Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Music Media The Internet's Content to Be Destroyed 354

WCityMike writes "Vivendi Universal recently sold the domain to CNet. However, they're not selling the approximately one million songs on the archive. (recorded by over 250,000 artists) Instead, they're simply destroying it as of December 3.'s founder and former CEO, Michael Robertson, is pleading with Vivendi to allow the Internet Archive to preserve the songs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.'s Content to Be Destroyed

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperMario666 ( 588666 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:03AM (#7536070)
    It's not like the songs are being permanently eradicated anyway.
    • I'm not so sure... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by corebreech ( 469871 ) introduced me to the Industrial genre, and I can't seem to find any of my favorite groups elsewhere.

      Like Enrapture.
      • by Phexro ( 9814 )
        Check out shoutcast's industrial genre []. There are some really great industrial stations out there, which is nice because there's nothing like it on the (real) airwaves around where I live.

        I'll just take a moment to plug ampedOut [], my favorite station. Tune in Friday nights for "Dopamine," which is their live show.
    • by pegr ( 46683 ) * on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:23AM (#7536164) Homepage Journal
      Everybody say it with me...


      While it's true, they should be able to do whatever they want to do with their property, this would make an excellent anti-trust suit. Not sure if the EFF would be the appropriate "David" to their "Goliath", tho. Any ideas?

    • by JCCyC ( 179760 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:26AM (#7536175) Journal
      We heard this kind of story before, and it wasn't fun the first time.
    • Did, in effect, form a contract with the artists? Did they say:

      'We make money from website ads. In order to make our ad space valuable, we need lots of visitors. To get lots of visitors, we need music. If you give us your music, in exchange, we will promote it and provide bandwidth so that it can be heard. We realize that releasing your music this way reduces its commercial value substantially (since it can be had for free) and might make you persona non grata with some of the record labels, b
  • by LordoftheFrings ( 570171 ) <> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:03AM (#7536072) Homepage
    From Article
    On Friday morning CNET woke up to find it was sharing a bed with
    I thought I was weird for sleeping with music, but it seems others do too...
  • delete! (Score:5, Funny)

    by RobertTaylor ( 444958 ) <roberttaylor1234&gmail,com> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:04AM (#7536073) Homepage Journal
    "Instead, they're simply destroying it as of December 3."

    rm -rf
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:06AM (#7536081)
    The authors of these songs should just put their works on file sharing networks.
  • wow... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ambienceman ( 721763 ) <crazywolfeyes@[ ] ['yah' in gap]> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:08AM (#7536090) Homepage
    That's pretty messed up. What if the person put a lot of effort in using to market their stuff? They also depended on the company to create their physical media, and those will be destroyed as well. I have friends who use it. They should at least give them the option to buy their own CDs back at the minimum price.

    It seems as if mergers and acqusitions always have some negative effect on the customer.

    Unfortunately, this is a major one. Shouldn't the government be able to step in? hmmmmmm afterthinking about it, it's probably best that they don't...

    • Re:wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:26AM (#7536179)
      "What if the person put a lot of effort in using to market their stuff?"

      Then, hopefully that person has learned a valuable lesson about trusting a corporation without a contract. (You *can't*, ever).

    • by Tom ( 822 )
      It seems as if mergers and acqusitions always have some negative effect on the customer.

      You got it.

      Mergers and acquisitions are good for the companies involved. As the market is a zero-sum game whenever it is not creating something, that means someone else suffers loss of equal size. Usually, it's the customer. Sometimes, it's the competition.
    • Shouldn't the government be able to step in?

      The government has already stepped in by instituting and enforcing transferable monopolies on the duplication and distribution of the contents of the archive.

      If it weren't for this government activism, this whole story would be a non-issue. Maybe the question should be: "Shouldn't the government be able to step out?"

    • What if the person put a lot of effort in using to market their stuff?

      So what ? What's the alternative ? Force to host the files in perpetuity ?

      What if K-Mart spent a lot of money marketing Martha Stewart products available at their store, and what if Martha Stewart somewhere down the line decides she doesn't want to sell to K-Mart anymore. Is that messed up ?

