|
MP3
ALBUM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DUBROOM
ARTICLE SECTION |
|
|
| The
Ballad Of MP3.com |
| MP3.com,
the biggest collection of music from
independent online artists. Not anymore,
though. In what seems to be a final and
perhaps lethal strike against the online
artist community, VIVENDI UNIVERSAL
destroyed around three terabytes of music
before selling the MP3.com domain to
CNET.com. This is the story, the ballad, of
MP3.com as told by one of the pioneers in
the online artist community.
|
|
VIVENDI wasn't the original owner of MP3.com, but
they took the website over just after they sucked
the original owners empty. A look at the complete
story reveals the true intend of the musical
industrial complex and the way they try to achieve
their goal.
Let's start at the beginning.
In about 1998, 1999, there was a sort of
"golden age" of MP3. The format looked
very promising because it had created a whole new
generation of artists. Sites such as MP3.com began
to make it possible for artists to receive a
royalty over their downloads. If someone listened
to or downloaded your music, you would get a few
cents. Other programs were created to have your
music heard and get some royalty payment.
All these things were very good for the Artist and
the Listener. I could see that I was approaching a
situation in which this could totally provide me
with my daily bread. The listener could listen to
music without having to buy it first; I would have
direct response to my releases.
In this same time, the MP3 format was also used in
a different way. People would start to record
their records and rip the CD's, put everything in
MP3 format on their computer and use software to
exchange music with others. One of the first
pieces of software that enabled people to do that,
was called "Napster", perhaps some of
you remember the name.
Until this time, I'm still talking about '98, '99,
the music industry wasn't really around on the
Internet. They were still sitting in their ivory
towers, selling people the stuff they want people
to buy, telling artists to play what they want
artists to play, you know, the usual things
dictators and criminals do. The music industry was
totally unaware of the revolution that took place
in Cyberspace.
But right under their nose, a whole new generation
of artists was formed. Artists independent from
the main music industrial complex, building up an
audience. And they were becoming more and more
popular. Download charts at MP3.com revealed the
immense popularity of many new artists. Their
names were often above some better-known names.
Then, a hard noise came out of a Hollywood villa.
The residence from a member of a band called
Metallica, to be precise. The hard noise wasn't a
new tune, but a complaint. It had come to the
attention of this particular individual, that
people were actually sharing Metallica music over
the Internet, through Napster.
The musician complained that he would lose income
as a result of the music sharing that was going on
through the Napster software. I'm not a heavy
Metal fan, but a bitter Metallica listener told I,
that this particular band started out by having
people share their music through tape sharing. And
I still wonder, why an artist who can live a good
life, would complain over people liking his music
enough to share it with others.
Because, through the action of this artist, and
many other ofcourse, the online Artist community
was being attacked, as I will expose later on. So
one can safely say that this Metallica member did
not have the interest of the online artist in
mind.
The music industry woke up from their sleep, their
little nap, and they began their take on Napster.
Backed by a multi-million dollar well of money,
the lawsuits began.
All in the name of saving the Artist Community,
the rhetoric and the propaganda began to spread
over the mainstream media. The people were warned,
that there would soon be no more new music
available when people would massively continue to
share music with each other. No, they didn't have
the online artist in mind indeed. Or perhaps they
did but didn't want you to know they did. Because
even if the musical indistrial complex would go
broke because of file sharing, the new music would
have been provided by the online artists! In the
Netherlands, where I live, there was a campaign
where famous artists were being shown with their
mouths sown together, like they were torture
victims. People obviously had to feel sorry for
the rich and famous, eerrr, the artists. Artists
who didn't even own their own music anymore and
many time have big debts to the record companies
than own the rights to their music.
But, as we always see with propaganda, the words
and the actions are two different things.
Napster could not resist the flood of lawsuits
that were filed against them and eventually they
were taken over by the musical industrial complex.
And one can argue over the legality of such
programmes as Napster. One can say that it's not
right to share music like that.
