Vivendi Offering MP3 Song for Sale 371
pmorelli writes: "Maybe there's hope for the media dinosaurs yet: According to News.com, Vivendi is teaming up with Maverick Records, MP3.com, RollingStone.com, GetMusic.com and MP4.com to offer a remix of a Meshell Ndegeocello track, 'Earth,' for $0.99 online. No restrictions, just a plain old MP3. Even though I'm not the biggest fan of her stuff, I just may pony up a whole buck to economically encourage this sort of behavior."
'bout time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:'bout time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:'bout time... (Score:2)
The first song or two they offer we need to buy to show support and to show that they can make money. But if they continue to offer only shit, stop buying. What's so hard about that? And if you only buy the first couple, you'll only be out two bucks. Big deal, I waste that at McDonalds every week.
Re:'bout time... (Score:2)
New Order - Technique
Wedding Present - Bizarro
Big Black - Rich Man's Eight Track Tape
Big Black - Songs About F*cking
Peter Murphy - Hysteria
Alien Sex Fiend - Here Cum Germs
Alien Sex Fiend - Open Head Surgery
Joy Division - Closer
I always sing all the lyrics to every single song on all those CDs from start to finish, never skipping past a song, especially Technique and Bizarro (I'll sit in the car after I've arrived and keep listening to them!) While I would support a try-and-buy or preview-and-purchase (and not the 5 second crap you get today, maybe a 96k version of the song) system, I'm thoroughly convinced that the big 3 record companies will never put out anything I'm even halfway interested in. Unless they own Beggars Banquet and Touch n' Go Records now.
Who? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who? (Score:2)
Her music sounds a little like Sinead O'Connor's. So, you're pretty accurate with that last quip
Re:Who? (Score:3, Informative)
Her debut release, "Plantation Lullabies" is a mostly funk/hip-hop crossover album, featuring her playing bass on most of the tracks in addition to singing. She is, without a doubt, one of the most solid funk bass players that no one has ever heard of. Prior to this release, she cut her teeth playing bass in the DC area for such progressive jazz luminaries as Steve Coleman.
Her second record, "Peace Beyond Passion" is more of the same, although many fans were a bit put-off by the heavy spiritual bent to some of the tracks. The album is seen as a bit preachy by some.
Her third album, "Bitter", is a very different animal. Somewhat less of a funk album, most of these tracks are slower, more organic, and feature primarily live musicians and less programming.
Several things to consider:
-the mp3.com song is a REMIX. Those of you judging her by this track are missing the point entirely.
-like her or don't like her, but be wise enough to recognize that she most definitely is NOT part of the "sound-alike" herd that the major labels have been shoving down our throats for the last few years. As a writer (and more importantly a PLAYER - you really need to hear her play bass) she's already worlds beyond the rest of the pop crowd.
But to really appreciate her, you need to see a live show. For her last three tours she's assembled one of the most ridiculous bands I've ever seen on any stage in any genre. Her drummer of choice, Oliver Gene Lake, is one of those skilled funk drummers on the planet. Her live shows are consistently some of the best musical experiences I've ever had, and her small crowd base means that she always plays intimate club venues.
If you like funk, you owe it to yourself to check out Meshell. She's one of a kind.
Re:Who? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Who? (Score:3, Funny)
Why don't you just get the mp3 from one of the file sharing networks? Then, if you like the song, go ahead and buy the mp3... oh, wait a minute...
Re:Who? (Score:2)
Is it really that difficult to do a Google search [google.com] ?
Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
But my question is, if this sells poorly will they point to it as proof that straight mp3 sales don't work?
A better question -- How Many...? (Score:2)
So, how many different companies does it take to change a lightbu^W^W^Wsell a single MP3 online? (Or, equivalently, how many man-hours were wasted on high-level executive meetings to sell a single MP3?) Yea, there's hope for them, but just how much hope remains an open question.
And for an extra 25 cents... (Score:5, Funny)
This has got to be a symbolic gesture (Score:5, Insightful)
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]
Re:This has got to be a symbolic gesture (Score:2, Interesting)
Just my
symbol is greed. (Score:2)
I feel like a kid who had all his toys stolen by a bully, who was told he was a bad person for protesting, and now I should be happy to get that toy back, all mangled beat and ruined. Yeah.