      Sorry, but if someone's whole business plan depends on their files specifically being at, then they needed to make provi
    • ...
      It seems as if mergers and acqusitions always have some negative effect on the customer.

      Actually, I'd have to disagree with you. Ultimately, this particular merger is going to have a negative effect on the shareholders of whoever is buying After all, they're the one's losing money at the hands of somebody else's poor decision making. You (or any other consumer, for that matter) can form a corporation for about $100, throw up a web site for about another $100 a month, and with a little

    • I just purchased 20 of my own CDs [], since after 12/3 they won't be available anymore. I really wish I could have received more than 3 weeks notice of this, but business is business I suppose. I'm now in the process of trying to find a new host for my stuff. As I don't currently or plan to make any money off my music (I've always allowed all of my own songs to be freely downloadible, and my CDs are sold at the lowest possible price MP3.COM allows), all I'm interested in is a host that is incredibly inexpensiv
  • This is bad. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:08AM (#7536092)
    Jane Average Rockerchick is currently on a 10 city tour of small venues. It's just her, her drummer, her bassist and the hypothetical band Skoda.

    She built this tour on the basis of her fan community, which she built up on her site. She doesn't have a recording deal. She hasn't checked her email in 3 weeks. She's just about ran out of the CDs she brought with her to sell for gas money. She wants to go to a cybercaf to order a few to be delivered to the next town she'll be in.

    It's December 4th. She's screwed.

    She emails to find out what happened to her music. They send a form letter reply saying they zapped it, sorry, thank you for your patronage.

    She calls home to see if her producer can burn her a few from his masters, but his basement studio got flooded last night because the idiot landlord didn't put in proper drainage. Her masters are pooched. She was going to meet a record weasel in Cleveland. Guess that's out.

    Just another great recording artist you never heard of. She blew her savings on this tour. Guess she'll go back to waiting tables.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:18AM (#7536148)
      That's the stupidest hypothetical set of low-probability occurences strung together that I've seen in my life. Why don't you throw in a few more random coincidences and have her sold into white slavery at the end as a result of this happening? That'd make these guys *super* eeeevil.

      JFC, you blithering assmaster.
    • What a joke. Who modded this piece of crap up?
    • Let's continue to mod up everything insightful that rips the big-bad-evil-companies.

      As has been pointed out by someone else, the parent's scenario is extremely far-fetched. But moreover, even if it came to pass, in the absence of a binding contract between MP3 and Jane Rockchick that promises service for some period of time, anything that happens after terminates its service is not their fault.

      What if I upload a fie - say GreatAmericanNovel.doc - to my ISP, they go out of business while I'm out
    • Not enough (Score:4, Funny)

      by niom ( 638987 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @01:29PM (#7536819)
      Could she have a little son called Timmy who needs very expensive medical treatment, and her only hope to be able to afford it is to succeed as a rock star? Tell me she could. I always fall for those things.
    • You've been watching too many bad teen movies like "Dude, wheres my car?".

      They are fictionous entertainanment, not documentaries.
  • destroying what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:12AM (#7536113) Homepage Journal
    Are they destroying just the copies they 'own' rights too, or are these the actual orginal songs + the only distribution rights, and the music will be lost forever?
    • Re:destroying what? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bugbread ( 599172 )
      Just their copies. never had exclusive rights, and most people put their tracks on as well as their own private home pages, etc. The music isn't being lost, but is being scattered to the 4 winds. (By the way, IAAmp3.comA (I Am An Artist))
  • A shame.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iantri ( 687643 ) <> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:12AM (#7536115) Homepage
    Until it went all to hell in the last year or two, was a great way to find new independent artists, all in one place.

    In fact, I'm sure it was good for them too; I've heard music I first found on make its way onto TV shows.

    Oh well.

  • I'm a self-proclaimed hippie as well, people. What self-respecting young man ISN'T in favor of independence and free love these days?

