iTunes Music Store hits a Million in song download/sales.
Bill Davis
Since this was discussed last week here, I thought I'd drop back and note
that Apple's new paradigm for selling music on the web seems to be a
pretty big hit.
On today's web site announcement, one big industry honcho said that he was
benchmarking the success of the service on whether they could license a
million song sales in the first month.
Apple announced today that they sold a million songs... the first week.
The times they are achangin...
--
Bill Davis
NewVideo
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ricky W. Hunt
news:newvideo-050...@d175-osel-phx.fastq.com...
>
> Since this was discussed last week here, I thought I'd drop back and note
> that Apple's new paradigm for selling music on the web seems to be a
> pretty big hit.
>
> On today's web site announcement, one big industry honcho said that he was
> benchmarking the success of the service on whether they could license a
> million song sales in the first month.
I hope the music industry is kicking themselves now. Think how much time and
money they've wasted fighting against the public instead of trying to serve
them. For what's it's worth I've been on Listen.com which offers the same
thing (plus unlimited streaming for $9.95) for months and I love it and will
sign up for iTunes when the Windows version becomes available.
EggHd
access to some of the big files ahraing sofware so so far this won't put a big
dent in piracy.
Can anyone confirm?
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Joakim Wendel
Nope, but see it as a good small test on a small market (Mac users and
how many percent of the total of produced songs out there - guess 5%?)
We macers can steal music too if we want, now for those of us that do
not want to steal we have a great, simple and very user friendly option.
IF this is a sucess and the porting to windows goes well AND more record
companies want to be involved it's a hit !
Note that so far iTunesMS is only available to mac users with a US
billing credit card so this is a "small" scale test for the music
industry. (so the one million bought songs are at least a good sign of
moral among people if you wish!)
--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.
My homepage : http://violinist.nu
Michael Droste
I've bought three albums and assortment of songs from the new store.
I was jazzed at first, now feel that the music is slightly 'muddy' not
clear...
Mackie 624's as monitors
Apple needs to improve their quality, before they get any more from me...
(However, the average person will think it fine.. hence 1 million downloads)
-Michael Droste
Luke Kaven
>Since this was discussed last week here, I thought I'd drop back and note
>that Apple's new paradigm for selling music on the web seems to be a
>pretty big hit.
I've tried contacting Apple to see whether they are willing to deal
with indie labels at this point. No replies. Email links are
conspicuously absent from the music section. So I guess they don't
want to hear from anyone until they're ready. [Unless there is
something I didn't see--anybody?]
Luke
Rob Adelman
Luke Kaven wrote:
> I've tried contacting Apple to see whether they are willing to deal
> with indie labels at this point. No replies. Email links are
> conspicuously absent from the music section. So I guess they don't
> want to hear from anyone until they're ready. [Unless there is
> something I didn't see--anybody?]
Luke, that isn't surprising. Just look at the number of artists on MP3
and put yourself in Apple's shoes. There has to be some method to the
madness. They can't possibly hear from everyone and wade through the
masses of potential artists.
-Rob
EggHd
masses of potential artists. >>
See what happens long term. One would hope they can open the door to indie
artists.
Jonathan Roberts
> I've tried contacting Apple to see whether they are willing to deal
> with indie labels at this point. No replies.
A story on the Apple store in the New York Times quoted someone there as
saying they were very interested in getting inde music up, but that the
startup was taking most of their time just getting the stuff from the
majors on to date. Keep trying.
--
jonathan roberts * guitar keyboard vocal * North River Preservation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
God save America / Fertile and green / from the right wing /
and the left wing / and the birdbrains in-between...
Jonathan Roberts
> how many percent of the total of produced songs out there - guess 5%?)
Reports have the iPod somewhere around 25% of the market for MP3 players.
Jny Vee
> What I read about this is so far this only sales to MAC users who don't have
> access to some of the big files ahraing sofware so so far this won't put a big
> dent in piracy.
>
> Can anyone confirm?
i doubt the INTENT was to 'put a dent in piracy' , but more to be first
on teh block showing how it CAN work... and like most Apple things,
everyone will copy it.
