Webware

The new version of the service, which does not allow users to upload music from their hard drives, instead relies on bands to submit their own tracks for listeners to play on Muxtape--and Muxtape only.

There are a dozen bands to start with, all of which have been hand-picked by the service's creators. Bands that are interested in getting their music onto the service will be able to sign up once the service relaunches in earnest. According to Wired, artists will then be able to sell their tracks from places like Amazon MP3 and iTunes by paying Muxtape a fee. There has been, however no mention of whether that fee will be per referral or on a subscription basis.

Until the official relaunch, users who were previously registered with the service will find that their log-in credentials no longer work. Likewise, you're unable to assemble any of the tracks into a custom playlist--one of the highlights of using the service.

(via Daring Fireball)

Muxtape has returned, although a shadow of its former self. No longer does it allow users to upload music from their hard drive, and instead it's relying on bands to license their content directly.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

Songbeat, a new start-up that takes aim at the file-sharing industry, has launched in the United States. Although it claims that its stream-recording functionality is legal because it doesn't use peer-to-peer technology to bypass copyright protection, it may not be so clear-cut.

Songbeat's software is downloaded to the user's Windows-based machine and allows the user to search for any music they desire, and then stream it directly to their computer through services like SeeqPod and Project Playlist. They can then record it to their hard drive or burn the song directly to a disc.

The software also allows users to record songs directly from Last.fm, owned by CNET News publisher CBS. By entering the name of an artist in Last.fm, the service will start streaming songs, which can be recorded in Songbeat.

Viability of downloading streaming songs aside, the legality of using Songbeat is in question. Songbeat claims that this form of "downloading" is legal in Germany, where it is based, and is nothing more than "the digital version of sitting by your old radio, waiting for your favorite show, armed with a blank cassette."

I doubt that the RIAA will approve of a desktop service downloading tracks directly from popular Web music streams without paying royalties. But for now, the company is operating without any interference from the music industry.

Recording the first 25 songs is free on Songbeat. Once that limit is reached, users will be required to make a $29.99 one-time payment to record an unlimited number of tracks.

The Muxtape logo.

(Credit: Muxtape)

Muxtape founder Justin Ouelette says the bureaucracy of the music industry was just too much for him to deal with. That's why he took down the playlist creation Web site, which became a hipster craze earlier this year, after spreading largely via word of mouth. It'll be relaunching soon, he says, but strictly as a service for independent bands to share their own music.

"I walked away from the licensing deals," Ouelette wrote in a transparent, albeit navel-gazing letter on Muxtape's home page. He'd hired a lawyer and tried negotiating, with varied reactions from the major labels.

In August, the Recording Industry Association of America finally complained to Ouelette's host, Amazon Web Services, and Muxtape was shut down. Frustrated with negotiations that were going to take months, he decided to give up.

"They had become too complex for a site founded on simplicity, too restrictive and hostile to continue to innovate the way I wanted to. They'd already taken so much attention away from development that I started to question my own motivations. I didn't get into this to build a big company as fast as I could, no matter what the cost; I got into this to make something simple and beautiful for people who love music."

Ouelette, a former employee of InterActiveCorp's Vimeo, created Muxtape this spring. Legal questions were instantly raised--though downloads were not permitted, Muxtape had not negotiated with record labels. A minor riff of scandal also came into view when gossip blog Valleywag deduced that Vimeo founder Jakob Lodwick, who had departed the company months ago, had funded Muxtape, creating a potential conflict of interest because Ouelette had quit his job at IAC to run the start-up.

The site was also allegedly burning through cash because of server demands, and it needed a revenue stream--but that would've put it on even shakier legal ground.

Soon, Ouelette said, Muxtape will return as "an extremely powerful platform with unheard-of simplicity for artists to thrive on the Internet."

He spelled out his vision: "The new Muxtape will allow bands to upload their own music and offer an embeddable player that works anywhere on the web, in addition to the original Muxtape format. Bands will be able to assemble an attractive profile with simple modules that enable optional functionality such as a calendar, photos, comments, downloads and sales, or anything else they need."

The Muxtape format has gained serious hipster cred from the site's initial burst of popularity, but there's a problem: bands already have MySpace profiles, as well as iLike concert listings, and they can upload their music to Imeem.

The idea of a cleaner, more unified site for bands is attractive; the idea of competing with News Corp., which just launched the MySpace Music service for its social site, is less so. It echoes of what happened with Napster founder Shawn Fanning when he tried to legitimize the service--it lost steam as a subscription music service and was finally sold to Best Buy earlier this month for $121 million.

Ouelette's indie spirit is admirable, but the fate of his restructured venture doesn't look good.

Free music mixtape service Muxtape has temporarily been shut down due to pressure from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). There's not much more information about downtime besides a small note on the front page of Muxtape.com saying that "Muxtape will be unavailable for a brief period while we sort out a problem with the RIAA."

