There are so many forseeable holes in this plan that its hard to take seriously. In fact, the common reaction to the site has been one of questioning the story’s legitmacy. For example, "It isn’t April 1st yet," states Digg user, SnowBladerX (a comment that has 18 diggs itself at the time of this writing).

For one, how do you know the mp3s being sold were not illegally downloaded? For two, how can you sell a file for a fraction of the cost that record companies are requiring retailers like iTunes and Amazon to sell it for? There is the argument that people sell CDs when they could have easily shoplifted them or burned themselves a copy, so when you look at it that way, it’s not much different. Except that the record companies have been far more concerned with illegal downloading than they have with shoplifted CDs. And you know this is an industry that will not hesitate to put up a fight whether justified or not.

"The logic behind it is that it’s legal to sell on a CD you’ve bought – so why can’t you do the same with a music file? In case you haven’t spotted it yet, the difference is that when you sell a CD, you don’t get to keep an identical copy of it for yourself. Which is probably a point that the record labels and their lawyers are making right now,"  Tom Phillips at The Ridiculant writes. "That’s unless, of course, Bopaboo have some special software that reaches onto your computer and deletes your files for you, in which case we can’t see many people flocking to use it."

Call me skeptical, but I don’t see this one panning out too well for the owners of Boparoo. It’s an interesting concept, but how often do you see anything Internet-music related get by without a struggle with the recording industry? Good luck with that one.

[Google] is in the late planning stages of a joint venture with a Chinese online music company that would permit it to provide free – licensed – music downloads in China.

The service, which is likely to offer access to tunes from three global music companies as well as dozens of smaller players, could start in the next several weeks barring any last-minute hiccups.

While Google’s music is supposed to be licensed, the WSJ says Baidu’s downloads on the other hand are “controversial and legally risky” (sounds like Google’s YouTube, which also stores lots of music videos). The WSJ goes on to write:

The proposed venture goes directly after Baidu’s music search audience, by offering high-quality music files embedded with a digital “watermark” that lets record labels track how often their songs are downloaded. The idea: Better-quality files will draw users away from unlicensed downloads, and give labels and search companies valuable data needed to make money from advertising, say people familiar with the plans.

Comments

At issue is the practice of linking to illegal copies of songs.  Baidu’s been doing it for quite some time – a WebProNews article from 2006 actually covers another court victory.  Music companies had some hope of winning this new case, though, since Yahoo China was found guilty on a similar matter last month.

The AFP also notes, "[A]nother Beijing court late last year . . . ordered Baidu to pay a distributor of EMI 68,000 yuan (8,400 dollars) in compensation for providing such web links."

Yet, whether you chalk it up to legal nonsense, the Chinese government’s not-too-friendly-towards-America stance, or, well, whatever, Baidu came out ahead.  It won’t have to pull the MP3 search service, make an apology, or pay any damages.

Google and Yahoo China will go back to the routine of being beaten, then.  And the music companies will, no doubt, go back to the drawing board.