Re:symbol is greed. (Score:2)
Re:symbol is greed. (Score:2)
It's not about getting music cheaper you idiot. It's about the artist getting more of the money, and not paying for a $20 cd when you only like 4 of the tracks.
Re:symbol is greed. (Score:2)
Re:This has got to be a symbolic gesture (Score:2)
Anyone with some knowledge of online transactions knows that offering something for $1 is generally not profitable.
I'm guessing that they're going to work towards some sort of portfolio or account system were you buy multiple song credits at a time, making the transaction costs less significant.
If they've any brains, all the music companies will eventually get together and create universal song credits that can be spent on any song. If that happens, people will be more than happy to spend, say $15 at a time. A smart marketing move would be to package these 15-credit packages as an opportunity for consumers to create their "very own compilations".
Most important comment in the article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Most important comment in the article (Score:2)
~Chazzf
I'll encourage when I hear something I like (Score:2, Insightful)
Heck most of what the recording industry puts out these days isn't even worth stealing.
every /.er needs to buy this (Score:2)
This could be a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
So buy it and show support for the concept, check out the quality and if you're happy with that then send nice feedback
as a customer(lower price, different artist, etc) and give them a chance.
Re:This could be a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Before you all go out and send your hard-earned dollars to large music labels, why don't you stop and think what they're going to use those dollars for... paying their lawyers to strip you of your fair use and reverse engineering rights. Just because you support one tiny thing that a company does, don't give them the knife to stab you in the back.
Re:This could be a good thing (Score:2)
I would, but for a couple of points:
It's this second point that really sticks in my throat. Way to miss the point. Music is global now. They're promoting a track, they're offering to sell it, I'm ready to pay for it, but then they say I can't have it just because of where I live. Well, guess what: I can have it, I just won't be paying them a dollar to get it.
As you say, it's important to show support for the concept. And the concept I'll support is a single-click, no-login, no DRM, globally accessible, no questions asked transaction. This is only half way there. Before you criticise me for being overly picky, understand that my argument is actually moot: they won't let me buy it anyway, so my only choice is to go away and shut up, or go away and bitch about it. I'll choose the latter, thanks.
Re:This could be a good thing (Score:2)
A followup to my own post, regarding the mp3.com signup.
They demand to know:
A few points about that. What if I don't have a zip/postal code? I should just make one up, right? So what the hell is the point in requiring it? Why demand to know my gender, but not my age or other demographic data? It's invasive without being useful. But most of all, country of residence pisses me off. It should be clear that the most pragmatic answer to give is "United States" (which is conveniently the first on the "alphabetical" list). It should also be clear, with just a little further thought, how idiotic this would be, as it would just further skew the perception that the US market is the only one that matters, and the rest of the world can go screw itself. For example, I will not wait for English language region 2 DVD's, but instead buy region 1 DVD's online. I get them faster and usually cheaper than the (mostly identical) region 2's, but at the cost of artificially boosting region 1 sales and perpetuating the artificial segregation of the market.
Believe me, it's pretty damn annoying to see content marketed and reviewed all over the internet that you know you'll generally have to wait at least three months to see (or years, or never), when you have the desire and the funds to buy it right now. If you're a US citizen, try it for yourself. Pretend that you're European for a month: try and find new US releases at .co.uk subsidiaries, find out that that Europeans pay 40-60% more for most consumer items (£ price == $ price, but £ == 1.4x$), or shop at US .coms, then check out the international shipping rates and speeds. It might open your eyes.
Well, it's certainly not a good deal. (Score:2)
you get an unprotected download to do with as you please
Whoa, not so fast there, Tex. You get an unprotected download, sure... but don't think for a minute that you can do with this as you please. You better believe this song is still protected by the full force of the copyright and that it is still illegal to distribute it over the internet.
But what's most offensive to me is the cost. At a buck for a song this is hardly a better deal than a CD - for a lossier format! That's a terrible deal and too much trouble for no physical product and no packaging.
