Comments on: Teen-created Muziic likely to irk YouTube

Muziic is a new music service that harnesses all of YouTube's music and controls it through an iTunes-like interface. But is it legal?

[ddhboy]

So how long will it be until the music industry finally deals with the reality of the internet? Will we have to wait until today's teenagers are tommorow's upper management?

[lordmorgul]

The entire music industry should be embarrassed by how simple and elegant this is. I applaud the Nelson's effort and I hope the industry reacts well to it (sadly unlikely). We have seen how they intend to develop for-fee services and have even tried to force ISPs to adopt the service for all customers and roll the price into service costs. This is a very good example of how easily the music can be made available to the customer; it is not rocket science.

[mrugby]

Yet one more example of how far behind and irrelevent the industry is becoming. The people at the top care more for holding onto their power than doing what's smart for the customer. Is it any wonder that there are kids like him who continually beating them to the new and usefull internet ideas.

[terminalblue]

to be honest, this tool is stupid and will be headed straight to court....most likely by youtube

[abcd9009]

I highly doubt that! First off, everything on YouTube is FREE content so regardless of how you watch it, as long as you don't violate YouTube policy, which from thsi article it doesn't seems like Muziic is doing then it's 100% legal. Muziic is simply using the APIs which millions of other websites use to embed YouTube videos on their site, except this is an app.
What makes this difference than Napster or any other P2P app is with Napster you were pirating music (illegal) whereas with Muziic you are just viewing what's already available for FREE on YouTube so if the content providers were to sue, they would be suing Google and not Muziic.

[ittesi259]

When this can seriously hurt YouTube's ad revenue expect them to take action

[monkeyfun14]

Yes lets sue teenagers just because some ceo doesn't get the extra million on his 10 million dollar bonus.

[karpenterskids]

I support this kid and any other genius who has an idea that fills a demand in our culture.

If his site gets shut down, it would really be a shame.

[kjleftin]

Eh, doesn't even work very well. First off, you need Flash installed in IE (depending on IE will not get you much love from the geek music community which are the type of people who would actually use this application). Second, the UI is miserable.

Create a webapp version of this with a UI similiar to lala.com or itunes and maybe it'll be worth it.

[MadLyb]

Why don't you build it? Oh yeah, don't have a clue.

BTW, Using flash and IE *is* building a webapp. Last time I checked itunes isn't.

[mammananny]

I stand behind David. Bright ideas from brigh children! We homeschooled our children so the "system" wouldn't "dumb down" our kids. The internet would have made all of those years a breeze. Hats off to wise parents and motivated, creative progeny.

[jamesdlow]

There's a way to do this that's legal. There's an app called YouTubeApp which does a similar thing, playlists / repeat all / view friends libraries etc. but it shows the videos and is ok with youtube so its legal. http://www.youtubeapp.com/

[knowles2]

I specifically remember reading in the article that this app shows the video to, just a smaller size. I wonder if the API specifically state the size that the video has to be.

[lodoss900]

Love it. I use Youtube for all my music finding needs. Great Application

[JoeNYC]

This kid built a front-end using YouTube's API to access the music stored on their servers. He is bypassing the advertising model built into YouTube's own interface. Maybe the artists are being compensated but the delivery network is not. This is unsustainable and is going to end up in court unless they work with YouTube to find a satisfactory ad delivery medium.

[JoeNYC]

Also, it's a little ironic that Muziic is displaying ads from Google's own ad network on their site while at the same time effectively stealing YouTube content. I wonder if that ad revenue check will get withheld.

[tjryan1975]

YouTube's API is MADE to use *without* their advertisements. Their YouTube players for API usage do not contain the ads, and that is totally up to youtube. They've chosen to omit the ads, so obviously its not against their 'business model'... Also view this in regards to advertisements and monetization: http://apiblog.youtube.com/2009/02/show-me-money.html

@joelnyc .. Whats Muziic stealing?! They're using the API and artists are getting compensated for that matter.

@jamesdlow, muziic displays the video as well, and the player is only half of what makes it cool since the muziic website is basically a music community revolving around youtube.