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Jny Vee
drg...@aol.com (Michael Droste) wrote:
Maybe this is where you decide to buy the CD.
Folks bought lots of 45's and then bought the album...
Jny Vee
<rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
but that's what marketting and agents and such are for..
wait..
that;s how the industry HAS been working...
could it really be a well-implemented system after all???!??
horrors!
Charles Thomas
and also to show support for the artists.
I already had a copy of "You Know You're Right" by Nirvana, for example,
but I bought one from iTunes anyway. I mostly spent my money this month
for iTunes evenly split between getting songs from artists where liked
*A* song, but knew I didn't want to buy the entire CD, and throwing love
to artists I want to support.
And it's a great way to decide if you want to drop the wad for the whole
CD or not because you can have 30 second previews of the rest of the
songs to see if it's worth it (e.g. The Donnas).
In the long run, it's a pretty expensive price per song when you
consider you don't get a CD or artwork. I think $0.50 would be better.
But I like it a lot. It's super-addictive.
CT
Arny Krueger
> note that Apple's new paradigm for selling music on the web seems to
> be a pretty big hit.
>
> On today's web site announcement, one big industry honcho said that
> he was benchmarking the success of the service on whether they could
> license a million song sales in the first month.
>
> Apple announced today that they sold a million songs... the first
> week.
>
> The times they are achangin...
Here's some relevant questions.
How long did it take Napster to distribute its first million?
How long will it take Kazaa to distribute its next million?
EggHd
How long will it take Kazaa to distribute its next million? >>
That's a little different file sharing VS file selling.
Chris Johnson
Jonathan Roberts <nartsS...@pobBEox.coGONEm> wrote:
> Luke Kaven wrote:
> > I've tried contacting Apple to see whether they are willing to deal
> > with indie labels at this point. No replies.
>
> A story on the Apple store in the New York Times quoted someone there as
> saying they were very interested in getting inde music up, but that the
> startup was taking most of their time just getting the stuff from the
> majors on to date. Keep trying.
Hell, I'd sell them extortionate rights to my stuff provided I
retained SOME rights to it myself. It's not like there's much of a
market anywhere else, or any particularly good deals to be had. I'd
happily sign off on a deal where they had the capacity to sell music I'd
licensed them for $1 and gave me one cent. It'd be one cent more than I
had, or was likely to get from traditional record labels. Currently I've
completely written off any notion of doing ANYTHING beyond selling
locals CDRs for $10 a pop. I can get $10 for my CDs, but there's no
attempt to find a larger market: it's individuals who have heard it,
have $10 in their pockets and a CD in their hands.
Most of my stuff isn't up to commercial standards but I've always had
the capacity to do off-the-wall eccentric stuff that worked, and that's
what's selling. It's anticommercial but there's a kind of market for
that, too. Apple could have that if they wanted. See whether they could
connect with the people who like that sort of thing...
Chris Johnson
Ricky W. Hunt
message news:cthomas-ED5FD2...@teta.doit.wisc.edu...
> For me, I think it's an awesome way to show my support for the theory,
> and also to show support for the artists.
I agree totally. That's the main reason I subscribed to Listen.com even
though I legally own almost all the CD's I listen to there. The second
reason is being a paraplegic I can't get up and put a CD in every time I
want to.
Jny Vee
Thomas <cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> In the long run, it's a pretty expensive price per song when you
> consider you don't get a CD or artwork. I think $0.50 would be better.
not if you Consider that ballpark in equivalent dollars is $2.50 a song
and $20 an album for the last days of Vinyl...
Ricky W. Hunt
news:060520032246496880%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com...
> In article <cthomas-ED5FD2...@teta.doit.wisc.edu>, Charles
> Thomas <cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > In the long run, it's a pretty expensive price per song when you
> > consider you don't get a CD or artwork. I think $0.50 would be better.
>
> not if you Consider that ballpark in equivalent dollars is $2.50 a song
> and $20 an album for the last days of Vinyl...
I've always wondered: is the low price due to the crappy quality? For
example if you buy the download version and a friend comes over with the CD
are you entitled to the CD version (44.1/16-bit stereo version, not surround
or other format)? I know they wouldn't want you to do it so it might be
illegal but would it be immoral? Are you paying for "use" or the "format"?