I'm mystified by these abortive forays into electronic content. Pay three bucks for a book that stops working after fifteen days! Pay a buck for an ephemeral, lower fidelity electronic impression of a song! Pay ten to twenty-five bucks a month for "Internet Radio Minus" - download limits, and when you quit the service you lose the ability to play everything. There are still plenty of unfettered CDs, used and new, for sale out there at ten times the bargain and usefulness. And I'm not even interested in file trading - I've never uploaded or downloaded an illicit MP3. I'm just concerned with the value and versatility of my own collection.
Earth to the publishing and recording industries (and those who would seek to replace them): when the deal doesn't SUCK I'll "show support for the concept."
And hey, once you've downloaded it... (Score:2)
Free(as in beer) > All(nonfree beer) People say they'll pay
Steven
set-up (Score:4, Interesting)
Go for it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Make a statement.
I'm DLing it right now, for $1 I don't even care *what* the song is. I just want to wave my dollar in the face of this company, to show them that I have dollars to spend on DLing songs!
Re:Go for it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Go for it! (Score:2)
Re:Go for it! (Score:2)
The market may bear $1 a song for uncompressed music, with artwork & liner notes but I really don't think it'll bear it for compressed bare songs.
Re:Go for it! (Score:2)
And given how many albums are mostly bland yet technically polished filler (particularly major-label commercial albums, where artists' creative control is usurped by marketing considerations), a service that lets you (legally) download an unencumbered copy of the one or two tracks you want and ditch the rest of the album can fill a niche.
Don't buy it if you wouldn't otherwise (Score:4, Insightful)
That will achieve nothing. Depending on the success of this pilot they will determine whether it is worth doing at all. Next, they will probably release a whole CD that way and see how that goes. That will be followed by release of another few - say 10%. Unless every Slashdotter is committing to buying every thing they ever release online, buying this song now is not going to serve any purpose.
At this point they are probably trying to assess the extent of piracy/online fraud they are exposing themselves to as well as trying to figure out the logistics of every step of their operation. That's what pilots are for. I doubt they are going to say "ooh, we sold a million copies of this, let's release everything this way!"
Re:Don't buy it if you wouldn't otherwise (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be contrary, but you're wrong. Imagine 10,000 slashdotters download the song and buy it legitimately. What if some noticeable fraction discover that -- saints preserve us! -- they like her music. So now they might go buy more. And we might have some numerical data to demonstrate that filesharing might, in principle, actually serve to increase sales. At least it's a chance to show how a post-dinosaur world might work.
On the other hand, the record companies are probably doing this so that they can point to how quickly the sales fall off as the MP3 is fileshared and people stop shelling out the $1. Then they can point to the experiment and say, "See? Everyone is a thief. Pass the CBDTPA!"
So don't do that! Don't rip or copy the song; don't hunt it down on Kazaa or what have you. Resist the urge to "stick it to them", at least on this one.
Re:Don't buy it if you wouldn't otherwise (Score:2)
There is no point spending $ to buy this track to prove a point if you wouldn't otherwise. Only an idiot would release one song, see positive results and take the plunge. Say whatever you want to about Vivendi but I doubt they are run by idiots.
Instead, it will be a slow and drawn-out release. At some point, it's going to stop being "cool" and Slashdotters are going to stop putting in money that they wouldn't otherwise to sell the industry on this idea. At that point the true market support will become obvious. If that is there, this idea will succeed - otherwise it will die a slow death.
If you're going to spend $ to buy music you wouldn't otherwise, all you're going to get is the loss of a $.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking of a phrase... (Score:2)
Seriously, does this strike anyone as an excellent way for the RIAA to claim that this kind of system "just doesn't work". Just put out a no-name artists that nobody really likes or cares about, and when that fails to sell 500,000 copies, just throw up you hands in despair and tell congress, "Well, we tried. It just can't be done."
She's a decent bassist (Score:2)
Decent bass player, she is.
In other news, REM releases a record in MP3 format (Score:2, Informative)
A full CD of remixes, with album art.
Not my taste in music, but its nice to see Stipey and the bunch practicing what they've preached in interviews with me and others.
In addition, REM did "pre leak" these songs on various peer-to-peer networks to see the rate of propagation.
This is the second time REM's put free tracks online for fans. The first was Peter Buck putting some tracks he did for a play's soundtrack up. In an interview last year he said he wants to do this more frequently with the "leftover" tracks from recording sessions.
This was covered in major media, but not as extensively as a one dollar MP3. Sad.
