Imeem is a tough startup. They languished in obscurity in 2005 and much of 2006 by pushing an instant-messaging centric model that required a download to access a full feature set. Late in 2006 they de-emphasized their client download and started focusing on a widget strategy, letting users upload any music and stream it to others via a widget.
They adapted to the marketplace, and users responded enthusiastically. Suddenly, Imeem had real traction and growth and looked like it was on a path to success.
Then a hammer came down. In February MySpace started blocking Imeem widgets, supposedly because of fears of copyright infringement. Unlike the Photobucket ban, which lasted just a week, the Imeem ban looks to be permanent.
Today the company received even worse news. Warner Music sued Imeem, alleging massive copyright infringement by allowing users to stream music to others. Lawsuits like these can’t simply be ignored (See Napster and MP3.com), unless you happen to be based outside of the U.S. This may be the end of a good run for the company, unless they can find a way to claim protection under the DMCA and get themselves out of this.
Imeem is backed by Morgenthaler Ventures and Sequoia Capital and is based in Palo Alto, California.
I hope that someday soon the labels and RIAA begin to understand that services like Imeem and Pandora are providing free marketing for their products, not stealing their intellectual property.
Thanks for the update.
I’m interested to gather your insight concerning the the legal fallout venture capitalists such as Morgenthaler Ventures and Sequoia Capital experience when they have funds committed to — and an ownership stake in — a firm facing copyright suit.
ARE THERE serious legal implications? Or perhaps market implications beyond the loss of committed funds (re: damage to VC brand equity)?
We’re pulling for you, Imeem!
Streaming music continues to be a grey area. It would be a pity for an overly conservative precedent to be set by this lawsuit.
Oh come on, this is child’s play. Just don’t open the mail. Done and dusted.
Please visit my Site.
I remember Imeem’s original product/concept, which was P2P social networking. It was interesting interacting through a desktop client rather than a web browser, but it had some rather cool features in it. Remarkably, they managed to adapt and transform themselves into something more popular. It’s unfortunate that they’re in this situation. Best of luck to Dalton and his team.
I just started using Imeem – had no idea others were into it as well. What I really love about it is that you can find virtually any song and actually listen to the entire thing… for free.
That seems to be a rarity, at least in on my song searches.
- Ryan for the reason you love it – is the reason its going down. ..
– The founders have, something to put on their resume`
“Imeem and Pandora are providing free marketing for their products, not stealing their intellectual property.”
Oh Come On, Michael…. if Imeem gives you all you need in terms of your listening needs, where is the incentive to go buy the CD or pay to download it over iTunes?
That “marketing” angle has never jived with me… now with Pandora.. it might be different, since you can’t actually PICK your song, you just listen to whatever that is playing and I can see that model being more legit.
Plus, Pandora pays for the license.
Isn’t imeem a P2P application? If it is, then isn’t it up to the consumers to NOT stream copyrighted content? If imeem makes it obvious that copyrighted content cannot be distributed over their P2P application, then they have done their job IMO.
The RIAA can suck it.
I’m surprised it took this long. I’m also surprised that Michael, an attorney, would try to argue that imeem is providing free marketing and is not stealing. Putting imeem in the same category as Pandora, which actually has licenses, is ridiculous.
Warner Music might as well have taken the YouTube lawsuit filed by Viacom and replaced “Viacom” with “Warner Music” and “YouTube” with “imeem.” The arguments are exactly the same. imeem likely doesn’t qualify for the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA because it knows of infringing activity and derives a financial benefit. Furthermore, it is not merely a “host”; it transcodes uploaded content, offers functionality that enables users to search for it and only enables the transcoded content to be viewed in a presentation layer which it provides.
What do you do when ONE sorority sister is mad as hell at you??
You start romancing her uglier sorority sister that has secretly had/has a crush on you. (No, no this isn’t my theory… it’s strait from Kissinger’s book: Diplomacy)
I’d call and start romancing other labels like BMG, Sony, Maverick (oops, they’re with Warner!!), EMI, etc. I’d negotiate terms for lead gen /rev share on songs sold via iTunes, Amazon and eeek!, Borders in store CDs. I find that Mrs Beasley’s baskets make people smile.
When the ugly sorority sister and you are happy, go ahead and put Warner on the waitlist for firms to lead gen for.
p.s. Oh and you should fire off a letter to Warner thanking them for the free press ASAP
Drama 2.0 –
I agree 100% with your post.
Unlike Pandora, Last.FM and Mercora, Imeem does not have a license to publicly perform copyrighted works. It’s surprising that one of their VPs (who previously worked for a major label) would participate in such infringing behavior.
Expect further lawsuits from UMG, Sony, and others.
The “marketing” and discovery models definitely need to evolve in order to keep the consumers and the labels/publishers happy.
Sites like nonstopriot.com and hypem.com are marketing and discovery, but it seem they take it to the next level by offering opportunities for purchase.
It will be interesting to see how everyone can play together. Until then I’m listening.
“Marketing” via sites like Imeem and Pandora does work, but I think mainly benefits the lesser known groups. For example, within an hour of my first Pandora experience, I purchased an album from an artist I had not heard of before, and have consistently been introduced to amazing new music!
It appears that Warner Bros. is one of Imeem’s content partners (http://www.imee...ntpartners.aspx)... what does that mean?
Sorry – after some further research, it appears that Warner Bros. and Warner Music are not affiliated anymore.
Poor little iMeem
Living in a wet dream
Knows content is king
But won’t kiss the ring.
We’ve seen this before
From the RIAA whore
The only way to score
Is to check logic at the door
I’m tired of the labels
I’m tired of their whine
The gravy days are over
But the world should pay a fine
So score one for the lawyers
And their short-sighted bosses
They kill that which could save them
And bemoan their spiraling losses.
Dumbasses…
@6 Go to http://www.elhood.com. True, it is Latin Music centric at the moment, but, it offers full tracks.
Agree on the marketing comments. If I can listen to it for free at any time why would I buy it?
I can see it producing sales via Pandora however since there I cannot receive the music on demand.
Sad to hear this, I hope Dalton is able to get through this mess and come out on top. Good luck buddy!
imeem has always been on shaky ground – they are allowing “on demand” playing of any song that is listed.
Quite surprised it lasted this long.
There are the rules for streaming music, Imeem fails on even the most basic:
1. Licenses for online use of sound recordings are issued either by the copyright owner or, for certain webcasters and other non-interactive digital audio services, through a statutory license under the U.S. Copyright Act (the “Act”). This statutory license permits a webcaster to perform all of the sound recordings it wishes to perform without obtaining separate licenses from each copyright owner. Section 114(d)(2) of the Copyright Act governs the provision and conditions of the statutory license. The statutory license covers sound recordings only, not the underlying musical compositions, which require separate licenses.
2. The webcasting statutory license applies to webcasters that:
(a) Do not offer an “interactive service” (the programming cannot be on-demand or personalized);
(b) etc etc etc
there is a lot more to it than that, and the rules are complex, BUT you can’t just list music, allow people to click the play button and then stream it… I wonder if they have been paying the webcasting licensing fees? And if they have – how they calculated it?
Will be interesting to see how it pans out…
check
Interesting.. I just learned about imeem a couple of days ago bumping to a playlist I liked. After a couple of hours the download script was born:
http://suredisc....com/imeem.html