As a developer (mainly other google apps, but youtube too) this article caught my eye and I can see they're doing everything to follow the YouTube terms, and they're carrying it out brilliantly.

[JoeNYC]

I'm no lawyer or expert on this situation but the terms of service for the YouTube API state:
"You agree that You will not... modify, replace, interfere with or block advertisements placed by YouTube in the YouTube audiovisual content or the YouTube player."

It appears to me like Muziic is interfering with or blocking advertisements by playing the audio only through their software. I could be wrong. I'm sure it will all get hashed out by Google's attorneys.

The reason I said they were effectively stealing content is because they are not displaying ads as mentioned above. It doesn't help Google that they have to pay the artists without getting ad revenue. Hence, they will likely have a problem with this service.

[tjryan1975]

Joe, I'm very familiar with the API.. I can tell you haven't even looked at the player because they DO show the video... Secondly, that statement is in place in their terms to allow for them to include advertisements in the future (and that wouldn't be a bad idea for them).. I'm just saying, Muziic in no way is blocking any advertisement or video from YouTube. I think in order for you to argue this point, you should at least try the product before making judgment.

[JoeNYC]

I did look at the images and descriptions of the software on their website. It sure didn't look to me like they were showing any video. But I'll take your word for it. Seems like a reasonable use of the API if they do that.

[executivechaos]

"The most famous was also developed by a teenager. If you listen to some in the music business, that site almost destroyed the industry.

The developer was Shawn Fanning and the site was Napster."

Wow...you've *got* to be kidding me. Almost destroyed the music industry?

Just like how:

The radio almost destroyed the music industry
The tape cassette almost destroyed the music industry
The VHS tape almost destroyed the film industry
The internet almost destroyed the publishing industry

Anyone else notice how the abolition of what napster use to be has only spawned faster, p2p networks with better anonymizing functions and more music proliferation, not to mention...INCREASED ALBUM SALES? L O L

[sandonet]

Executivechaos.

I don't think album sales have increased. Everything I've read indicates music sales and revenue have fallen since Napster. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/18/technology/music.php

I'm not saying your thesis is wrong. Just pointing out one part is, I believe, inaccurate.

[Markus2008]

Radio, tape cassette, and VHS are methods of content delivery that the industry embraced and sold their product through. Napster's problem was that the industry never decided anything, the artists never decided anything, Napster just took it upon themselves to create a distribution network without their consent. They were a ripe target because they were too far out in front...

[screamapillar]

I agree with you 100% executivechaos. This is another case of the big guns trying desperately to an old sales method/system while the world moves on past them. We have ALWAYS had piracy in some form and it has never hurt the industry the way the industry claims. The reality is that the album sales losses that the music industry claims are not true for the simple reason that they assume if someone viewed a song on youtube or downloaded it via a p2p that they would've purchased it if it were not available. This is not true.

The music industry once made all of its money from live performances - even the invent of vinyl records was accused of ruining the music industry in the day because it was accused of luring people away from live performances with the very foolish math: every record purchased = a person that would've attended the live show not attending. We all know that is foolish at best, that there are many reasons you wouldn't attend a live performance. We also know that buying the record would entice you to see the artist live. Nothing has changed with the advent of the internet.

Ergo, I agree again with executivechaos that music proliferation increases sales because it creates sales where there were none before - it is the same as radio and music videos. It is advertising (that the music industry isn't being billed for - I wonder if the p2p networks have considered billing them hehe) - if the album is worth its salt you'll not only buy it, but you'll likely buy everything that artist has done, some merchandise and go to their performance. Without a preview via say, p2p, you wouldn't have even considered the artist, as radio is more and more just a pop fest of repitition - it is failing its purpose of advertising new music of all forms.

What we have is lots of worthless albums out there being mass produced and the music industry is cut that when we preview it, we can see what it is. Mass produced rubbish. So we delete it and don't buy it. But then we'll find something else and buy it.

