I saw this earlier <a href=http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2003/11/26/rtr1162084.html>about CNET’s music.download.com</a> and was going to blog about it and then Logspirit stopped by and commented recently with:

<i>As I predicted, from C-Net:

“we’re hard at work building a free music download site that will address the needs of the independent artist community and the music downloading community. Launching in early 2004, music.download.com will offer artists free file hosting and a presence on the Web, and will give music fans free access to a universe of downloadable songs.”

See and sign up early:
http://music.download.com/
logspirit </i>

My comments <a href=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/26/125000.php>at Blogcritics</a> about this service were:

“I’m curious if they really want to keep the content then why they just don’t tar over the content to the new boxes. Perhaps the licensing/TOS did not permit them to move the content to a different domain?

This is going to be a major bandwith/time drain both ways for folks to download and copy just to upload to a new domain owned by the same entity.

It would seem to me that it would be wiser to allow mp3.com artists to go into the system and grant permission to be able to use on the new domain. Until that permission was granted — or after a specified amount of time — the content would automatically be deleted. This would protect the artist’s copyright, but give the new music.download.com service a jumpstart in content that is going to most likely be moved anyway.

Just my 2 1/2 rusted pennies.”

BTW, for those who celebrate, Happy Thanksgiving!

Did this post make you go hmm?

 Loading ...

• Why Indie artists REALLY rock
• Looking for bands/artists to play/promote
• Diary of a legal music downloader: My new AAA buying strategy
• Jarett from Revel on the Indie artist perspective on music downloads
• Blogcritics: “fundamental changes” in community policy on the horizon
• Beefing up security during recording process