And when high bandwidth becomes the norm for everyone will they offer the
uncompressed version (meaning un-encoded not "volume" compression) for the
same price or will there be one price for the crappy encoded version and
another for "CD Quality"?
Charles Thomas
Chris Johnson <jinx...@sover.net> wrote:
> It's not like there's much of a
> market anywhere else [for indy musicians], or any particularly good deals to be had. I'd
> happily sign off on a deal where they had the capacity to sell music I'd
> licensed them for $1 and gave me one cent. It'd be one cent more than I
> had, or was likely to get from traditional record labels. Currently I've
> completely written off any notion of doing ANYTHING beyond selling
> locals CDRs for $10 a pop. I can get $10 for my CDs, but there's no
> attempt to find a larger market: it's individuals who have heard it,
> have $10 in their pockets and a CD in their hands.
I hear ya, Chris. Believe me.
Four years ago or so we all believed mp3.com was going to change the
world for indy bands and musicians. All it did was show how strongly
the old paradigm was entrenched.
Bob Cain
Charles Thomas wrote:
>
> Four years ago or so we all believed mp3.com was going to change the
> world for indy bands and musicians. All it did was show how strongly
> the old paradigm was entrenched.
Or did it show that the old paradigm does indeed offer something people want
that a local cottage industry doesn't.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
transducr
> << How long did it take Napster to distribute its first million?
>
> How long will it take Kazaa to distribute its next million? >>
>
> That's a little different file sharing VS file selling.
i question the relevance of those questions anyway. what would the
answers prove?
would they detract from the fact that apple *sold* 1 million songs in
it's first week?
that's 1 million songs that aren't going to be downloaded for free and
that's one million more songs than were *paid* for the week
before...regardless of format.
i don't think you're going to squeeze much sour grapes out of this
news...i think it's a clear victory.
incidentally, a comparison to napster would sort of be moot at this
point since you're dealing with an entirely different dynamic now: far
more internet users, far more of those being broadband users (more
songs, less time), and the fact that napster spread by 'word-of-mouth'
(for lack of a better term) not with advertising and press leading up
to it's first week of availability...just as an aside
anyway, bravo to steve jobs...yet again!
i suppose this sheds a more definitive light on the debates that have
been going on over the past week or so about whether anyone will pay
for music they can d/l for free.
so far it looks like they're "competing with free" and making a pretty
damn good showing contrary to many people's predictions.
...and that's good news for everybody, regardless of where you stood
on the matter a week ago.
Mike Rivers
> i question the relevance of those questions anyway. what would the
> answers prove?
> would they detract from the fact that apple *sold* 1 million songs in
> it's first week?
> that's 1 million songs that aren't going to be downloaded for free and
> that's one million more songs than were *paid* for the week
> before...regardless of format.
I wonder how long it will be before those paid-for songs start getting
recycled for free. I know there are gotchas built into the file format
that prevents direct exchange, but I'll bet it won't be long before
someone comes up with a utility to convert an iTunes file into an MP3
and it goes on someone's Kazaa server. Surely even the mechanical
process of playing it analog out to analog in can't degrade the
quality enough to not want it if it's free.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Charles Thomas
Mike Rivers
In article <cthomas-E8443D...@teta.doit.wisc.edu> cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
> Kinda missing the point.
I don't think so. I understood the point to be that songs were SOLD. I
think that it will not be long that those sales will drop off as
people distribute them through (ahem!) "alternate channels." Of
course there will be a new batch for sale, but the point is that not
every copy of every song will be paid for. That's the way it is today.
So what's new?
Charles Thomas
wrote:
> I don't think so. I understood the point to be that songs were SOLD. I
> think that it will not be long that those sales will drop off as
> people distribute them through (ahem!) "alternate channels." Of
> course there will be a new batch for sale, but the point is that not
> every copy of every song will be paid for. That's the way it is today.
> So what's new?