Ethan
RIAA Hitchhiker anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Marked money, my friends. Something to think of....
Re:RIAA Hitchhiker anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd do it myself, but the thought of giving $2 to the DMCA-wielding assmasters at Vivendi is too much for my frail stomach to take, no matter how noble the cause of science.
Vivendi == more than one group (Score:2)
This could be part of a power struggle between the two poles, the hardliners and the moderates. If enough people buy the MP3, the moderates will get more power in Vivendi, and the hardliners will be discredited. If this fails, the hardliners will just say "I told you so".
Overpriced! (Score:2)
Re:Overpriced! (Score:2)
Let's Set OUR terms (Score:2)
Okay, if the music biz is finally waking up to reality, let's make sure that they set the terms of their initial toe-dipping at a realistic level. Having persuaded them of a general, provisional willingness on our part to pay for content, it's important that they don't develop overly high expectations, Stephen King-style, only to have them torn down by reality, causing them to retreat back into denial.
As I see it, many people (certainly the same number of people who currently buy CDs) will eventually be willing to buy music online if it fulfills the following requirements:
1. Reasonable cost. I always suspected that, for sound marketing reasons, we'd end up paying a dollar per song. It's a fair price and I've no doubt that music companies are about to make more money then their thieving little minds ever dreamt possible; at a $ a pop, there will be a massive increase in the casual purchase of music.
2. (Convenience) Now that we, the consumers, are going to be covering the cost of the physical storage of music we've purchased, the industry needs to fully accept that they are in the business of marketing and selling rights, rather than physical products. Storing downloaded songs on our computers and portable devices, there's a high chance that we will loose them at some point and need to download them again. For that reason, songs we pay for must become part of an online, permanently accessible portfolio that we have permanent, eternal access to.
3. (Convenience #2) No messing around with weird-ass propriety/encrypted formats. Take it as read that if people want to pirate music (and, of course, many will) they're going to find a way no matter what you do. That, however, is no reason to inflict inconvenience and device incompatible formats on your paying customers. Accept reality and move on.
So, there you have it, follow the above, simple ingredients and the music industry enters a new Golden Age as the world's highest paid web hosts.
for not liking this chick that much.... (Score:2)
Re:for not liking this chick that much.... (Score:2, Insightful)
she is one of the best living musician touring these days. the irony is that her website used to give away mp3s....
L
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But at 192k sampling rate. (Score:2)
Why not? It seems to fit perfectly with the compromised, one-size-fits-all MUSIC that the RIAA sells.
Re:But at 192k sampling rate. (Score:2)
Once one version is bought, allow the customer to buy another quality version of it for an additional fifty cents. Of course this format will only allow one, but preferrably two copies made, for both the laptop and portable player. If the customer wants to transfer a copy to another device, establish a connection between the portable and the computer. Securely delete the file from the portable and a copy is freed for use in another device. Sadly this format will only allow analog copies so making a CD will be tough, and because of special keys/licenses needed to play the file, it won't be simple to play a file sent over Kazaa. Yes I know all security systems are broken eventually, but that's why good security adapts and changes, preferrably automatically. In the interest of fairness and profitability to the artists and labels I do propose a non-mp3 audio format is a neccessity for this to succeed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh God, the hypocrisy is KILLING me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Over the last year I have read post after post where you all say "If only they'd offer unencrypted music downloads in a standard format for a reasonable price, where I could pick your songs one at a time instead of having to buy the a mostly bad album. I'd do that in a minute!"
Well, ladies and gentlement, Maverick and Vivendi appear, at least, to be offering an olive branch, and is giving us exactly what we've been clamoring for.
A few of you, like me, are going to go download this song and pony up a buck no matter who the hell the singer is, just to add credence to our point of view, but as I look through the responses to this story, what are the most prominent responses I've seen? (I am quoting you here:)
"MP3 is a good start but I won't pay for lossy music."
"I still won't pay for shitty music."
"Great idea, but at 1 buck per song, a whole album would cost plus than 10 dollars, I think it is a little expensive." (NOTE: $10 per album is still half fucking price!)
"Can you hop on gnutella and drop me an email with your IP?"
