4 ms·

Muxtape Relaunching, and Muxtape's story

69 points by markbao 18y ago

endtwist 18y ago
The meat and potatoes of this article: "Muxtape is relaunching as a service exclusively for bands, offering an extremely powerful platform with unheard-of simplicity for artists to thrive on the internet." So, in essence, it is no longer really Muxtape, but an entirely different idea that is just a nod towards what it started out as. This may not be all bad for Muxtape, but it definitely goes to show two things: 1. The major labels/RIAA are far too stiff and don't seem to understand how to work with websites for their own profit. If they had worked out a fair deal, this could have undoubtedly be incredibly profitable for both Muxtape and the labels. 2. Attempting to do something like this will take either a bigger backer (more money), or for the RIAA to suddenly gain an understanding of the internet's true potential. Regardless, it is a bit disappointing that Muxtape is no longer Muxtape -- however, there are imitators out there working to provide a similar concept, and one of those might just succeed. This has just been a jumping-off point for a lot of people...even if this one doesn't succeed, it's made its mark.
- alaskamiller 18y ago
  The odds of Muxtape being profitable is pretty darn slim. Subscription or advertising fees would not recoup the costs, licensing, and development of the site. The RIAA acted in its best interest when presented with a chance for new opportunities; it would rather ensure its existing sales channels is well protected instead of risking on unknowns.
  - netcan 18y ago
    I agree. The RIAA's interest is to keep the old business model alive. Their experience is that if their copyright cannot be contained within a physical object, the lose control of it.
- nutzilla 18y ago
  "So, in essence, it is no longer really Muxtape, but an entirely different idea that is just a nod towards what it started out as." BS
unalone 18y ago
"The industry will catch up some day, it pretty much has to." Best quote of the whole thing. This is a setback for now, but Muxtape's death led to Opentape's creation. Soon enough, things will get too huge for music companies and something will change. Perhaps not soon (though I'd hope it does), but it will happen.
fallentimes 18y ago
Cheers to Justin & Muxtape. Fuck the RIAA. I'm going to enjoy every minute watching the RIAA & the big record labels burn to the ground; it's already happening. And when one of those unaccountable suits apply for a job at a Company I'm working at...well, good luck. I wish he had a donation link on his website, because I, and many others, would be more than happy to help.
fallentimes 18y ago
This quote says it all: "I always told myself I’d remove any artist or label that contacted me and objected, no questions asked. Not a single one ever did. On the contrary, every artist I heard from was a fan of the site and excited about its possibilities." So the talent loved it and the suits complained. I see.
zhyder 18y ago
I predict this story will evolve into one of (lasting) success, and be inspirational to other entrepreneurs. Strangely enough, I'm already inspired, even though Muxtape hasn't yet gotten off the downs and back into the ups.
dentonbros 18y ago
MixWit.com is the new Muxtape. Same thing, just a bit different UI. and it's a YC company, i believe.
iamdave 18y ago
"Around the same time I got a call from the VP of anti-piracy at one of the majors. After I picked up the phone his first words were, “Justin, I just have one question for you: where do I send the summons and complaint?”" This sort of tactic should be outlawed. Bar none; preemptively filing a summons (within reasonable circumstances) before mutual compromises can be made and using that preemptive strategy to intimidate anyone is just horrible.
- tptacek 18y ago
  That sounds great on a message board, but in the real world, it would be a debacle. What are the "mutual compromises" that should preempt someone's legitimate commercial rights? On the other hand, big companies would love it, because they've already had your idea, and just gave it a different name: "mandatory binding arbitration."
aston 18y ago
You hate to hear this sort of story, but it just reiterates what has been common knowledge since well-before Muxtape even existed: if you're a successful site that makes major label music available to people who don't own it, you basically either need to be prepared to fight it out with big money in the boardroom/court room or prepared to eventually dismantle the site.
antidaily 18y ago
"Muxtape Relaunching" Not really. Lame. In fact, the new service sounds a lot like bandcamp.mu (which I'm equally uninterested in). Not that it's Justin's fault.
dhotson 18y ago
It's a real shame that they killed Muxtape. It was such a great site and a fantastic way to discover new music. :'( I really wish that there could be a way for sharing good music with others without all the hype and commercial crap that normally surrounds it.
tptacek 18y ago
Well, I'm going to burn some karma by bucking the conventional wisdom here, being needlessly snarky, and repeating a comment I've made here many times already: Selling stuff you don't actually own: not a great business plan.
- whatusername 18y ago
  itunes might disagree. But I agree with the principle. "Make something people want" is a good creed - but making something illegal (or of questionable legitimency) is perhaps not a good move.
  - electromagnetic 18y ago
    No iTunes wouldn't disagree; they don't sell the music to the users, they sell the users to the music. iTunes has a ridiculous amount of users as it's freeware, but anyone with an iPod has it installed on their computer thus it was easier for iTunes to sell music as they had users before they had the music and their dealing with the record companies would have been along the lines of "yeah we have like 200 million users, what do you want them for?"
- pageman 18y ago
  but doesn't aggregation add value?
- attack 18y ago
  Basing your business plan on your morals: not a great business plan.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    Huh?
    - attack 18y ago
      Huh.
- 18y ago