Well, several things are new. For one, there'll be a definite shift
when someone can buy just one song from a CD instead of the whole CD. I
think that's kind of exciting on one hand: as a VERY eclectic songwriter
myself, it's fun to think that I could put out a country song, a folk
song, a jazz song, a punk song, a techno song, a hard rock song, and a
pop song and have each market find and buy them). And also sad: the
cohesive statement of an entire album is its own language and it's in
danger of being lost in favor of artists who only release singles, or
"albums" full of them. We may be facing the demise of "the album cut".
This is also the first time that's its been this easy to legally obtain
good quality digital versions of songs. I click and buy. Three seconds
later, I'm listening to a new song. I've never used Napster 'cause I
could get fired for having it, but I've bought about $30 worth of iTunes
this week alone.
Interestingly, for the most part I would NEVER have bought the CDs on
which any of these songs appear. I can't believe I'm alone in this, so
that's an entirely new source of income these artists haven't had before
(you can thank me later, Olivia Newton John). People who wouldn't buy
their CDs are suddenly buying their product.
I think it's going to push the music industry in new and interesting
directions when the indy bands get hooked into this. It's not hard to
talk a crapload of people into "Buy our new single for 50 CENTS!". It's
not inconceivable that I could sell 10,000 copies of a single on the net
for $0.50 each, since I've gotten that many hits at mp3.com. It is
pretty inconceivable for me to sell 10,000 copies of a CD at $12/each,
which is what mp3.com makes you charge for them.
I think if it catches on a LOT of things might change. For the better
or worse remains to be seen, but I'm optimistic.
Joakim Wendel
wrote:
> In article <cthomas-E8443D...@teta.doit.wisc.edu>
No that's NOT "the way it is today" - it's a legal simple solution to do
something that was as easy to do illegal before ... Don't come tell me
people have no morals just because they have been lazy ...
Artie Turner
> In article <cthomas-E8443D...@teta.doit.wisc.edu> cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
>
>
>>Kinda missing the point.
>
>
> I don't think so. I understood the point to be that songs were SOLD. I
> think that it will not be long that those sales will drop off as
> people distribute them through (ahem!) "alternate channels." Of
> course there will be a new batch for sale, but the point is that not
> every copy of every song will be paid for. That's the way it is today.
Come on, Mike, don't be so cynical, at least it's a start. A lot of
people want the choice and ease of use that the internet offers without
the threat of viruses and counter-measures. The iTunes music store
provides that and generates revenue for artists. It's not a perfect fix
for piracy - I doubt that there is one.
This seems to be a good working model. I expect it will be enhanced and
refined. It's obvious that lecturing on morality and treating everyone
as a potential thief is not getting the job done.
Artie
Transducr
> recycled for free. I know there are gotchas built into the file format
> that prevents direct exchange, but I'll bet it won't be long before
> someone comes up with a utility to convert an iTunes file into an MP3
> and it goes on someone's Kazaa server. Surely even the mechanical
> process of playing it analog out to analog in can't degrade the
> quality enough to not want it if it's free.
yeah, but do you think the people who are buying these files through
the apple itunes store are going to pay $.99 per file and then go
through the trouble of "recycling" them so someone else can get them
for nothing?
if that was their intent, wouldn't they just bypass the itunes store
and just have downloaded the song from kazaa themselves to begin with?
it's my understanding that there will be "exclusive content" available
at the itunes store and in that context, i think you could have a
valid point...but that's by far the minority of the content they have
available.
i truly can't imagine it being too long before there is some sort of
utility that will convert AAC files to MP3 (if there isn't one
already)...but ripping files is what they're competing with already
and look at the numbers.
if anything i think the success of the itunes store will cause people
who use it to place more value on their sound files and perhaps be
more protective of them since they have a tangible investment in them
now.
you know like burning a CD-R of a CD you bought isn't as good as the
actual thing you purchased so burning a copy for a friend isn't as big
a deal, or ripping MP3s of it...same thing...but now if you copy the
file for someone, it's like: "hey pal...get your own!" hehehe...maybe
not though...i don't know
Ricky W. Hunt
news:3f705a32.0305...@posting.google.com...
> yeah, but do you think the people who are buying these files through
> the apple itunes store are going to pay $.99 per file and then go
> through the trouble of "recycling" them so someone else can get them
> for nothing?
