I read about FreeMuzicZilla on techcrunch this morning, and I've been thinking of it since. I am fully supportive of play the web applications. However, after some thought I'm not keen on this tool. It feels wrong. I'm trying to work it out in my head.

First I hate the fact that they are putting the "Zilla" in their name. It feels like a feeble and dishonest attempt to connect it to the highly reputable open source project: Mozilla.

Those who know me, know that I am fervently against "legislated" device-based-DRM. However, I believe copyright holders have the right to sell/share their music with a device based-DRM license (like iTunes) if they like, even if it is misguided in my opinion. For clarity device restrictions that do not interfere with established fair use, which iTunes doesn't in my opinion - it just makes it unnecessarily more difficult via the CD burn function.

However, when a file is offered as STREAM only. The intent by the copyright owner is for US to listen and NOT to download. You may agree or disagree with that "business model", but it is not our choice to make. There are tons of sites that offer legal and free downloads and podcasts of music - but that is the creator's choice to do so. Unlike P2P technologies, I'm not sure Music Zilla has any redeeming factor other than to break the law. Mike Arrington might think it's the best software of its ilk, but I think it smells.

Even as I write this I wonder if I am being a hypocrite.