But what about MP3.com and other legal MP3 sites,
where the online artist community releases music
and communicates with the audience?
Obviously, they are different then the file
sharing programmes as Napster.
But not for the Musical Industrial Complex!
The guys at Universal were working overtime to
find a way to accuse MP3.com of "something
illegal".
Completely in the current spirit of globalisation
and privatisation, they themselves were taken over
by a company called Vivendi and their orders were
to go after the online Artists now. Can't have
independents, don't we?
But there was a problem. MP3.com was not like
Napster. People were actually offering their own
music there, and making quite a name for them.
This is the kind of competition you never hear the
Musical Industrial Complex complain about, but I
think that it is a major reason why they are
losing CD sales too. There are many Online Artists
who make music of professional quality, especially
in the electronic genres. Some are better than the
so-called signed artists.
Here it didn't help to pull a Rock Star out of his
Villa to complain about loss of money.
Here some people were actually well aware of how
artists are treated by this musical industrial
complex.
MP3.com looked like a fortress, which could not be
taken by the corporate vampires. But there was one
weak point, an option for registered MP3.com
visitors to "beam" their CD's.
In short, someone could put a CD in his drive,
click on the mouse and MP3.com would recognize
that CD. You could then go to your work, and log
on to the MP3.com website with your own password,
and you could listen to the CD without actually
having it physically with you. MP3.com had MP3
files of that CD which you could listen to.
MP3.com called this program: Beam It.
I never saw the use of it, but I could also see
how it could be abused. I would borrow your CD's,
beam them in a few minutes, then you take your
CD's back and I could start to download from
MP3.com.
Unfortunately, the lawyers at Vivendi also saw
this and they started to beam complaints to the
judges. Again, they posed as the victims were in
fact they were the pirates themselves.
To make a long story short, they provided the
Online Artists with a speed-course in
Globalisation and the vampirism that comes with
it.
MP3.com was sucked completely empty before Vivendi
bought the website.
One of the first things they did was to label the
artists as "clients". Shortly after
that, they cut down the royalty payment with 90%.
Yes, you hear this correctly. Where some of the
artists had a real perspective off being able to
live from their music, the fruits of their hands,
by the stroke of a pen this future was made
impossible. I do not know how many of you would
accept an income cut of 90%. We had to, because
Metallica could otherwise not have their next car.
In the meantime, they had also fired most of the
people who originally set up MP3.com and hired
people that would do nothing all day but answering
public complaints from artists. In politics, these
people are called "spin-doctors".
Spin-doctors are professionals in bringing bad
news as good news. A good spin-doctor can make
someone rejoice over his own death penalty.
The Spin Doctors that were hired by Vivendi did
their best to make the artists believe, that they
were in fact clients. MP3.com would be a service
provider for the artist. And when they had this in
the mind of most artists, they pulled back the
last ten percent of the royalty income. A contact
told me how even in these times, the parking space
at MP3.com's office was filled with BMW's and
other expensive cars.
Then they went over to charge the artist a big sum
of money every month to have more than three
tracks available for free download. The website
looked like one big MTV ad, Vivendi's signed
artists were promoted and the independent artists
difficult to find. The quality of the music by the
independent artists also didn't increase. Ofcourse
not! The serious artists found different sites
while the dumbed down remnant who believed the
lies of the spin doctors kept on putting their
tunes on MP3.com. A thing for which they had to
pay a lot of money, too!
Critique could lead to deletion of the website.
Sain comments on MP3.com's policy had to be
written down intelligently, because the rules were
tightened on the site's messageboard. A lot of
things were labelled as "insults". After
a while they went so far that only artists who
paid a lot of money every month to have their
music on the MP3.com website could freely post
their messages of the MP3.com forum. Only the
dumbed down remnant who bought the brainwash
education by MP3.com's spin doctors were able to
post. This is how they killed the critique.
