That didn't take long. Friday evening I blogged that the government of Antigua had issued a terse press release claiming that it had nothing to do with unlimited-download site Zookz. The Zookz legal team responded with an equally terse note saying that it didn't need the government's approval, and that its service was perfectly legal under its interpretation of a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling.
It looks like the authorities won this round. This afternoon, Zookz disappeared from the Web. According to a statement by the company's director of communications, the site is "temporarily not operating due to circumstances beyond [their] control" and the company is "returning all membership fees paid to date by our existing customers." The release and the Zookz Twitter feed both express hope that the site will be back up again soon. I wouldn't hold your breath--legal threats, followed by a takedown and an offer of refunds doesn't sound like a viable long-term business to me.
I'm curious to hear from any customers--how many songs did you download, and did Zookz refund your money as promised? Post in comments and let me know.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
Another reminder about music sites that sound too good to be true arrived in my in-box Friday.
Earlier this month, I blogged about Zookz, a new site currently in beta testing that allows users to download an unlimited number of MP3 audio files or MP4 video files for a single monthly fee ($9.95 for audio or video only; $17.95 for both). This seems to be an amazing deal compared with similar services--eMusic, for instance, offers a limited number of downloads for a monthly fee, and all-you-can-eat subscription services like the Zune Marketplace disable some portion of your downloads if you stop paying your subscription. Zookz has no such limitations.
The company claimed it could do this because it's based in Antigua, which isn't subject to the same restrictions as the U.S. But apparently, the Antiguan government doesn't want to have any official association with the service. According to a press release that I and some other bloggers got Friday, "The Zookz.com web site is not operating under the authority or with the knowledge of the Government of Antigua and Barbuda." It continues, "Zookz.com is not authorized by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda, or by the World Trade Organization, to offer entertainment downloads in contravention of international law."
I asked the company for their response, and they basically told me that they don't have to have the permission of the Antiguan government or the WTO. According to a statement from William Pepper, legal counsel for Zookz: "In December of 2007, the Appellate Body of the WTO confirmed the award of $21,000,000 annually to Antigua. This award imposes sanctions that allow the nullification of the TRIPS obligations for Antigua." If that lost you, he continues, "Zookz is the property of Carib Media Ltd. a company registered and conducting business in the State of Antigua and Barbuda, West Indies. Therefore there is nothing that requires Zookz to seek authorization from the WTO or the Government of Antigua to transact its business."
I'm not versed in international law, but in my experience, when lawyers start firing press releases back and forth, it doesn't bode well for the long-term survival of the businesses involved. As I blogged last week, if you want to check out Zookz, do it now.
Hear that popping sound? It's the sound of executives in the music and movie industries taking an extra dose of heart medicine. Wednesday, a new site called Zookz began public beta-testing a service that will let users download an unlimited number of MP3 music files for a single monthly fee of $9.95. Users can also download an unlimited number of MP4 movies for the same price, or both music and movies for $17.95 per month. Those are unprotected, DRM-free downloads that can be transferred to any device or shared an unlimited number of times.
Of course there are a few catches. Currently, the site only has about 50,000 tracks--a paltry selection compared with iTunes, Amazon MP3, and other services, although the company promises to add 5,000 tracks per week. In its current early beta state, there's no browsing among titles--you have to search, which requires you to know exactly what you want, and then hope it's in the (currently tiny) Zookz database. (I didn't test it for movies, as the focus of this blog--and my main personal interest--is music, but the selection's even smaller there: only 1,500 titles.)
How can Zookz possibly get away with this when the only other subscription music-download service I know of, eMusic, charges more for a limited number of monthly downloads? Simple. According to its FAQ, Zookz is based in the Caribbean nation of Antigua, and isn't subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including copyright law. The company claims it's operating in line with a 2007 World Trade Organization agreement between Antigua and the U.S., a claim I have absolutely no qualifications to evaluate one way or the other.
If you're willing to trust Zookz with your credit card information, you can fill your hard drive and all your portable music players with music for a very, very low price. Get it while it lasts....
Yes, it's that simple. (For the record, I already own this album on vinyl, but have been too lazy to rip it.)
Follow Matt on Twitter.
Today, U.K. Internet service provider Virgin Media announced plans to begin offering unlimited song downloads for a monthly subscription fee. The songs will be DRM-free MP3 files, which means they will never expire, even if the user switches ISPs. Universal, the largest record label in the world, is so far the only label to sign on, but the other majors will probably follow.
The deal was announced along with a threat to crack down on illegal downloaders (perhaps through some sort of BitTorrent monitoring, although Virgin claims it won't be doing the monitoring itself), but the companies left the most important question unanswered: how much will it cost?
The labels won't want to settle for less than they're getting through iTunes and other download stores, so Virgin will have to guess how many songs will be downloaded per month, then divide that number by the number of subscribers. After some initial heavy usage, I can imagine users downloading about two albums per month. So I could imagine a rate of about $40 per month. That seems fair compared with subscription-based streaming services like Rhapsody, which starts at $12.99 a month.
But what's fair to the industry may not seem fair to users, who have been downloading free music for almost a decade now. People have proven willing to pay for downloads when they get some other tangible benefit--in the case of iTunes, it's the ease of transferring purchased songs to their iPod or iPhone. When the only extra benefit is a clear conscience and less chance of being sued, I think a lot of users will take the risk and stick with free.
Would you pay a monthly fee for unlimited downloads? If so, how much?
Follow Matt on Twitter.
- prev
- 1
- next
