How does this sort of legal uncertainty factor into the way investors view a product/company? On one hand, I feel like the risk could make it a less attractive investment since its an extra liability.
Or would it be a reason for founders to ask for more money, under the idea that they need a warchest of funds to fight expensive lawsuits?
On the other hand, being in a legal grey area could be seen as a barrier to entry for people who don't want a potential litigation nightmare hovering over their heads.
Don't they use, and have an agreement with MediaNet (http://www.mndigital.com/) which provides all the licensing they need (since MediaNet has deals in place with the record labels)?
They have an agreement with MediaNet yes, but it's definitely not some sort of blanket immunity to use copyrighted music.
As a simple example: turntable allows uploads. What happens when I upload an MP3 from a band that isn't part of the MediaNet catalog? And at what point does streaming radio become a "digital locker"?
> Develop your own streaming or radio service. Pair this capability with our recommendation engine to have the ability to create track and/or artist based playlists on the fly with minimal effort.
Seems pretty compelling that as a customer of MediaNet, their service (aside from uploads) is totally legal, unless MediaNet is somehow not.
But they could simply turn off uploading should they be called out for that--I should have addressed that in my original comment. My guess is that much of the community wouldn't care if that feature was gone.
MediaNet is a product of the labels.It started in 2001 as Musicnet, created by Real Networks, AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann and EMI.
In my time at a label I tried to work with them, but their technology is kind of awful, so I wouldn't be shocked if Turntable is looking for a better partner.
Essentially they are a proxy between the label catalogs, reporting for royalties and DSP's (digital service providers) who license and distribute content.
Or as I referred to it internally, the "API Model"
Regarding the user uploaded stuff, that's under DMCA.
Of note: Turntable really falls into two licensing camps: DJ and listener. Very different terms required.
> My guess is that much of the community wouldn't care if that feature was gone.
Most of the big public rooms are founded on playing pretty obscure stuff. The indie rock rooms could survive but the electro and dubstep type rooms would definitely die.
I have no idea what the usage patterns are (do most people hang out in big public rooms or small rooms with friends?) but a pretty big segment would complain if uploads went away.
I wrote a Pandora clone using django and last.fm for recommendations. Because of the licensing issues I plan on open sourcing it on github in the near or distant future.
They supposedly pay SoundExchange for every play, and that's what's required to cover streaming radio in the US no matter the band. Other than that, it's a question of whether it's legal for them to host the file. To claim their hosting is illegal, the argument would have to be made that storing with them was somehow entirely different than storing on, say, dropbox.
I don't like turntable. While the idea is appealing (streaming music for friends or strangers), the UI is awful. There's too much color and illustrations are not helping. I would be happy to help if founders are reading this.
I think the color and illustrations are what give it its appeal. It isn't your run of the mill streaming service, its fun and it has its own character. I currently pay for rdio and would probably pay a minimal amount for turntable.fm also if it came to that being what had to be done to keep it around.
If by 'illustrations' you mean the avatars... well, I'd argue that they are helping. Turntable seems deliberately colourful and kitchy to me. It's part of their image- if it was a Pandora-like page with a list of people's names it wouldn't be that interesting.
I wouldn't be surprised if they start seeing legal trouble soon if it hasn't started already. I would gladly pay money to use it, if it comes to that, as I haven't had this much fun with a site for a very long time.
agreed - i think they could make considerable $ on affiliate traffic with iTune/Amazon if they improved the process to bookmark songs and purchase later
I'm suggesting a little bigger than that - Blizzard is making a ton of money from WoW subscriptions every month, and $12/month for turntable would be pretty easy for me to justify.
Pennies from radio play is different from pennies from an mp3 sale.
I don't know any start-up making significant $ from mp3 referral sales. Tops they may make couple grand but that is not much when you are getting 5m uniques(won't even pay for the streaming; and making 2k from mp3 affiliate sales is tough even with 5M uniques.)
I’d say it’s astonishing no one has done it before, but it’s not: The music business has a long tradition of resisting good ideas.
I'd say it's astonishing he doesn't know internet radio station have existed for ages. It took a little bit more know how before getting getting put on the web, but its always been there.
turntable.fm is more then just an internet radio station. I've been disappointed by those for the last generation (besides NPR) - now with turntable.fm, I'm literally listening all day
Or would it be a reason for founders to ask for more money, under the idea that they need a warchest of funds to fight expensive lawsuits?
On the other hand, being in a legal grey area could be seen as a barrier to entry for people who don't want a potential litigation nightmare hovering over their heads.