MP3.com did not collapse because of cheating or because of alleged "mp3 wickedness".
They collapsed because they had a possibility to listen to mp3's of commercial music which you could listen to if you showed mp3.com that you owned the CD by putting the original CD's in your CDR-drive. A stupid thing, really, that was of no use.
Vivendi Universal first sueed them to the ground and then bought the site, after which the deleted the contents.
It was not the payment program that brought MP3 into problem.
I was interesting to read DC saying that there's more sites looking into these possibilities. Well, I would love to know and support these sites.
When I read about the "Internet Dubbers", i feel talked to. Being one of the pioneers of this, namely of people making DUB at home studio releasing it online, I think that the Online Artists ("Internet Dubbers") are simply the fruits of this digital time and possibility called the Internet.
Names were mentioned and I should say that back in the days I wass oficially promoting free legal downloads of Jah Warrior and other mentioned artists who themselves got money because of the MP3 program. That program was the real threat to the music industry and it is sad to read how people actually parrot the music indutry's propaganda and rhetoric.
We have the conservatives, who just like in the early days of the electric guitar claimed that music should be acoustic. The Music Industry itself has for years dominated the market, are still dominating, are still deciding what the people are to hear and I think that is wrong.
We live in times wherein artists and listeners are in direct contact. A time wherein artists and listeners emancipate and I am all for it.
I think RDW is simply too small to come up with such a program, and the name of the site has more or less prevented it too

The reason for that being that we need other styles like House Hip Hop and Rock there too. MP3 had 200,000 artists and millions of listeners and had more income than ad revenue.
Ofcourse artists who pay a fee will do that because they expect that fee to return. What do you think about customers such as Radio Stations and other commercial enterprises who can subscribe to new music for a fee?
Ofcourse, the music must be interesting. Can we, "Internet Dubbers", do it? I say yes. Ofcourse we can make interesting music and as a matter of fact, we do. I see no reason to go into a state of inferiority complex just because I happen myself to have this state of mind that I prefer to give my music away because I know for a fact people will always download music for free.
Take the vinyl fetishists, for example. How much effort and money is being put into these releases? I have some vinyl releases and frankly, I prefer the digital, really. I think vinyl sucks. It's a relic from a past that I am happy is history. Nobody buys vinyl anymore, and then to weap and wail that no body buys it is a bit too much for my taste.
Everyone who like music will spend money in it, they will spend the money the have and they cannot spend the money they do not have. When we as "Internet Dubbers" are able to make good music for free and we are also able to make some money with that still, what is the freaking issue? Let others jump on that bandwagon and let us create a new way of dealing with music.
For, in the end, what I think, the issue is, that in essence music should be free and when modern technology provides us with ways of doing that while still providing income for the artists I say who can be against such a thing?
Indeed...
No offense, stricktly sense
One Love,
MD