    Anyway, what I really wanted to scribe here is that iRATE [] is an amazing new program. You can learn and meet new artists through their music, and it's entirely Free as in an STD (-;

    I recently found that after being disappointed with, and I must say that I love it so much that I had a dream about it last night that I would wake up and only have the damn OMNIMEDIA radio crap stations playing Pinkin Lark and crap like that (which encourages violence, mind you).

    Again, please support iRATE -- it's SourceForge code, it's Open-Source (~95%), it's made by Americans and Europeans, and it's really cool and a great replacement for
    • I had a dream about it last night that I would wake up and only have the damn OMNIMEDIA radio crap stations playing Pinkin Lark and crap like that (which encourages violence, mind you).

      Encourages violence? Encourages violence? That's a bunch of pinko-liberal hippie bullshit.


    • by asv108 ( 141455 ) *
      You will download lossless legal live music from Furthernet [], which is a completely legal P2P network where users share performances from bands who allow taping.
      • ah, but then you would be missing out on all the sweet collaborative filtering and rating stuff. Of course you could always listen to the furthernet stuff, and then use my site (if you have itunes) :)
    • iRATE won't help (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      iRATE does not host any music; it downloads them from other sites. One of them is

      $ cat trackdatabase.xml | perl -pe 's/></>\n</g' | wc -l
      $ cat trackdatabase.xml | perl -pe 's/></>\n</g' | fgrep | wc -l

      So, 26% of the tracks I have on iRATE came from
    • You can learn and meet new artists through their music, and it's entirely Free as in an STD (-;

      How do you get that for free?? She always charges me. :-(
  • by Yaa 101 ( 664725 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:12AM (#7536118) Journal
    If Michael Robertson really cared about the songs he should have made a binding contract for them on the moment he sold

    I have a feeling he is a crybaby that only cares for his own (good?) name and his reputation...

    He found selling more important back then than retaining the songs for archive...

    He is like all the other managers of businesses...

    Not to be trusted that is...

    • M. Robertson is a business person first and foremost. It's all a game of making money. If it's not making money, you have to do /something/. If he had tons of money and doing this for the sake of charity, or the greater good, , then it'd be fine to criticize him. If you can do a better job, then please do.

      I'm no robertson lover, but running a business is a very hard thing to do. No one likes creating a money maker and then selling it off just for the cash. They'd rather make MORE money.
    • If Michael Robertson really cared about the songs he should have made a binding contract for them on the moment he sold

      Perhaps he just didn't expect Vivendi Universal to be completely insane and wasteful

      He found selling more important back then than retaining the songs for archive..

      He was under attack from all the major labels and the RIAA at the time; he might have just figured that the only way could survive was to be reborn under the care one of those major labels. Playi

  • Hmmm.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by mrscorpio ( 265337 ) <twoheadedboy@sto ... m minus math_god> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:14AM (#7536126)
    Also see here:

  • Stay of execution? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quizo69 ( 659678 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:14AM (#7536127) Homepage
    Is it perhaps possible to do a quick and dirty petition to a judge for a stay of execution on grounds of potentially destroying cultural heritage?

    Seems everyone is doing that for old building etc - why should independent music be exempt from that ideal?
  • by icemax ( 565022 ) <matthew_d_stone@ ... m ['tma' in gap]> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:18AM (#7536149) Homepage
    So, Vivendi, a music industry heavyweight, now owns indie music promoting, sells it to a third party and destroys access to hundreds of thousands of independant artists. How does this not seem like a typical power-grab by the music industry??
    • Think about it, though. They can destroy all the files they want - there are people behind all those songs. Most of those people will still want to distribute their music, so they can take it to a different place on the 'net.
    • destroys access to hundreds of thousands of independant artists.

      Noone's stopping these guys from distributing their content somewhere else. Please. If Vivendi is snuffing out a need that is so desperately there, and if the independent music scene is as important as people sometimes seem to think, someone else will sprout up to service it. Barriers to entry here are pretty small.

