So, I think it's fair to say that everyone seems a little bit confused at the moment about the status of a US-based digital music service called BlueBeat.com, which has been in operation for some time but which has fallen under the spotlight in recent days since Music Ally noticed they were selling Beatles tracks as MP3 downloads.
BlueBeat.com, operated by Santa Cruz-based Media Rights Technologies, was originally a dynamic online radio service which enabled users to create, stream and share their own playlists, tapping into a music catalogue boasting several hundred thousand tracks. I assume the service was licensed, or at least licensing talks between the tech firm and content owners were ongoing, though I base that assumption on the fact the service seems to have been in operation for nearly five years without any major legal issues.
And this despite the fact MRT was behind various forms of digital rights management technology, which it claims the Recording Industry Association Of America endorsed, so presumably the major record companies were aware of both MRT and BlueBeat.com's existence. Certainly MRT did their bit to ensure people knew they existed, mainly by accusing some of the big names in IT of disrespecting copyrights and the US's Digital Millenium Copyright Act, seemingly for refusing to license their DRM systems.
Anyway, the BlueBeat.com online radio service has, unsurprisingly, developed over the years, and its latest incarnation, seemingly still in beta, offers on-demand streaming for thousands of tracks in a Spotify/We7 fashion and, perhaps more surprisingly, MP3 downloads for 25 cents a piece, considerably less than all of the service's competitors, and less also than the going wholesale rate for downloads.
All of which makes the cynics round here suspect that the latest BlueBeat.com service might not be licensed in any traditional sense of the word. Would the majors really sanction one small player undercutting everyone else in the market to such an extent a price war would surely follow, ultimately cutting everyone's profit margins? I really think not.
But whatever, what seems certain is at least part of BlueBeat.com's catalogue isn't legit. Music Ally discovered late last week that among all the 25 cent downloads on BlueBeat.com was the entire Beatles catalogue.
As you all know, The Beatles' music is not available, as yet, from any legit download store, mainly due to ongoing tensions between co-owners EMI and Beatles company Apple Corps, whose frequent disagreements go back to Tudor times (or thereabouts).
Had EMI and Apple Corp really opted to sneak the Fab Four's music online via a little known digital music website currently in beta, rather that doing a multi-million deal with a Microsoft or a MySpace or, most likely, the other Apple? No, of course not. Both EMI and Apple Corps deny any knowledge of BlueBeat.com selling Beatles downloads, with the former confirming to the Telegraph that the legal people were investigating.
Some sort of cease and desist letter will presumably follow forthwith, if not from EMI from the Recording Industry Association Of America. It will be interesting to know whether it is just the Fab Four's catalogue that shouldn't be on BlueBeat.com or whether, as is increasingly suspected, the service's whole download operation is on dodgy grounds. If that is the case, given MRT have been prone to issue opinionated statements on US copyright law in recent years - normally accusing others of infringement - it will be interesting to know on what grounds they are justifying their own possibly infringing service.
MRT are yet to comment.