" of Muxtape, but I wonder how the page will look with a bunch of ads and purchase links on it. Also, as far as music discovery services go, Muxtape has little to offer.

@Let's Form Voltron: Either way, somebody's getting waxed.

his own fantasies, or some other person's story?

[beautifulandgrotesque.blogspot.com]

also, who can explain why the damn font has to be so big? 36pt??

Awesome.

The official blog for Muxtape hosts an image that clearly shows infringement.

[data.tumblr.com]

I'm pretty sure Warner Bros Records has not allowed Echo & the Bunnymen to be used on Muxtape.

Good times.

And upon further review, nearly every muxtape created is infringing.

Justin had better have some extremely good lawyers, because he's about to find out what an RIAA ass-reaming feels like. This is precisely the functionality that got mp3.com destroyed.

@Let's Form Voltron: rather, his beard, eh?

What's the diff between this and an iMix? This is a serious question.

@In Other News...:

What's the difference between this and a service like finetune.com ?

I would like to know if the restrictions on these services got less stringent as of late.

i have to admit...there's something compelling about how the concept blatantly embraces and acknowledges the fact that music, in and of itself, has become free - a non-commodity. it exists on the basis of an acceptance that the old model of the music industry is dead (this might be idealistic - the RIAA could send in the troops at any time.) however, with that assumption as its platform, it's attempting to centralize the chaos of the online file-sharing landscape. if muxtape generated enough user traffic, it could serve as a primary hub - firstly, to promote the music itself and draw traffic to it, and then perhaps by extension expand or integrate itself into other avenues of revenue.

think that youtube and myspace were bought out at times when their capacity as revenue-generating entities were largely unknown. it was simply because of the traffic they generated. there might be the same potential here. it seems like the first step in something more extensive. for instance, you can see how the muxtape idea does incorporate the seed of a social networking site - with music as its main thread.

i don't know. i'm just pissing in the wind here. but i don't think it can be easily dismissed.

@In Other News...: An iMix is limited to 30 seconds for users who don't own that song.

@KingHater: You make a good point about YouTube, except here we're talking about the guy whose last venture got reamed by YouTube.

Here is the be-all-end-all statement about the new music economy: whoever can answer the question "what should I listen to now?" will be king.

There are already a bunch of things like this already available and up and running. I don't know what is special about this one.

I played around with a couple of them but as far as I am concerned without the ability to beatmatch and without a mixer there is no point in even making a mix tape.

Good luck Jakob. Or whoever is supplying the money for this.

@vulturesquadron:

the very thing that made vimeo distinct from youtube was also the thing that greatly limited its appeal: that it was devoted entirely to user-generated content.

@KingHater: We agree, then.

Also, for those worried about Mr. Ouellette's liability: every single user of Muxtapes should be concerned about liability for illegal broadcasting.

AFAIK, any of ASCAP, BMI or Harry Fox are automatically counting each time Muxtape serves your songs, and you, dear users, will be the ones who owe per-play fees.

I'm not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is.

@ClosingTag: Why did I think one could listen to iMixes via iTunes? Unless I'm thinking about the radio feature. Ah, never mind.

@KingHater: last.fm already exists. Along with imeem, ilike, and any other ibullshit sites out there.

@lothario:

true, but this muxtape thing is branded much better than those sites. for instance, as a passive internet user, i've never known what last.fm is, and have never bothered with ilike and therefore don't know what it is, either. but i already know what muxtape is, without even having used it and without having had to do any research on it. the idea is immediately conveyed in its likening to an old-school mixtape - it's one of those advertising ideas that's so obvious and simple that it's kind of clever. the strength of the concept lies in how uncomplicated and un-intimidating it comes across to a user like me.

@KingHater: The sheep goes Baa.

In any case, it is hard for me to find an illegal enterprise clever. Also, my original point was that once the site evolves and actually develops a business model, its "elegant" charm will wear off.

For a KingHater, your criticism is lacking.

I just named my pubic hair KingHater. Oh yeah. Brand diluted.

@lothario:

ach, don't be a cunt. look, given the trajectories of myspace and youtube, if muxtape brings the traffic, there's the chance it could sell before it even has to finesse its own business model. if there's a concept, there's the potential for someone to see value in it.

listen, will the fucking thing save the world? of course not. is it a sure thing? no. but it could stand to make its creators a few bucks.

@KingHater: Sorry, but it won't happen that way. Under the DMCA, if you are a service provider qualified for the safe harbor, and you receive a note from the RIAA saying "all your content is infringing", you have to take the content offline first, then challenge the claim.

Read it yourself [www.chillingeffects.org] :

Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?

Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

* The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
* The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
* Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
* A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
* A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.