Presumably the RIAA had gotten wise to the considerable amount of music that was being hosted and played on the service, bringing it into the same tier as some of the streaming radio services that have had to pay considerable licensing fees just to stream tracks to its users.

Back in April, my colleague Daniel Terdiman chatted with the Electronic Frontier Foundation's senior intellectual property attorney, Fred von Lohmann, who said that a site like Muxtape was only able to scrape by if it did not reach a critical mass, and if it had good legal ground both in principle and on paper. We may be only beginning to see if the latter holds true.

Update: Muxtape's blog has posted a tidbit of information about the downtime:

No artists or labels have complained. The site is not closed indefinitely. Stay tuned.
Beta users of Muxtape For Bands: you are unaffected by this outage.

Visitors looking to play some free mixtapes on Muxtape will have to look elsewhere. The site has voluntarily shut down while working out some legal kinks with the RIAA.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

The Washington Post has backed off a story that erroneously accused the recording industry of trying to criminalize ripping CDs to a computer.

The Post issued a correction Saturday, more than a week after the paper triggered a wave of media coverage by claiming that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was trying to outlaw the very common practice of copying music from a CD onto a computer or iPod.

"A Dec. 30 Style and Arts column incorrectly said that the recording industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer," the Post's correction reads. "In a copyright infringement lawsuit the industry's lawyer argued that the actions of an Arizona man, the defendant were illegal because the songs were located in a shared folder on his computer for distribution on a peer-to-peer network."

The reference to "shared folder" was key. In the Post's story, the writer quoted from a legal brief filed by the RIAA in the case of Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona man accused by recording companies of illegal file sharing. The author of the Post's story said that the RIAA maintained "that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer."

But anyone reading the brief will see that in all such references, the RIAA was arguing that it was illegal for someone to make copies and then distribute those copies over file-sharing networks.

Soon after the story appeared, several high-profile blogs, including Techdirt, Gizmodo, and Engadget, wrote that something was amiss.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt noted that other previous stories about the RIAA's legal brief had been debunked.

"Unfortunately (and for reasons unclear to me), the Washington Post has revived the story," Masnick wrote on Jan. 2. "That's simply not true."

Nonetheless, dozens of other media sites repeated the Post's claims. The Web was filled with headlines like "RIAA Goes After 'Personal Use' Doctrine," "We're All Thieves to the RIAA," and "RIAA Equates Ripping With Stealing."

In response to the Post's decision to correct the story, the RIAA issued a brief statement on Monday: "We appreciate that the Washington Post cleared the record."

Editor's note: Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a computer.

National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled consumers.

Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their computers.

Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications repeated Fisher's claims.

But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law.

"The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about putting them into a shared folder."

The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music files via peer-to-peer networks.

Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.

"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial," Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.

Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.

Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days later.

It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be quoted--especially when they're slamming them.

Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.

But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any problems.

"They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a legal right."

Here was an opportunity for Sherman to declare once and for all that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that, saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements. He did state that there is one foolproof way of discovering the RIAA's policy on personal use: check the record.

"Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single claim has ever been made."

In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case scenarios.

Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued? If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.

If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in this case.

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

It's late on Wednesday evening and the Washington Post has yet to correct a story that accused the recording industry of trying to paint law-abiding music fans as criminals.

But the paper should make things right and soon.

Marc Fisher, a Post columnist, wrote on Sunday that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asserted in a legal brief that anyone who copies music from a CD onto their computer is a thief. The document, filed last month, was part of the RIAA's copyright suit against Jeffrey Howell, an Arizona resident accused of illegal file sharing.

Quoting from the brief, Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and violate the law. If it were true, the move would represent a major shift in strategy by the RIAA, which typically hasn't challenged an individual's right to copy CDs for personal use.

The problem with Fisher's story is that nowhere in the RIAA's brief does the group call someone a criminal for simply copying music to a computer. Throughout the 21-page brief, the recording industry defines what it considers to be illegal behavior and it boils down to this: creating digital recordings from CDs and then uploading them to file-sharing networks.

A sentence on page 15 of the brief clearly spells out the RIAA's position: "Once (Howell) converted plaintiff's recording into the compressed MP3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiff."

The key words there are "shared folder" and it's an important distinction. It means that before the RIAA considers someone a criminal, a person has to at least appear to be distributing music.

The Post story, which followed similar pieces in Ars Technica and Wired.com, has spurred scores of other media outlets to repeat the paper's erroneous assertion. Ironically, even typically anti-RIAA blogs, such as Engadget, Gizmodo and TechDirt have jumped in on the side of the RIAA.

"The Washington Post story is wrong," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement. This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

After reading Lamy's statement, Fisher didn't back down.