      Though personally, I think it would be in Vivendi's interest to KEEP their fingers on the indie pulse by controlling
  • Freenet (Score:4, Funny)

    by PaddyM ( 45763 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:22AM (#7536161) Homepage
    How about we download the content and upload it to freenet?
    • Because it would die on freenet within a couple of hours. Freenet only works for stuff that is actually requested often.
    • I was going to suggest something similar, along the lines of "well, we've got a couple of weeks to get this done ourselves", but I suppose it's all about that "storage" thing. What we need to do is all download about 10-100 songs and then make them available via Kazaa or something, 24 hours a day.

      I'll leave it to someone else to decide which songs who downloads. Just let me know which ones whenever you get it figured out.

  • Not true (Score:4, Informative)

    by tritone ( 189506 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:23AM (#7536165) Homepage
    According to The Register [], the contents of will be hosted at []
  • by carcosa30 ( 235579 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:25AM (#7536173)
    It seems to me that this incident is a window into the true goals of the RIAA and the music industry.

    What they're trying to do here is attack a competing distribution chain. This is the whole reason they hate MP3s in the first place.

    MP3s represent a method for unknown artists and styles to reach popular recognition. This is a threat to the music industry, because if that were to happen, they would have to find acts that were actually good on their own merits as opposed to mediocre copycats and sexbomb divas who only sound good because of their multi-million dollar production jobs.

    I can't express my hatred for the executives and committees who make decisions like these behind closed doors and for obscure reasons.
    • by cabalamat2 ( 227849 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @12:49PM (#7536590) Homepage Journal

      It seems to me that this incident is a window into the true goals of the RIAA and the music industry. What they're trying to do here is attack a competing distribution chain. This is the whole reason they hate MP3s in the first place.

      This is true. It also shows that Vivendi and all the other freedom-hating RIAA and MPAA filth are lying when they say their support of DRM is to help artists make a living. They don't give a fuck about artists, or anything except their own pockets.

      (If they have made sany such arguments in a court of law, they should be charged with contempt of court and/or perjury, and should be sentenced to the maximum time in prison that the law allows).

  • crawler? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:33AM (#7536208) Homepage Journal
    Anyone got a crawler for Time to make a full copy as long as we still can.

    250k songs at ~5-6 MB each will require about 1.5 TB of storage. Easily within the reach of a small group of dedicated music fans.

    Hell, put it up as a permanent bittorrent archive and distribute it around.
    • Uh, that's 250,000 artists . There are somewhat over a million songs.

      Still not totally unreasonable, but you only have about a week to pull down over 6 TB according to your math.

  • Why destroyed. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:37AM (#7536216) Homepage
    What assets were purchased.
    What assets were not.

    If they did not purchase the music, or the copyright to the music archive someone could simply copy it.

    Alternatively if the business model worked, why not just start up another. If it didn't work, it should die anyway.
  • (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bug-eyed monster ( 89534 ) <bem03&canada,com> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:38AM (#7536223)
    OK is taken, but it seems to me, this is an ideal time for the artists to get together and start their own version of, the way it was a couple of years ago, when it concentrated on making non-mainstream music available worldwide.

    The artists should get together, chip in a few dollars/euros each and buy the material back, start their own website. The material is being destroyed anyway, so Vivendi shouldn't have too much of a problem selling it back to the authors.

    The only problem is the notice is so short. But if the artists don't get together and do it now, another "entrepeneur" will buy the material for cheap and screw it up even more.
    • (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tom7 ( 102298 )
      The notice isn't short, has been going down the shitter for over two years now. The last straw for me was when they limited non-paid artists to three songs, making the site totally unusable for the dozens of album-a-day [] projects that had been posted there. It would definitely be nice to have an internet music system that cared about free, underground music, though. I am of the opinion that there is plenty of bandwidth there, if it is used in creative ways (ie, peer-to-peer).
      • I currently run a gtk-gnutella client with ~5 Gig of stuff I've downloaded from since it started in the early years. I was also present for the first mp3 conference in San Diego back in 1998.

        I have have the IMO the best of the following genres:


        I'll probably put it in a more browseable fashion when I get more bandwidth at some point. There are a lot of other people out there that are hosting this stuff on p2p as well, as I run into it
  • I heard they maybe just ate a baby
    That makes sense to me
    But I doubt it, I won't allow it
    Because I run the scene
    They always fake it, too bad they made it
    It's not a problem to me
    They're really smart but they ain't got no heart
    They make my asshole bleed!

