

Muxtape Relaunching, and Muxtape's story - markbao
http://muxtape.com/?r=t

======
endtwist
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
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
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.

------
fallentimes
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.

------
tptacek
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
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
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?"

------
iamdave
"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
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."

------
fallentimes
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.

------
aston
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
"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.

------
zhyder
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.

------
unalone
"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.

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

------
dhotson
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.