Jiminy Christmas, people! Here's your chance to make a difference. Put your damn money where your mouths have been for the last year. After this, I can almost see things from the RIAA's point of view. Thanks a lot.
(I apologise for generalising and lumping all Slashdot readers into a collective "you." I'm just really annoyed at some.)
Re:Oh God, the hypocrisy is KILLING me! (Score:2)
It IS expensive (Score:2)
The "I still won't pay for shitty music" argument isn't so bad either. Making this test run with only a single track available almost smells of a deliberate lack of effort. Using ten or twenty tracks from a wide selection of genres would have made for much more realistic results; this way, few who aren't Meshell Ndegeocello fans will make the purchase.
Review? (Score:2)
Could someone who has downloaded the song please post a brief review? What kind of music is it? Similar to the works of what other artists?
I know that US$1 isn't much, but I'm not going to spend that on every artist who chooses to sell this way without at least some idea what I'm buying.
Re:Review? (Score:2)
There's a Real preview at the EMusic download site, and probably elsewhere.
Download it? (Score:2)
Not a good deal - do the math (Score:2)
Do the math, then consider that they aren't giving you a CD. Then consider that they are cutting the retail store out of delivery-chain. I think I saw a post elsewhere that said stores pay about $10 per CD.
It is an interesting experiment with some interesting potential, and it's a step in the right direction, but it isn't worthy of a major celebration.
-
First (Score:2)
Yeah, you'd almost think they are ahead of their time. Music over the Internet? That's just crazy talk.
Quoth the Record Exec: (Score:4, Insightful)
He says it right there. They want to try what we've been bitching for. Let's all drop a buck and support this kind of behavior. (She's not half bad, btw)
My grandma always told me you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If this is what we want, then we should support it. end of story. Time to vote with your wallet, even if for the purposes of this experiment, you've never heard of the lady.
I'm buying my copy. Are you?
emusic, for god's sake! (Score:4, Informative)
More often than not, they even have an entire artist's career, not just an album or two.
I'll don't understand why people are lining up to pay Vivendi $1 for one lousy track. If you're going to pay a major label (VivendiUniversal bought emusic a while back) your hard-earned cash to support a business model based around unencumbered MP3's, emusic seems like a better deal.
-Isaac
Re:emusic, for god's sake! (Score:2)
It sounds like you are supporting a business model you like. Excellant! As for me, I don't want a subscription. I prefer impulse purchasing.
Heck, I think that's a significant portion of the beauty of online distribution that the dinosaurs are missing - lots of new opportunities for market differentiation. You buy a subscription, I buy on impulse - everyone buys the product in the way that is most agreeable to him or her.
And as a legitimate owner of this track, let me say that yes, if you like dance, it's worth a buck. About my only complaint is that now I have a single solitary MP3 mixed in with all the Ogg I've ripped from my dance CDs.
Re:emusic, for god's sake! (Score:2)
I felt exactly the same way you do about eMusic, but decided to go with the free two week trial.
I am still with the service and trust me, impulse downloads that turn out to be gems far outweigh the paltry $15/month cost.
Not only that, it is FAST. At school I can download an entire album in under 45 seconds (over 800kb/sec)
At the risk of sounding like an advertisement, I would encourage you to try it for free. If you hate it, you can opt out in 14 days and keep what you downloaded.
Re:emusic, for god's sake! (Score:2)
I [dictionary.com] don't [dictionary.com] want [dictionary.com] a [dictionary.com] subscription [dictionary.com].
Re:emusic, for god's sake! (Score:3)
For a monthly fee, Emusic offers unlimited access to their regular non-digital right managed mp3 files at 128kbps. Their servers are reasonably fast. The drawbacks are: you can't buy just one or two songs--you have to sign up for at least 3 months. You can only get songs at 128kbps--that's fine for me with my crappy computer speakers, but anybody with a decent system needs better quality. And finally, they don't have a lot of good music to offer--I signed up because of They Might Be Giants, but besides their music I haven't found much that I like. Oh, except the Young Fresh Fellows.
Re:emusic, for god's sake! (Score:2)
Why would you buy something that sounds crappier than a CD ?
And 'They Might be Giants' ? Yeah I remember them, they were big when I was at school - which was about 15 years ago.