Of course they won't. Why would they pay for it and give it to someone else
for free when they could have just gotten it for free in the first place and
gave it to others? There's no moral or legal reason whatsoever to do that.
Well, unless you are a person who likes playing the martyr - "I pay while
everyone else gets it for free". Plus isn't the format supposed to prevent
that kind of thing - unless the person recorded the output via analog but
again why do that? Just go to Kaaza.
I think there are people willing pay. The law abiding ones that is who are
the ones that most laws hurt in the first place. If someone is not a law
abiding person to begin with passing new laws will not make one bit of
difference especially in these types of cases where prosecution in 99.9
percent of the cases wouldn't be worth it.
I also wonder if those college students are really paying that much money or
if it was just a publicity stunt to try and scare others (as in the RIAA
saying "we'll let you off the hook for a lot less if you let us say you have
to pay that much but you're never allowed to talk about it")? Once a
judgment has been made as long as the winner doesn't contest it the courts
could care less whether they paid up or not. You know they are are not going
to prosecute every single case out there and certainly aren't going to get
that much every time.
One-hit-wonders is where the big money is to be made from places like iTunes
IMO. Listen.com seems to be woefully bare of those. Since I only have
Windows I don't know if they have many of them on iTunes or not. Does anyone
know? Does anyone know the reason for that? Does a place like Listen.com
have to buy the artists whole catalog or at least the whole album the hit
was from? I can see financial reasons for record companies not wanting to
license individual songs from such artists as that's the only way they'll
ever sell an album from said artist. I'm also pretty sure those "Billboard
Greatest Hits of xxxx" also figure heavily into it.
Mike Rivers
In article <cthomas-0BFB17...@teta.doit.wisc.edu> cthomas@REMOVE_SPAM_BLOCK.facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
> Well, several things are new. For one, there'll be a definite shift
> when someone can buy just one song from a CD instead of the whole CD.
This is a good thing. It's what people have been asking for, and it
could be the answer to the "I really only want one song from the CD so
I'll just download it" complaint/rationalization. However, my gut
feeling is that, with most pop records, everyone will want the same
song, or maybe two or three from any given CD, or more significantly,
won't want the same ten. If this means that the songwriter won't make
his share of a dozen royalties from a CD sale but rather only for the
songs the public really wants to hear, that could be bad for the
songwriting/publishing biz.
> think that's kind of exciting on one hand: as a VERY eclectic songwriter
> myself, it's fun to think that I could put out a country song, a folk
> song, a jazz song, a punk song, a techno song, a hard rock song, and a
> pop song and have each market find and buy them).
We used to call those "singles" - from an artist who didn't have
enough material to fill up an album. But that's going back too many
years, to back when the single was the thing, and the album was earned
once you had established your reputation with a few singles.
> And also sad: the
> cohesive statement of an entire album is its own language and it's in
> danger of being lost in favor of artists who only release singles, or
> "albums" full of them. We may be facing the demise of "the album cut".
More significantly, we may be facing the demise of the "album." There
are some artists who can make a coherent album, but there are a lot of
albums today that have plenty of filler material.
> Interestingly, for the most part I would NEVER have bought the CDs on
> which any of these songs appear. I can't believe I'm alone in this
I think you're right there. But if it wasn't for the moral issues, you
might have copied a song or two off someone else's CD, or effectively
the same thing by downloading from another's computer, with no means
of paying.
> that's an entirely new source of income these artists haven't had before
> (you can thank me later, Olivia Newton John). People who wouldn't buy
> their CDs are suddenly buying their product.
It'll be interesting to see how this falls out. Somehow, though, I
have a feeling that CD sales will still make up the bulk of the
artists' income if for no other reason than they get a dozen shots of
royalty with one sale instead of just one.
> I think it's going to push the music industry in new and interesting
> directions when the indy bands get hooked into this. It's not hard to
> talk a crapload of people into "Buy our new single for 50 CENTS!". It's
> not inconceivable that I could sell 10,000 copies of a single on the net
> for $0.50 each, since I've gotten that many hits at mp3.com.
