3 ms·

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

by apgwoz 18y ago

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. This is what I remember it to be, but archive.org doesn't have muxtape.com yet (from http://wiredformusic.blogspot.com/2008/03/muxtape-barely-legal.html http://wiredformusic.blogspot.com/2008/03/muxtape-barely-leg...): 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?

unalone 18y ago
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.

by apgwoz 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

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.