Re:emusic, for god's sake! (Score:2)
Vivendi et al (Score:2)
Re:Vivendi et al (Score:2)
Really, it would be a pretty dumb publicity stunt if it made their own pay-to-play service look bad in the process. I get the feeling that Meshell Ndegeocello may have lobbied for this one herself, seeing how much of a dud Pressplay is shaping up to be.
A Review of "Earth" (Good Stuff) (Score:2)
It's free if you're an Emusic subscriber (Score:5, Informative)
If you're not hung up on top-40, check out emusic.com - sign up for a year subscription at $10/month, or 3 months at $15/month; there's a 14-day free trial, and you can download:
- as many songs as you want (max 50 tracks during the free trial period)
- unencrypted
- with no special DRM
- and keep the tracks after you cancel your subscription. (They even tell you to keep the 50 tracks if you choose not to subscribe!)
They claim they split the revenues 50/50 with the artists. (even if you allow for some exageration here, it'd almost have to be a better deal than the few pennies an artist gets per CD track sold through traditional outlets...The only restrictions are:
- they ask that you not hog the system by mass-downloading everything; just grab what you plan to listen to now or in the near future
- and you are on your honor not to "steal" from them by sharing those files elsewhere
In other words, they are selling MP3's exactly the way we want to buy them, and trusting us not to rip them off, instead of imposing some clumsy technological constraints - just like any other honest business. (ok, I would prefer higher bitrate encodings, but so what? 128k sounds ok on my pc. I signed up, I sent them a long letter telling them what I liked about the service, and what I would like to see improved, including the option to pay a bit more to download better quality encodings. Who do you think they are going to listen to more - their existing, paying customer base, or people heckling them from the sidelines? [I got a personal response to my letter from their customer service. They didn't promise anything, but at least i know they heard me.])They don't have many huge names (probably the most famous contemporary group in their catalog is They Might Be Giants,) but they have an awesome collection of old jazz and blues collection, a good classical section, some really bizarro-but-intersting international stuff, and a bunch of small indie labels. (They claim over 200,000 MP3 tracks available, from over 900 different [mostly small] record labels) Oh, and some comedy too, like most of George Carlin's albums.
Sorry if I sound like a commercial - I'm just a subscriber who loves this service, and I don't understand why more people haven't signed up yet...
And I just may (Score:2)
fork over...
shell out...
Why is it the smaller the amount, the more often phrases like these are used? Does anyone *ever* "fork over" amounts more than $10?
sigh...
Prove Him Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
OK - let's prove him wrong. I need five more people to go buy it. I just did, and if you like dance music, it's worth a buck.
Teaming Up? (Score:2)
Now if only they'd do it with something *good*! (Score:2)
For my fellow EMusic subscribers... (Score:2)
You can listen before downloading (Score:2)
Luckily, neither I nor you need shell out our $0.99 before having listened to a sample [mp3.com], conveniently linked from the front page of MP3.com [mp3.com].
Now even if you don't like the song, you should still consider shelling out for it as a sign of support for the business model. But if you're a cheapskate like me, try the sample first.
Would someone who has bought this... (Score:2)
... please post a review of it (genre, style, influences, quality). Just a wild thought, but shouldn't we be using the power of this big ol' inter-web thing to make informed decisions about mp3 purchasing, rather than just making the point that we'll buy any old junk as long as it's mp3?
Why I won't buy this MP3 (Score:2)
It probably makes sense - credit card payment probably costs more for them when done from a non-US country. But that also means they are missing out on everybody in the rest of the world, which is a loss both for the record company and us international customers.
They're using this as a tracking tool (Score:2)
That's the info they're looking for, in my opinion.
Because if they really wanted to prove something, they'd choose a band or act that people have heard of.
Re:i dont know about mp3... (Score:2)
Better start buying concert tickets, because if it ain't from their mouth straight to your ears, it's "lossy".
(ducks and runs for cover from the
How is it that.... (Score:2, Interesting)
How is it that when two people want to exchange mp3s, they just do it, but when a corporation wants to, they've gotta make it all complicated?
A well done MP3 @ 192 kbps is transparent (Score:2)
Get a good receiver, no, your 79 dollar Aiwa system with blinky lights galore doesn't count, and some respectable speakers.