    So very negative
    They only take and they never give
    I scream into the night must be destroyed!

    They are nothing, I'm for real ...but I heard they had some cat killed
    I heard they run the media
    Tearing down what others build
    I deserve some respect for my clas
  • by antisoshal ( 639054 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @11:41AM (#7536233)
    on the front page of CNet is a feedback link. Not that Im naive enough to think 5 emails will do it, but a few hundred pointing out that they are alienating the very demographic they were concieved to serve might help a bit....CNet was started as a way to mainstream nerd-dom. Its not really a great resource now, but coporations always fear alienating customers to some extent. Only takes a second, and please be calm and articulate. Insults and ranting get ignored EVERYWHERE, not just here.
  • .coms (Score:2, Insightful)

    by panxerox ( 575545 ) *
    are transitory things, existing at the whims of people or worse corporations. And like the "good for one year current hard drives" are best not to be relied upon for serious cultural content. In this case the "commons" is more like a window pane written on with a cake of soap in a rainstorm.
  • If the Internet Archive is willing, I think there's a better option than Freenet or BT for the music - the Archive itself.

    I propose this: instead of downloading files, why don't we round up the e-mail addresses of all the artists on we can find, and e-mail them before the site is taken down? We ask each of them if they would be willing to upload their files to, and then work with the IA to create a way to preserve them like at the Live Music Archive.

    It's such a valuable resource, and
  • by AsnFkr ( 545033 )
    Just as sad as a book burning. Music is information in the same way, and it's awful to see information destroyed in a manner such as this. Just back it up somewhere for gawds sake.
  • sharing service (hosting) for artists interested in getting their original music out there? What I mean is that the site itself only makes money from donations that the hosted artists give them in return for some space to sell their wares. All profit from the music goes to the artist , and it's up to the artists themselves to keep the site alive by donating periodically. If we really want music that if free of DRM and IP entanglements with big corporations, this is really the only way to go. Mu
  • It's not like they're destroying Original Master Recordings, which would be entirely different.
  • by brennanw ( 5761 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @12:01PM (#7536315) Homepage Journal
    Vivendi, by destroying the music, is pretty much acknowledging that they have no legal right to do anything else with it.

    Once upon a time there was a nifty place called -- they tagged commercials on the beginning of any songs you uploaded and gave the artist 5 cents per download. They got into a legal dispute with their ISP, who took all their servers offline.

    Unfortunately, ISP would not allow the *artists* to get their music off the servers -- the ISP had hijacked the music of a thousand musicians (and wouldnt' give it back -- because the music was, after all, the draw at

    Vivendi is buying -- ok -- and they are apparently not interested in going the same route did. SO what will they do?

    They SHOULDN'T do what michael robertson is asking, and give the mp3s to the internet archive -- that's not Vivendi's call to make, and didn't really have the right to do that based on the agreements the musicians signed up for.

    So Vivendi is being responsible, as far as I can tell, by respecting the authorship and copyright of the musicians who have uploaded their music. They're guaranteeing to the artists that their mp3's wont wind up being used in a way that WASN'T AGREED TO ON THE ARTIST AGREEMENT FOR MP3.COM.

    Personally, and this is kind of sad, but I would tend to trust Vivendi more than Michael Robertson, who has proven himself over and over again to be nothing more than a mercenary opportunist who is, to quote from high-brow literature, all about the benjamins, baby.
  • No need to delete. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cqpalzm ( 564996 )
    The Register reports [] that is more than willing to host the 5 terabytes of music. So now, other than a specific desire on the part of VU to see the music deleted, the music should still be able to exist.

    VU won't have to worry about the bandwidth, the storage, or anything having to do with the old content that it does not want to.