MP3.com has been around for quite a while now, and has been a
potential source of income for artists. I've heard of a few who have
considered themselves successful having made a couple of grand, but
that's not a living wage. You'd have to do 100,000 sales a year to
make a living and I just can't see that happening. But I could be
surprised.
Mike Rivers
> yeah, but do you think the people who are buying these files through
> the apple itunes store are going to pay $.99 per file and then go
> through the trouble of "recycling" them so someone else can get them
> for nothing?
Why not? Where do all those CDs (and cuts from CDs) that were
available through Napster servers come from? Somebody had to buy at
least one CD initially. I'm continually amazed at how generous with
their time some software pirate sources are. It's a challange.
I suppose there will be some people who will say "I paid for this and
you can too" - those are the adults. But the kiddies will share
freely. Take my word for it.
> if anything i think the success of the itunes store will cause people
> who use it to place more value on their sound files and perhaps be
> more protective of them since they have a tangible investment in them
> now.
Some will. I think those will be the people who don't buy CDs now, but
also don't download freebies. It will be a way to get a personalized
music library for a reasonable price, and many people who aren't
currently buying CDs will be willing to pay it. But it won't stop
piracy.
Mike Rivers
> No that's NOT "the way it is today"
You misunderstood. "The way it is today" refers to my statement that
not every copy of every song is paid for. iTunes will fix that
temporarily, but as I suggested, people will eventually put the tunes
that they paid for up for grabs, and then there will be unpaid-for
copies floating around.
> - it's a legal simple solution to do
> something that was as easy to do illegal before ... Don't come tell me
> people have no morals just because they have been lazy ...
OK, I'll tell you that they have no morals because they know they
won't get caught. How's that?
Ricky W. Hunt
news:znr1052441365k@trad...
> More significantly, we may be facing the demise of the "album." There
> are some artists who can make a coherent album, but there are a lot of
> albums today that have plenty of filler material.
No kidding. And what's this 17 songs per CD crap? Most of even the greatest
artists have trouble getting 10 good songs for a CD much less 20. I tried to
listen to the new Fleetwood Mac the other day (there's something like 18
songs on the CD). Some of the songs were OK but I was so bored by the middle
of the album I just turned it off.
Michael Angel
Hmmm, the .mp3 file format as an easy way to compress data so that 'hifi' sound
can easily be shared computer to computer with relatively short dl/ul time and
taking up little space...
Without .mp3 as such a popular codec none of this would be an issue at all.
why don't they take that royalty from blank CD-R's and apply it to the software
company that created the format for .mp3, and others that create .mp3 handling?
I don't agree with sharing ripped commercial CD's but I do think it's hard to
tell all of these kids and teens doing so the truth of it. They should
understand right from wrong, but the advertising of the format itself blatantly
marketed right to them: "Now you can share your music and take it with you
everywhere with a tiny bit of puter space or one of these nifty gadgets."
Perhaps they do apply a royalty tax to the software, codec, and playback
devices already. Just never stopped to think just how much the actual format's
popularity in itself triggered the ability to steal and share at such rampant
rates.
I never saw running off tapes and tape mixes as the same thing, since it came
from one person's collection already purchased, and certainly isnt seen as a
commercial exchange. Usually it would lead to person B buying some of the music
and getting into it.
Michael Angel
Mange...@aol.com
Angel Lofte Studio, Atlanta
CD Mastering
Jny Vee
mange...@aol.com (Michael Angel) wrote:
> You know what never really occured to me until now?
> Hmmm, the .mp3 file format as an easy way to compress data so that 'hifi'
> sound
> can easily be shared computer to computer with relatively short dl/ul time and
> taking up little space...
well, in a word. 'NO'
there's NOTHING hi-fidelity about space-saving mp3 sound files.
>
> I don't agree with sharing ripped commercial CD's but I do think it's hard to
> tell all of these kids and teens doing so the truth of it.
awww.. it's 'hard to tell' them?
harder than 'telling' them about shoplifting?
> They should
> understand right from wrong, but the advertising of the format itself
> blatantly
> marketed right to them: "Now you can share your music and take it with you
> everywhere with a tiny bit of puter space or one of these nifty gadgets."