The days of charging ridiculous amounts for a CD which cost little to produce (including all production and distribution costs etc) and giving almost none of that to the musician need to end. And don't give me the cost of advertising argument - that only occurs for about 1% of the pop CDs the rest have little to no advertising. An artist creating a CD on his own, yes, he/she would have large costs, but the big labels don't (comparitively speaking - buying in bulk afterall). Consider, for example, the rage of Trent Reznor when he found out the exploitative cost for purchasing one of his CDs in Melbourne, Australia - it was above $30 in a store when he sold it on his website for only a couple dollars (which covered ALL costs of the disk). This was all just mark-up by the distributors - and only in the first couple dollars were the production costs, advertising, artist wages, etc covered. The rest was fat cat profits.

The music industry needs to evolve or find itself suddenly obselete. iTunes music store is booming - they have even seen the error in drm. Music, like all art, is meant FOR the people. You can make money out of it yes, but you need to evolve, keep up with the times. Music should never be taken from the people or the people will simply take it back.

[dbargen]

Now THAT's a better use of your time than public schooling.

Waytahgo, kid!

[drburning]

It's an amazing music app. In near future we don't will need to store and backup music, with the bonus of discovering and sharing of new music and artists in a way never before known. It seems to be a nightmare for labels and artists, but if they understand this new wave in music delivery, its wideness and greater segmentation, all music industry can multiply their income.

As as musician, (http://www.soundclick.com/samann) I can understand the music industry's point of view (though they screw the artists anyway). As a radio programmer (http://www.live365.com/stations/mgzcm) I support the independent and lesser-heard artists by playing their music and giving them the opportunity to collect royalties. But as a developer, I am constantly frustrated by the backwards thinking of the suits that run the media industry. There has to be some common ground that can be reached. If not, we'll have to make a lot of bullets available for the feet that will be shot.

[bbbwheatusbbb]

My 1st thought after reading this was: how can I get in touch with this kid and give him a license to include our music in his app for free?

But the music biz lamprey will wonder this: how can we kill him and eat him, such a tasty looking smart young person.

Major Labels will DEFINITELY HATE THIS... How long until Doug Morris or Edgar B try to drag this kid and his family into court to try and secure a piece of their living wage for life? Not long.

THIS is what the music industry needs. Young smart people who understand the websternets. But currently it is drowning in talentless know nothing middle man remora baby boom dinosaurs who still think they will have a job after the dust settles.....They are eating their young and we must stop them.

So yes...Here I am a content owner shouting: PIRATES UNITE....STEAL, STEAL, DESTROY THE FASCISTS!

brendan b brown
wheatus.com

[rgonzale]

That is so cool! FWIW I did a similar hack to turn MySpace into a radio station: http://www.earspoon.com

[fantasyva]

I appreciate youtube and have loaded over 400 local band videos to help promote our local scene's and a lot of fine performers. The ads have never bothered me at all. Anyone that tries to fault youtube in any way as regards the content on their servers is just wack and shouldn't be allowed to access it. Yeah, they could be more communicative, and yes I have some issues with their operation, but I dare anyone to say they haven't appreciated what youtube has done or that they haven't seen videos on there they'd never see again, from old soap operas to a concert that played the night before. They have every right to protect their best interests. That's no great app either and that kid should be in school.

[cherrycokeguy]

having failed to come to an agreement with prs (the company involved with music licencing in the uk) youtube have made the decision to take down all music videos from the site. rendering this aplication useless, for uk user anyway.
aparently they were paying for a volume licence, when prs worked out they grossly under chargeing and amended their contract, youtube just pulled the plug.

[cherrycokeguy]

i should add, the more costly deal preposed by prs is proportional to the larger number of hits. instead of paying per play, they pay a fix amount for the length of the contract.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/03/09/2009-03-09T181202Z_01_N09466292_RTRIDST_0_YOUTUBE-MUSIC-UPDATE-1.html

(prs are a non profit orginisation by the way - for you industry haters. I am a musician and hate the industry myself, but these are supporting artists)

i think this is a good example of the way things are going..
http://www.spotify.com/

[Noneyabeeswax]

"This is the first we've become aware of the site," a "YouTube spokesman told CNET on Saturday night. "We're looking into it now. On a preliminary review, however, it appears that the site violates our API terms of use."

Well thank you sooo much for bringing it to their attention! (Sarcasm, in case you're wondering)