DRAMA 2.0 - your point that this website is “shady” because you couldn’t find their corporate registration and thus they are trying to conceal their identity is a bit paranoid, because as you know the founder himself has been all over the place revealing his identity very clearly. They were featured in their university newspaper article, so if somebody is looking for them, I can’t imagine that they would be very hard to find. The founder has been maintaining a blog for a long time, and he’s a regular commentor on the techcrunch blog/boards. This is not some Russian site that is trying to launch an illegal service.

Attorneys can use anythinig to show anything, that is not the point. The point here is the spirit of the site, which is clearly one that aims to sign up independent bands and artists and allow consumers to rate and make popular their music. I think ijigg does an excellent job at achieving that. If an overzealous RIAA-type goon still goes after them at some point in the future, it will truly be a shame for everybody.

As everyone can see, it’s a full time job just keeping up with all of these new social networking sites. Someone has to do it, right? Anyway, interesting concept.

I digg iJigg

sorry iHadd too

iFelt compelled too

Besides my last post… Z Man you need to start offering download/purchases and giving royalties back to the artist, because there is where you will make your money. Another thing that would be nice to see is a way I can have all my Jiggs dumped into my iPod from just clicking on something in the site.

Isn’t there a way to make a more complex RSS feed where your widget could be what shows up on say my Google Homepage? I would love to see it on my Google Home Page!

Good luck!

David, google widget idea is awesome! I’m definitely going to explore that.

Rest of the stuff such as offering tunes for sale are natural extensions of our site and will be released in coming weeks and months as we mature and learn more about our community.

-Zaid

I need some real sleep. Above name should be “Zaid” not “Davis”:)

-Zaid

Sorry I need some real sleep. The name above should be “Zaid” not Davis. Getting ahead of myself there:)

-Zaid

Jim Greevy: I was not aware that their founder has been making the rounds, but the point still remains. They have listed a corporation that apparently does not exist and to my knowledge you cannot use a PO box address to receive DMCA complaints in most circumstances. At best, the people operating the site have made significant oversights that you would not expect from a serious business. Apparently they haven’t formed a company and I’d be surprised if they have retained legal counsel. I would look like a complete amateur if I told you that I was incorporated as Drama 2.0, Inc. but you couldn’t find any evidence that this corporation existed. How could you do business with an entity that doesn’t exist? Would you want to do business with a person that apparently didn’t know what they were doing?

Frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about when you seem to indicate that the “spirit” of the site would be used to judge them. I’m not a fan of the RIAA, but the law is the law. Napster and others have tried to claim that there were substantial non-infringing uses to their service and that it was never intended to facilitate infringement but it didn’t work. Zaid has already indicated that iJigg knows they’re going to have to deal with abuse and they’re banking on the assumption that the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions will protect them. Personally, I think they have an interesting idea, but there are so many other interesting music services, like Pandora, that I find more complelling and there are certainly large sites like MySpace that have massive marketshare, so I don’t think iJigg will ever have to deal with this issue because it’s not likely to take off in a mainstream way. Looking at the content on there earlier (and some of the abusive song titles) there’s nothing great being uploaded as far as I can see.

By the way, the top song right now is “Real Sick F*ck.” The electronic beats, orgasmic moans and horse sounds all come together to create a unique sound that all music fans can really get into. Thank you iJigg! I am finally able to discover great music. Who says they don’t make music like they used to?

There’s been quite a few misinformed comments.

1. The name does not infringe on “Digg.” There is nearly no chance of true confusion in the mark, site, and service. Not only that, there’s a plethora of sites currently weakening the Digg brand, and legally so. Digg is nowhere near strong enough to lay claim to all double “g’s” + the very old concept of voting to promote placement. Digg doesn’t even showcase music (yet…). I’m not saying a lawyer couldn’t argue otherwise but the addition of the “i” makes it rather safe.

2. iJigg can operate legally, just as every other online service provider today does. User-participated content is one of the major purposes of the DMCA’s existence. Providing an interface is inherent to the function of such a site. Without a legal process by which a site can comply with copyright law and still function, much of the web as we know it would not exist. That would be the abolishment of all user-generated material, such as all forum discussions, avatars, image portfolios, and these very comments. If you think YouTube, Flickr, and the like are going away, you’re sorely mistaken.