  • by Grimster ( 127581 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @12:16PM (#7536399) Homepage
    They probably don't have the LEGAL right to do much of anything else with the archive of songs, I suspect the licensing agreement with the 250K(?) artists doesn't include "selling" or giving the content to someone else to do with what they want. Vivendi doesn't need "a bunch" of artists suing them for improper use of their property and this is probably about the only legal thing they can do other than perhaps keeping it themselves which they apparently do not want to do.

    Unless the license the artists agreed to was so broad and open that it WOULD allow this Vivendi is probably (gasp) doing the RIGHT thing as wrong as it may seem to be.
  • My band's [] music from up!

    But to stay ontopic, uh, I'm sure every artist, like ourselves, has their music served on numerous sites. So why does anyone care if the copies that are on are erased?
  • by koa ( 95614 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @01:11PM (#7536710)
    I have always wondered why the U.S. Public library system hasnt put together some sort of music archive. I mean, where does music go when nobody wants to sell it anymore? Or doesnt want to distribute it in the first place? Or the copyright runs out and it becomes public domain (unless copyright is indefinit now..) ..

    But seriously, music is by some extent the essence of who we are as a civilisation. It should be preserved. Not chucked into the dumpster.

  • Please note, however, that promptly following the removal of the website, all content will be deleted from our servers and all previously submitted tapes, CD-ROMs and other media in our possession will be destroyed.

    Wasn't Alanis Morissette a part owner of If some high profile artists were to kick up a fuss, say under the banner of "corporate censorship", I think CNet would an about face pretty quickly.
  • by DaveOf9thKey ( 599178 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @01:28PM (#7536812) Homepage Journal

    Let's keep this in mind, folks -- the music itself is not being destroyed, just this directory of it. The artists themselves maintain the rights to their creations, and if they want to upload them somewhere else, such as Ampcast [] or [], that is their right to do. Artists could also sell CDs on CD Baby [] or just upload their MP3s to their own web sites, provided it's cool with the ISP. Perhaps it won't be concentrated in one place like before, but life will go on.

    Also, keep in mind that we don't know exactly what C|Net is going to do with the domain yet. It may reboot the service and make it look similar to the pre-IPO days. That might not be such a terrible thing. That catalog had a lot of clutter.

    As for Michael Robertson, I would ignore him. He was the one who said that was a data company and not a music company. He's a lucky opportunist who doesn't really care about artist rights, and as a former artist on, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him [].

  • by Hollinger ( 16202 ) <> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @01:50PM (#7536933) Homepage Journal
    So, how many of these artists have already made the transition to iTunes? To anyone that might have content on take a look at the iTunes model. You might find a new home for your works.

    For example, I can promote a new band I just discovered, Zero 7 [] by providing a link like this, which should go directly into the iTMS.

    What you'll have to do is find an iTunes Music Store Partner. Individual artists will not be able to add their content. However, I think I read somewhere that cdbaby was working on becoming one. Try contacting them.
  • by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) * <> on Saturday November 22, 2003 @02:39PM (#7537253) Homepage Journal
    Stupid asshole had to go off and start letting people upload their pirated music, fool didn't believe in the talent of the artists he claimed to care about. Now look what happens, RIAA sludge dropped the commisions down to nil, shut the open payment system down so users could not see how much their favorite bands were earning, and the indie market that was becoming even larger, faster, thanks to died.

    Hell, I don't blame the RIAA, I blame Michael Robertson for deciding that the legal artists he had weren't good enough, and for starting up some shit that he very well KNEW was illegal, damn all his high ethics, his high ethics killed what could have been "the next big thing" in music.
  • by anethema ( 99553 ) on Saturday November 22, 2003 @05:35PM (#7538137) Homepage
    Some friends of mine used to use as one of their main ways to get their music out to people. And it works. They were soon the #1 'metal' band on the site, and people in the USA had heard of them from all over the place. It was really amazing to see their growth due in large part to people finding them on I even mentioned their name once to my sister and she had heard of them two provinces away.

    After plenty of downloads and some dedicated touring, they were recently signed to maverik records.

    So you cant say that sites like doesnt help get the music out there, or isnt good for fledgling artists.

    Oops, their band name is stutterfly if someone wanted to know.
    Here is the link [].

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.