GOOD GOD MAN! Our children of legal age are BRAINLESS ZOMBIES! knowing
right from wrong yet UNABLE TO ACT ON THAT KNOWLEDGE! Pavlovian
Prisoners in lockstep to BIG PRETTY LARGE-EZ-READ-TYPE POSTERS AND RAG
ADS!
Who could have guess this!
(where's Glenn Beck when you really need him...)
transducr
> In article <3f705a32.0305...@posting.google.com> in...@autonomous-robot.com writes:
>
> > yeah, but do you think the people who are buying these files through
> > the apple itunes store are going to pay $.99 per file and then go
> > through the trouble of "recycling" them so someone else can get them
> > for nothing?
>
> Why not? Where do all those CDs (and cuts from CDs) that were
> available through Napster servers come from? Somebody had to buy at
> least one CD initially. I'm continually amazed at how generous with
> their time some software pirate sources are. It's a challange.
that's why i mentioned the thing about copying CDs...where what you're
copying isn't as good as the thing it's copied from...i.e. a physical
CD with artowork printed on it in a jewel case with album art being
copied to a blank CD-R or ripped to a lower quality MP3...versus
copying a file that you paid for and giving away essentially the exact
thing that you paid money for assuming you could convert it to MP3 or
whatever...it just places a more concrete value on the file that
wasn't there before.
> Some will. I think those will be the people who don't buy CDs now, but
> also don't download freebies. It will be a way to get a personalized
> music library for a reasonable price, and many people who aren't
> currently buying CDs will be willing to pay it. But it won't stop
> piracy.
that's true. it won't stop piracy, but i don't think anyone has any
illusions that there is a solution that will...at all. the industry
went through this with cassettes and again with the intro of CD-Rs and
then MP3s...i think for many people the novelty of being able to copy
to an inferior medium tends to wear off after awhile. i think alot of
it initially is: "look what i can do!"
i remember all these people i knew taping movies off the TV or cable
or even using two machines when beta and VHS came on the scene...they
were mostly just jazzed because they could do it...then the novelty
wore off, videos became more affordable and it just wasn't as
intriguing or worth the time. they just started buying the
tapes...many of which were replacing their taped copies.
yeah, you're not going to stop piracy, but giving people an
alternative that offers an easy alternative at a low price is moving
in the right direction...and as i said before...even if it doesn't
stamp out a good bit if piracy in the process, it *is* generating
revenue for artists and labels that wasn't being generated a month
ago.
Ricky W. Hunt
news:20030509150505...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> You know what never really occured to me until now?
> Hmmm, the .mp3 file format as an easy way to compress data so that 'hifi'
sound
> can easily be shared computer to computer with relatively short dl/ul time
and
> taking up little space...
Are you serious? What did you think MP3 was for? Here's a hint: it ain't for
sound quality. It was a stop gap measure because the majority of people are
still on dial-up. Well, and storage too. Unless someone wanted to dedicate
their computer for 24 hours or more just to download a single song at
44.1/16 then something had to be done. MP3 is the audio equivalent of White
Castle. No, I take that back. I actually dig White Castle sometimes. How
about that "parts is parts" chicken nugget commercial?
Once broadband becomes the norm and even the most modest drives are a
terabyte or greater you won't hear of MP3 ever again. I'm sure they'll come
up with something similar to deliver things like 5.1 in less time and space
but it will surely be non-destructive and therefore not as efficient because
we can never get as much as we want as fast as we want. But that's a problem
with humanity, that no amount of technology will ever fix. Trust me. Their
will be no "longing for the good old days" with MP3 like there is over
analog or vinyl though.
Mike Rivers
> that's why i mentioned the thing about copying CDs...where what you're
> copying isn't as good as the thing it's copied from...i.e. a physical
> CD with artowork printed on it in a jewel case with album art being
> copied to a blank CD-R or ripped to a lower quality MP3...
There's certainly some value added with the case and artwork, but
frankly I think that album artwork and notes have been pretty much
useless since CDs came along. And how many people do you know who
stick 200 CDs in their changer and stash the cases in a closet
somewhere? I don't think this means a lot to most people nowaday.
Besides, what's to stop someone from scanning the artwork and putting
that up for download along with the music?