3. A developer of iJigg stating that it’s likely someone will at some point upload something that is not allowed does not suggest a company’s guilt. It suggests common sense. One only need consider the nature of the service (uploaded content). If anything, I’d argue that it shows they are aware of that inevitability and will be attentive.

4. They’ll need to designate an agent. It’s $80: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ (pdf form below at that page). Maybe they have but they don’t show in the list yet. http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/index.html

5. It would be one thing if iJigg were knowling promoting access to infringing files and not actively responding. Obviously, I imagine they will do what is expected of them. It’s nothing to fear. On the plus side, it’s a bit easier with music, as music is more readily verifiable; like-name checks/flags/file hashes are easier to detect.

6. Just because one uses a DBA with “Inc.” for an as-not-yet-registered corporation does not make it “shady.” It’s pretty typical for a new and young company. Of course, they should go ahead and register it sooner rather than later (though an LLC. would probably make more sense).

7. iJigg is a decent name. It’s a compromise between either having a unique name or invoking an identifiable response with a similar name (read: not confusingly similar). Using the word “Jigg” is about the best one could do for music, out of all the copycat possibilities. Besides, having a good unique name and affording its .com is quite difficult unless one wishes to add to the sea of alien-like jumbles of letters that suffer from their own generic nature.

It’s a start. Don’t get discouraged.

Nothing WRONG with that song. Would you stop listening to 50 Cent if he says F*ck in every other line of his lyrics? That’s the whole point people, “More Power to the Artists”. It could be a guy farting and making music out of it and could become famous. My point is, people have different music taste. Maybe ijigg should have more Genre related features, and I’m sure they will.

Keep it happening ijigg!

By the way, the top song right now is “Real Sick F*ck.” The electronic beats, orgasmic moans and horse sounds all come together to create a unique sound that all music fans can really get into. Thank you iJigg! I am finally able to discover great music. Who says they don’t make music like they used to?

iAnon: You seem misinformed:

- Napster thought it was protected by the DMCA too. Whether their service is protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA will only be determined if they are sued and the case goes to trial. It does not matter if you actively respond to takedown notices if you don’t qualify for the Safe Harbor provisions.
- User-generated content had nothing to do with the creation of the DMCA back in 1998. Read the history. It was written to create a set of guidelines and procedures by which ISPs could eliminate liability for any infrining content that was hosted by them. User-generated content was and is not a factor in the DMCA as it is irrelevant.
- “Providing an interface is inherent to the function of such a site.” What is being debated here is whether this interface, individually or in combination with other features of the service (transcoding of content, etc.), renders the company ineligible for the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA because they’re not a host/ISP. The definition of a host or ISP is something that is being questioned in pending lawsuits. There were features of Napster that were inherent in a filesharing service but it didn’t mean that the court found those features to be compliant with the law now did it? You should note that universal is apparently using some of these arguments (presentation, transcoding, etc.) in an ongoing lawsuit they have so we’ll see what the courts decide. I wouldn’t want to be the startup a media company goes after to try to set precident.
- There is no DBA involved here. When you put the “Inc.” after your name you are stating that you are a registered corporation. Most serious companies I know organize their company before launching their service, especially in a risky venture like this where the principals in the business could be personally liable for any lawsuits. Right now there’s no corporation to sue so the owners are unprotected.
- I personally would not, as an owner or employee of a service like this, make any reference in a public forum to infringing activity. It’s just stupid. Maybe the intentions are good, but if you get sued, expect that every little thing will be used against you. And when you’re a brand new startup, every little thing that has to be debated in court increases your legal bill and your chances of being forced out of business due to legal expenses.

“It’s nothing to fear” is probably one of the worst pieces of advice that could be given to a startup getting involved in any service where there is ongoing legal debate. I’m glad you’re not an attorney.

You work for iJigg by any chance?

@Zaid:

Everyone giving you flak so far are damn-jealous, and it shows. You’ve got one guy tearing you apart, but at the same time saying that none of what he is saying matters anyway, because your service won’t take off. Why say it then?

