- One CEO’s criticism Perennial startup CEO Michael Robertson, most famously of the jerked-around MP3.com, claims that Lala’s model attempts to lock users into evil major-label-supported DRM for their most popular product, ten-cent web songs. He pointed specifically to a patent they own. Robertson has a personal claim, by the way – he currently owns competitor MP3tunes.com.
- Lala’s defense Lala, which we use here pretty regularly (it hosts our Saturday Mixtape feature), claims that there’s nothing nefarious about what’s going on. “We’re trying to provide a way so that users can have more access to their music than they had in the past,” says CEO Geoff Ralston. It’s important to note, by the way, that you can also buy MP3s of most songs available at the site. source
Posted by Ernie Smith •
Permalink
Not sure I understand what the problem is. Lala actually sells DRM-free mp3s cheaper than just about anyone except Emusic. You have a choice.
Basically, Lala’s getting criticized over a patent which the dude from MP3tunes.com confirms that the company is in the pocket of the major labels – questionable, especially considering that you can buy MP3s from the site without ever buying a single DRMed song.
I thought it was interesting because it was the first real piece of criticism I’ve seen about Lala.
Yes, Lala sells MP3s but that’s not the part of their business that uses “network DRM”. Lala also offers pseudo-online storage. But that storage users network DRM which they have filed a patent for. And if you read the patent it’s clear that Lala controls the content NOT the user. Also revealed in the patent is that they will take content out if the labels want them to. So it’s not really a personal music locker, but instead a record label controlled service.
Hi guy mentioned in the article.
Seriously, though, you do make a valid point, but my question is, OK, clearly the music industry is a tough beast to deal with and to convince to do anything. Is it not worth anything that Lala seems to have significantly more freedom than label-supported services from just a few years ago, like Rhapsody or Napster 2.0?
The tiered model that they have is clever. And if they’re going to play by their rules, is it not better that those rules are significantly further out there than what the labels maybe anticipated agreeing to?
Just a thought.
Yes, Lala sells MP3s but that’s not the part of their business that uses “network DRM”. Lala also offers pseudo-online storage. But that storage users network DRM which they have filed a patent for. And if you read the patent it’s clear that Lala controls the content NOT the user. Also revealed in the patent is that they will take content out if the labels want them to. So it’s not really a personal music locker, but instead a record label controlled service.
Hi guy mentioned in the article.
Seriously, though, you do make a valid point, but my question is, OK, clearly the music industry is a tough beast to deal with and to convince to do anything. Is it not worth anything that Lala seems to have significantly more freedom than label-supported services from just a few years ago, like Rhapsody or Napster 2.0?
The tiered model that they have is clever. And if they’re going to play by their rules, is it not better that those rules are significantly further out there than what the labels maybe anticipated agreeing to?
Just a thought.
Yes, Lala sells MP3s but that’s not the part of their business that uses “network DRM”. Lala also offers pseudo-online storage. But that storage users network DRM which they have filed a patent for. And if you read the patent it’s clear that Lala controls the content NOT the user. Also revealed in the patent is that they will take content out if the labels want them to. So it’s not really a personal music locker, but instead a record label controlled service.
Hi guy mentioned in the article.
Seriously, though, you do make a valid point, but my question is, OK, clearly the music industry is a tough beast to deal with and to convince to do anything. Is it not worth anything that Lala seems to have significantly more freedom than label-supported services from just a few years ago, like Rhapsody or Napster 2.0?
The tiered model that they have is clever. And if they’re going to play by their rules, is it not better that those rules are significantly further out there than what the labels maybe anticipated agreeing to?
Just a thought.