[solaris]

I know this article is just over two years old - but the guy's arguments are still water tight and still as relevant as ever:

Since the early days of the digital music file sharing and copyright wars, I have said that artists and copyright owners should get paid for their efforts, that uploading or downloading music outside the bounds of fair use and without permission is bad karma, but that the music industry is greedy and short-sighted in its pricing and viciously punitive in its enforcement methods.

Since digital music is typically not of CD sound quality, is less convenient to use than CDs in copy-protected formats, does not come with artwork, packaging, liner notes, or credits, it clearly should cost less than music in CD form - way less.

And yet the most popular legitimate digital music service, iTunes, sells most music at the rate of 99 cents per song, which is about exactly the going CD rate with only the one advantage of song-by-song flexibility. And Apple just got through battling the major labels to keep the price that LOW: the labels wanted to raise the iTunes price and shoot themselves in the foot yet again.

Full article here: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/05/094341.php

[tomhr]

Perfect model, definitely.

There are a few online businesses that are so perfect at what they do that they rake in billions. Google is one, eBay is one. ALLofMP3/MP3SPARKS is just as perfectly designed, but it's the victim of politics.

How successful would Google be if you clicked on a find-page, and instead of seeing the page, you saw this message, "The page with the search terms you requested is under copyright. Google will need to obtain permission before displaying the page for you"? How successful would eBay be if the Detroit Automobile Manufacturers' Association or the RIAA could shut down eBay auctions at will?

And as for iTunes, Amazon, etc. how is it that the suppliers (the RIAA) are allowed by Washington to dictate retail download prices? If the Florida orange growers told Wal-Mart, "Yes, we'll let you sell our oranges, but you have to charge a dollar an orange," there would be outraged editorials and House and Senate investigations.

[solaris]

Here's one more 1½ year old article - but in the same evergreen ballpark: The reason AllOfMP3.com is a shadow of its once mighty self is NOT because of legality issues (because those could have been overcome) - but instead it's because of the enviousness of the whole music industry; that these Russians were the first ones to come up with the PERFECT online music store business model

Yet I must admit that I am sorry to see AllOfMP3.com entering what looks a lot like its endgame, both in legal and business terms.

The state of the online music industry remains, almost without exception, utterly pathetic: Try to find another site, for example, that will give customers a choice of bitrates for their downloads. While AllOfMP3.com many have been skirting too close to the edge and making too much noise for its own good, I suspect that the real reason the music industry targeted the site so intently was because it gave too many people too many crazy ideas about what a halfway-decent music download service should offer them.

And these days, that may be the biggest crime of all in the eyes of an industry where "customer service" seldom rises above the level of a sick joke.

Full article here:

http://www.techweb.com/blog/archives...lofmp3com.html

[tomhr]

Originally Posted by solaris

Here's one more 1½ year old article - but in the same evergreen ballpark: The reason AllOfMP3.com is a shadow of its once mighty self is NOT because of legality issues (because those could have been overcome) - but instead it's because of the enviousness of the whole music industry; that these Russians were the first ones to come up with the PERFECT online music store business model





Full article here:

TechWeb: The Business Technology Network

Hear, hear. As the RIAA and IFPI see it, we who buy from "respectable" online services are not fulfilling our half of a contract, we are paying tribute to the gods wearing Rolexes, who are rightfully entitled to our money with nothing they need to do in return.

Imagine Itunes trying to give away fifteen free tracks to the first 5000 people to sign up. They'd be slapped with an RIAA injunction inside of thirty minutes.

[MeridianFC-Suited]

Originally Posted by tomhr

Imagine Itunes trying to give away fifteen free tracks to the first 5000 people to sign up. They'd be slapped with an RIAA injunction inside of thirty minutes.

This is maybe slightly different but iTunes does offer free tracks on a regular basis, though it's not user's choice. eMusic has offered a X number of tracks for signing on (it used to be 100 now down to 25 or so last time I checked).

[Nightfly]

Originally Posted by MeridianFC-Suited

This is maybe slightly different but iTunes does offer free tracks on a regular basis, though it's not user's choice. eMusic has offered a X number of tracks for signing on (it used to be 100 now down to 25 or so last time I checked).

Emusic offers free tracks and albums on a regular basis as well,
and they are always running promo's as you said for free music
in various #s trks...we have a old link in emusic forum for 100 free trks. that still works.