One of the first posts was by a jealous mofo, who claimed that you’re claiming to “be somebody”. Well, you are somebody. You’ve created something that a lot of people seem to like - you are on your way, do not get discouraged. The fact that people are getting cynical (read: jealous) just goes to show that this is a pretty strong idea.

Now, I do not like the name. Someone made a good point about innovation, and I think your service will innovate, but the name does not do much at all to promote that. That’s just my opinion though.

I see a lot of potential here. You could always put in Genre categories, and Artist/Band profiles - all sorts of things. So I wish you the best of luck, keep it up…and market this thing once you’re sure it’s in a more complete phase.

Napster was incredibly slow to act in creating any adequate filtering. By then, it was too late. Napster, like other p2ps, suffered from its inability to really control and safe guard the content to which people have access, due to no centralized storage and administration. That made it nearly uncontrollable, which is a far cry from a managed web service that allows users to showcase their original music.

I’m not sure where you’ve gotten your information but you couldn’t be more incorrect in your assertion that it is not one of the DMCA’s primary functions to protect the liability of service providers from their users (user-generated content). I suggest you actually take a look at a summary of the DMCA: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf or skip right to Sec. 512(c): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....sRO:e57590:

Of course, I agree about registering a corporation before launching or using an official title. A lot of states allow the filing of an LLC right online, so there’s even less excuse to delay.

I said “it’s nothing to fear” in the context of not having the fear of being willing to operate a site that has user-content. If one is willing to be diligent and have the effort to comply with the law, he or she will be one step closer to a successful site. Some of the points you made are valid. However, much of the popular sites of today are user-driven and legal. We’re not about to see the end of MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, forums, and so forth, so I’d chalk up some of your concerns to either fear-mongering (”drama-mongering”?) or a misunderstanding of the DMCA. Unless a site is likely illegal, debilitating fear doesn’t accomplish much. You raise a valid concern that a ‘healthy’ amount of fear is good.

—–
“You work for iJigg by any chance?”

No.

You got us Paul. We’re all damn jealous. This thing is about to take off and we’re just poor saps wasting time.

Now back to listening to “Real Sick F*ck.”

Got a break too… I’d like to thank all comments.

We’re concerned about the whole legal stuff and we already started to take care of it. It went bigger than our original expectations. Digged on 2nd day and crunched on the 4th.

The whole thing started with 3 guys by the end of the last year, we were planning to test the idea and take care of the rest meanwhile, while growing. I’m not even on USA.

I’d just like to ask those ones like DRAMA (whose comments are very important too) to say not only what not do to or what’s not legal but saying how to do it, or how would you do it, not just for us but for the next new good stuff that will appear here and will need advices.

Right now all I can say is that there are artists thaking us and this is a proof that we’re acomplishing ours goals.

Sorry Rodolfo. I am not a lawyer so I can’t give you professional legal advice about what you should do. And if I was an attorney, you’d have to pay for legal advice. No attorney is going to tell you what to do for free. And while I hope you get things together in terms of your incorporation and registration of a DMCA agent, I don’t know that your business can “take care of it” because you’re in a market with significant legal questions that have not yet been addressed. Who knows how it will turn out, but building upon Napster and related rulings, I think there are some very strong arguments being made that services like YouTube and yours are not compatible with the DMCA. Congress could always modify the DMCA in favor of startups like yours, or it could always modify it to protect the interests of big media, which seems more likely given how much lobbying power they have.

There’s great potential in this market (just ask Steven Chen and Chad Hurley) but if you want a safe way to play the market and make some money, go to law school and become an IP attorney because they’re going to cash in as these issues get litigated. Best of luck.

@Drama:

You keep insulting their service. You’re being a complete jackass (Now back to listening to “Real Sick F*ck.”). Why are you being such a jackass? I can only assert that you’re jealous.

I will assume you’ve created nothing yourself. You’re just a yet another wannabe who thinks they know it all, and have nothing to show for it. You’re just another lame critic.

Now back to … wait, you don’t have a web service, do you?

Wow, that song is pretty annoying.

http://WeEatMusic.com

If you just want to upload and share music, http://boomp3.com is a good joice. No voting or band pages, but quick and doesn’t require registration.