These guys did [r3mix.net], and they found that LAME [sulaco.org] 3.92 can encode CD quality sound transparently at an average data rate between 160 and 192 kbps. For more information, read the "quality" section of r3mix.net [r3mix.net].
You can definitely tell the mp3 artifacts
What artifacts? You mean the artifacts from the Xing encoder?
Re:i dont know about mp3... (Score:2)
Yet many people still spend the 99c in the museum gift shop for the Picasso postcard and hang it on their fridge. Just like not getting the original Picasso, you don't expect to get the 32- or 64-track studio reels for $25 at Tower. Hell, even a new, regular CD is a 5th, 6th, or 7th generation copy.
Re:i dont know about mp3... (Score:2)
Re:Ick. (Score:2)
What do you mean by 'her'? [meshell.com]
Re:Ick. (Score:2, Insightful)
2. You don't value music very highly. This is something that one has to determine on their own. If you feel that $.99 is too much to pay for 3.5 minutes of entertainment that can be repeated as many times as you like, then that is your opinion. There are certainly music sharing sites that you can download the media for free and avoid financing the musician at all.
I don't know how to respond except to say that I disagree with you.
Re:Misassessment of the threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please. A CD can be destroyed with one bad scratch. And I can make backup copies of an MP3. In fact the first thing I do when I buy a CD is rip it to MP3, then I put the CD away in a rack and never touch it unless I want to play it in the car. (Yeah, bad quality, whatever.) I keep my MP3s at work synchronized with the ones at home, because I don't want to lug CDs back and forth.
My reluctance to pay for the digital media files offered by the cartels so far is really based on the fact that
1. They're designed to expire
2. They're designed to be nonportable
3. You can only play them so many times before they "run out"
4. They require goofy playback software that runs on Windows only and insists on showing me ads
5. I can't reformat my drive without losing everything I've paid for
6. I can't listen to them at work unless I lug my computer back and forth
These aren't considerations at all with an MP3. I might delete it by mistake but I'm not going to reject the idea just because I think I'm too stupid to be trusted with my own files.
Re:Misassessment of the threat (Score:2)
Now we're being rudely informed that all these years we haven't been buying music at all- we've been licensing it. They never charged us a per-play fee only because there was no technology available to enforce such a thing on us. Now they're getting the ability to extend their miniature version of a police state into our living rooms and entertainment systems, so this is becoming an issue. And they've bought legislation that gives their little technological hurdles the force of law. So they're now trying to make it abundantly clear that you buy it, it's yours isn't and wasn't the business model at all- it's more like you rent it, and then you get fucked by us because we can fuck you now for every moment of intellectual property pleasure that enters your senses. But this isn't what customers are used to, it isn't what they want, and they won't stand for it, even if a hated law is purchased that makes all reasonable alternatives illegal.
I hope they do start selling MP3s. I'd buy a dozen.
Re:Misassessment of the threat (Score:2)
1: People think mainstream is pretty much shit.
2: People will pay money for GOOD music.
Give it up.
Lots of people on here may think that mainstream music sucks. It seems to be a running theme. But step outside your ego--if it wasn't popular, it wouldn't be mainstream. The stuff that sells is the stuff that the MPAA cares about! They don't care if it's 70 minutes of George Strait farting into a microphone; if it makes money, they'll produce/sell it.
People will pay money for the music that you say is shit. You may not believe it, but Britney Spears albums don't go platinum for nothing.
Re:I don't understand selling mp3s (Score:2)
Simple. This song is 8:45. You may have the bandwidth to download almost 90 mb of data, but many potential customers won't, and even the largest labels will hesitate before inviting that much abuse of their servers.
You would send it raw, of course. (Score:2)
Of course, you wouldn't download it uncompressed.
The track Brothers in arms by Dire Straits is seven minutes long and 70.7Mbyte. Using Monkey's Audio [monkeysaudio.com] (for instance, there are others) it compress to 32.31Mbyte.
A typical "radio edit" track of about 3-4 minutes will compress to around 20Mbyte.
If I'm to buy music online it would have to be a more flexible scheme, ranging from a lossless encode to lossy of my choice (I use Ogg Vorbis 'quality 6' for all my encoding at home).
A 128Kbit/s encode using some unknown codec using unknown settings? You've gotta be kidding me.