69 points by markbao 18y ago

The meat and potatoes of this article: "Muxtape is relaunching as a service exclusively for bands, offering an extremely powerful platform with unheard-of simplicity for artists to thrive on the internet." So, in essence, it is no longer really Muxtape, but an entirely different idea that is just a nod towards what it started out as. This may not be all bad for Muxtape, but it definitely goes to show two things: 1. The major labels/RIAA are far too stiff and don't seem to understand how to work with websites for their own profit. If they had worked out a fair deal, this could have undoubtedly be incredibly profitable for both Muxtape and the labels. 2. Attempting to do something like this will take either a bigger backer (more money), or for the RIAA to suddenly gain an understanding of the internet's true potential. Regardless, it is a bit disappointing that Muxtape is no longer Muxtape -- however, there are imitators out there working to provide a similar concept, and one of those might just succeed. This has just been a jumping-off point for a lot of people...even if this one doesn't succeed, it's made its mark.

alaskamiller 18y ago
The odds of Muxtape being profitable is pretty darn slim. Subscription or advertising fees would not recoup the costs, licensing, and development of the site. The RIAA acted in its best interest when presented with a chance for new opportunities; it would rather ensure its existing sales channels is well protected instead of risking on unknowns.
- netcan 18y ago
  I agree. The RIAA's interest is to keep the old business model alive. Their experience is that if their copyright cannot be contained within a physical object, the lose control of it.
nutzilla 18y ago
"So, in essence, it is no longer really Muxtape, but an entirely different idea that is just a nod towards what it started out as." BS

unalone 18y ago

"The industry will catch up some day, it pretty much has to." Best quote of the whole thing. This is a setback for now, but Muxtape's death led to Opentape's creation. Soon enough, things will get too huge for music companies and something will change. Perhaps not soon (though I'd hope it does), but it will happen.

fallentimes 18y ago

Cheers to Justin & Muxtape. Fuck the RIAA. I'm going to enjoy every minute watching the RIAA & the big record labels burn to the ground; it's already happening. And when one of those unaccountable suits apply for a job at a Company I'm working at...well, good luck. I wish he had a donation link on his website, because I, and many others, would be more than happy to help.

fallentimes 18y ago

This quote says it all: "I always told myself I’d remove any artist or label that contacted me and objected, no questions asked. Not a single one ever did. On the contrary, every artist I heard from was a fan of the site and excited about its possibilities." So the talent loved it and the suits complained. I see.

zhyder 18y ago

I predict this story will evolve into one of (lasting) success, and be inspirational to other entrepreneurs. Strangely enough, I'm already inspired, even though Muxtape hasn't yet gotten off the downs and back into the ups.

dentonbros 18y ago

MixWit.com is the new Muxtape. Same thing, just a bit different UI. and it's a YC company, i believe.

iamdave 18y ago

"Around the same time I got a call from the VP of anti-piracy at one of the majors. After I picked up the phone his first words were, “Justin, I just have one question for you: where do I send the summons and complaint?”" This sort of tactic should be outlawed. Bar none; preemptively filing a summons (within reasonable circumstances) before mutual compromises can be made and using that preemptive strategy to intimidate anyone is just horrible.

tptacek 18y ago
That sounds great on a message board, but in the real world, it would be a debacle. What are the "mutual compromises" that should preempt someone's legitimate commercial rights? On the other hand, big companies would love it, because they've already had your idea, and just gave it a different name: "mandatory binding arbitration."

aston 18y ago

You hate to hear this sort of story, but it just reiterates what has been common knowledge since well-before Muxtape even existed: if you're a successful site that makes major label music available to people who don't own it, you basically either need to be prepared to fight it out with big money in the boardroom/court room or prepared to eventually dismantle the site.

antidaily 18y ago

"Muxtape Relaunching" Not really. Lame. In fact, the new service sounds a lot like bandcamp.mu (which I'm equally uninterested in). Not that it's Justin's fault.

dhotson 18y ago

It's a real shame that they killed Muxtape. It was such a great site and a fantastic way to discover new music. :'( I really wish that there could be a way for sharing good music with others without all the hype and commercial crap that normally surrounds it.

tptacek 18y ago

Well, I'm going to burn some karma by bucking the conventional wisdom here, being needlessly snarky, and repeating a comment I've made here many times already: Selling stuff you don't actually own: not a great business plan.

whatusername 18y ago
itunes might disagree. But I agree with the principle. "Make something people want" is a good creed - but making something illegal (or of questionable legitimency) is perhaps not a good move.
- electromagnetic 18y ago
  No iTunes wouldn't disagree; they don't sell the music to the users, they sell the users to the music. iTunes has a ridiculous amount of users as it's freeware, but anyone with an iPod has it installed on their computer thus it was easier for iTunes to sell music as they had users before they had the music and their dealing with the record companies would have been along the lines of "yeah we have like 200 million users, what do you want them for?"
pageman 18y ago
but doesn't aggregation add value?
attack 18y ago
Basing your business plan on your morals: not a great business plan.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Huh?
  - attack 18y ago
    Huh.
18y ago