> it won't stop piracy, but i don't think anyone has any
> illusions that there is a solution that will...at all.
Nope, you can't stop it. But the thing is that computers and the
Internet have made it so much easier both to copy and distribute that
the problem is much greater than it ever was with cassette copies of
CDs and LPs. With a cassette copy, you had to make it in real time and
actually hand (or at least mail) it to someone. But you can rip a CD
in a few minute, put it in the right directory on your computer, and
people who you don't even know will come along and grab their own
copies. Hardly any work involved on your part at all. And if you want
to give a copy to your friend, you just have to tell him where to go
to get it. You don't even have to breathe his germs.
> ...i think for many people the novelty of being able to copy
> to an inferior medium tends to wear off after awhile.
I disagree. I doubt that most people who play MP3s consider this to be
an inferior medium. Remember, these are the people who listen to music
on headphones, their dinky computer speakers, and a 5.1 surround
system that costs $200. Audiophiles and true music lovers don't
download music, they buy it, but the majority of people who listen to
music are music listeners, not music lovers, and MP3s are just fine.
Particularly considering the price.
Marc Wielage
(in message <20030506111601...@mb-m17.aol.com>):
> What I read about this is so far this only sales to MAC users who don't have
> access to some of the big file-sharing sofware so so far this won't put a
> big dent in piracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------
They'll have iTunes software for Windows very soon (they say). Also, there's
lots of Mac file-sharing software out there, if you know where to look for
it.
BTW, note that, of the 200,000 songs on the iTunes site, I noted very few
songs that were NOT easily found on CD already. In other words, there is
plenty of music out there (even 1980s hits) that are almost impossible to
find on CD, and those are not on the iTunes website.
You would think that out of 200,000 songs, they could start with the 20,000
songs that made the U.S. Top 100 over the last 45 years...
Oh, and no Madonna, no Led Zep, and no Beatles, either. But lotsa Michael
Jackson, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Prince, a smattering of Beach Boys, and Elton
John, however.
--MFW
Ricky W. Hunt
news:0001HW.BAE2C847...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
> Oh, and no Madonna, no Led Zep, and no Beatles, either. But lotsa Michael
> Jackson, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Prince, a smattering of Beach Boys, and
Elton
> John, however.
And every possible album, box-set, etc. by KISS I'm sure, thanks to G.S. I
guess the Beatles don't need to sign deals like these. And to be fair if
they did it seems like they would deserve something more than what everyone
else gets for their name alone would drive a huge amount of traffic to the
site. I've thought this about compilations too. Does every artist get the
same amount or do they skew to who had the "hit", etc. Can you negotiate
points up front?
rocksteady
I wish there was some way to easily program CDs into two or three
"sides" like the old LPs. 15 songs is often just too many to absorb,
no matter how great the artist is.
Al
Branislav
mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> If this means that the songwriter won't make
> his share of a dozen royalties from a CD sale but rather only for the
> songs the public really wants to hear,
Most of the time it's not just one songwriter credited for all of the songs
on one album.
> that could be bad for the songwriting/publishing biz.
But good for the writers who write hit songs. I always thought it unfair
that the writer of an average, or even poor song gets big bucks {the same
as the author of a hit song) from album sales, just because the album has a
hit song written by someone else.
Branislav
LeBaron & Alrich
> I always thought it unfair
> that the writer of an average, or even poor song gets big bucks {the same
> as the author of a hit song) from album sales, just because the album has a
> hit song written by someone else.
But without filling there's no twinkie.
--
ha
Michelle
> and also to show support for the artists.
I'm sure the artists will send you a nice birthday card for your
support, that is if they aren't in rehab or lying on a beach in the
Bahamas...
Me? I'll be downloading songs for free. Artists and companies still
need to learn that they shouldn't be soaking the consumers.
Charles Thomas
michell...@hotmail.com (Michelle) wrote:
> > For me, I think it's an awesome way to show my support for the theory,
> > and also to show support for the artists.
>
> Me? I'll be downloading songs for free. Artists and companies still
> need to learn that they shouldn't be soaking the consumers.
Very nice little rationalization to make it seem ok that you're stealing.
CT