He responded in an e-mail to CNET News.com: "The bottom line is that there is a disconnect between RIAA's publicly stated policy that making a personal copy of a CD is ok and the theory advanced by its lawyers that in fact, transferring music to your computer is an unauthorized act."

He took one more shot before signing off: "Rather than suing its customers and slamming reporters, the RIAA might better spend its energies focusing on winning back the trust of an alienated consumer base."

Still, Fisher received little support from respected and independent copyright experts. William Patry, the copyright guru at Google--not exactly known as a lackey for copyright holders--wrote on his blog that the RIAA is being "unfairly maligned" in the Post story.

Patry does, however, caution that recent statements made by the RIAA and included in Fisher's story reflect the group's growing tendency to use language as a means of control.

Fisher quoted Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, who testified recently in court that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."

Patry disagreed.

"This new rhetoric of 'everything anyone does without (RIAA) permission is stealing' is well worth noting and well worth challenging at every occasion," Patry wrote. "It is the rhetoric of copyright as an ancient property right, permitting copyright owners to control all uses as a natural right; the converse is that everyone else is an immoral thief."

Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.

Jammie Thomas

UPDATE: Jammie Thomas is going to have to sell a lot more thongs.

Thomas, the woman ordered by a federal court in October to pay the recording industry $222,000 for pirating music, doesn't have enough money to fund an upcoming appeal and has been forced to look for a new lawyer, according to her current attorney, Brian Toder.

Thomas was the first person sued by the recording industry for copyright violations to argue a case before a jury and was found to have illegally shared 24 digital-music files.

Toder, who represented Thomas in the civil case, told CNET News.com on Wednesday that handling her appeal on a pro bono basis would be too expensive. Thomas has been selling merchandise, such as T-shirts, coffee mugs, and women's underwear, as well as accepting donations, to help raise money for her defense. But the fund-raising efforts have "actually raised very little," Toder said.

"I'm very confident she will find representation," Toder added. "There are many passionate organizations, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), chomping on the bit to help her."

The other good news for Thomas is that the music labels have agreed to waive their lawyer fees, Toder said. After winning a judgment against Thomas, the record companies could have required her to pay their legal costs.

Toder said that because one of the plaintiffs, Virgin Records, was forced to dismiss its part of the case on the day of trial, Thomas was therefore entitled to attorneys fees from Virgin. Toder used that to negotiate with the rest of the plaintiffs and they agreed not to seek fees.

That Toder was not going to handle Thomas' appeal came as news to Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the EFF, which advocates for the rights of Internet users and has offered support to Thomas in the past. He said the group would most certainly try to help Thomas when the time came but that he couldn't guarantee anything.

"We've helped lots of people caught in the music industry's litigation campaign to find counsel," von Lohmann said. "But I can't say we've succeeded in every case. It's easier for me to find lawyers in San Francisco and New York than it is in Minnesota...If people think we're out there backstopping every lawsuit, they need to donate a lot more money."

Thomas' case, however, has several things going for it, von Lohmann said.

"There is a strong basis for an appeal based on the jury instruction," von Lohmann said. "There's been a lot of speculation that (Thomas) is guilty, but the thing to keep in mind on appeal is that it's not whether the jury got the facts right. It's about whether the right legal standards were applied. A lot of copyright attorneys think the jury instructions were erroneous."

Thomas won't be able to file her appeal until a federal district judge in Minnesota decides on a motion to reduce the jury award. The $222,000 award violates the Constitution, Toder said.

The blog TorrentFreak was first to report that Thomas is looking for a new attorney.

Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman ordered earlier this month to pay the recording industry $222,000, is pulling out the stops in her bid to defend herself in court.

The 30-year-old woman has begun selling men's and women's undergarments, coffee mugs, canine apparel, and baby bibs to raise money to pay her legal fees. All the merchandise is stamped with the new "Free Jammie" logo created for her by one of her supporters.

The logo features a music note superimposed on a globe and the words: "Free Jammie. Free Everyone."

Thomas is the first person accused of illegal file sharing by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to present a defense before a jury. She denied the RIAA's accusations that she attempted to share 24 songs online and maintained that someone must have spoofed her IP address. The jury didn't believe her story.

Her lawyers have asked for a new trial and will likely file an appeal. To many file sharers, Thomas has become a symbol of RIAA heavy handedness for going after a single mother of two who makes less than $40,000 a year. Those who support copyright law say Thomas was caught sharing files and isn't worthy of pity because she had an opportunity to settle with the RIAA for a few thousand dollars.

Thomas was unavailable for comment Monday, but one has to wonder whether she's taken to selling merchandise as a result of lackluster donations.

Soon after losing her court case, Thomas' supporters began sending her money. In the past three weeks, according to the Web site freejammie.com, she has raised only $16,000. Brian Toder, Thomas' attorney, was reluctant to say how much an appeal could cost, but said it would be a minimum of $30,000 to $40,000.