All these things were so obviously wrong, that it
really surprised me to see how easy it was for the
musical industrial complex to brainwash the
artists. It seemed like the Spin Doctors were
making excessive use of a mentality that is
planted in western societies. "You respect
your music, don't you", they said. "Your
music is worth something, so by paying us you show
your self-respect". And people were buying
these idiotic things. Their slavery was brought to
them as a sign of self-respect. How sick can you
be?
But when you think about it, it fits perfectly in
the works of the musical industrial complex. When
you look at the bulk of what is released, it's all
about sex and drugs and gang violence. About
emptiness. Vanity. Don't think! In my contacts
with representants of the industry, I have come
across this almost every time. One time I hear an
annoyed voice saying to me: "You talk an
awful lot about babylon, don't you". The
other time I find out that behind my back people
whom I work with closely are being told that my
lyrics have to be changed. I hear other artists
telling me what they are being told by the music
industry: "I want music that makes the pussy
wet".
Why were MP3.com's spin doctors so obvious in
their spinning and got away with it? How come they
knew they were going to be successful in dumbing
down the artists? Simple: because that is what
they do all the time! It's the reason for their
existence! They know they are successful, just
look at western society. The fact that a lot of
people are absolutely not aware of what is going
on, too dumbed down to see they are fooled, is
partly because of the works of the musical
industrial complex!
For me, being an independent online artist is an
essential part of my identity and also one of the
premier conditions for my work. I try to spread
consciousness, to wake up people for the fact that
this Babylon System that you hear the Rastas speak
about all the time is in fact a horrible reality.
And I am very much convinced that the musical
industrial complex is a part of this system. When
you look at the bulk of music that is put out to
take their place in the hearts and souls of the
people, it's all aiding the globalists.
Anyway, I researched further and found out that
Vivendi was not only specializing in sucking
artists and artist-friendly websites. Like all
these globalist-corporations, they are versatile
criminals and I am not afraid to say so, because
this is an established fact.
Judge for yourself. Dutch National Media revealed
how the Vivendi Company also specialize in
bringing clean water to people living in the
ghetto's and slums of South Africa. Privatisation,
you know. So they now charge these poor people for
the water. Needless to reveal, that these people
cannot pay for their water bill. They don't live
in a slum because they can, do they. And what
happens if you don't pay your bill? Well, simple:
you are being cut off.
I call that criminal. It's criminal to deprive
people of their basic needs such as water. It's
criminal to cut artists with 90%, no, over 100%,
of their income. And now that Vivendi got what
they want, they sold the remains to CNET.com and
the future remains uncertain for the online artist
community.
The lies and propaganda concerning this matter is
unbelievable. VIVENDI claimed that they couldn't
have CNET take over the contents of the website
because VIVENDI did not have the ownership of the
music on the website. While that ownership remark
was true, it seemed no problem at the moment
VIVENDI took over MP3.com from the founding
owners. In what seems to be of the final spins,
the Online Artists got another blow in their
heads, another punishment for being independent.
A heartical request to VIVENDI by MP3.com's
founder, Michael Robertson, to have the
Archive.org website store the music on their
server, was sent to deaf ears. All the actions and
reactions made it clear that VIVENDI insisted in
having the contents of the website DELETED.
VIVENDI didn't delete everything from the website,
though. MP3.com had developed a unique online
distribution system for the online artists. People
could have music sent to their MP3 walkman, or
restaurants and stores could select MP3.com music
for play in their place. This system is now in the
hands of the corporate vampires too.
Operation Kill Online Artist Community in full
effect.
The ballad of MP3.com is a disaster for the online
artists and listeners. But, as we see, it goes
beyond that even. It's part of a bigger ballad,
the "ballad of babylon"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISCLAIMER |
|
In
case the article on this page was quoted from
another source, the two following statements
apply:
-1- Fair Use policy applies since the quote is for
non-profit educational and research purposes only.
For more information, go to: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
-2- The DUBROOM has no affiliation whatsoever with
the originator of the articles nor is The DUBROOM
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
|
|
|
ADVERTIZEMENT
www.reggaeloops.com |
|
|
|
|
|
