Emusic Relaunches - Cheap, DRM-Free Downloads 445
An anonymous reader writes "Emusic.com has relaunched today. This is important for several reasons. 1) They sell MP3s. No DRM. I can play them on my Linux box or wherever. 2) They are encoding at 192Kbit/s VBR. That's near CD quality (and how I rip my own CDs). They are focusing on lesser known independent music and providing some editorial content to separate the good from the bad. I see lots of great jazz, classical, and folk/country stuff in their library. 4) Subscription rate is 9.99/month for 40 tracks. That is $0.25 a track. Much cheaper than everywhere else. It's near my pricepoint. This is the first online music store that I will seriously consider. (And actually the first that I _can_ consider since I'm a linux user.)"
Want to see what they have? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the link to browse their catalog! [emusic.com]
Stupid promo redirect.
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:5, Informative)
And here's a Coral link! [nyud.net]
She's getting hammered, as of 20:19 UTC.
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:3, Interesting)
Partially true indeed, but at least some popular or semi-popular songs are quite good. This product does however appear to be cheap enough to supplement kaaza and cd ripping. Why steal when you can buy cheaply?
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:3, Interesting)
Independant bands are all well and good, but Id like to see the major bands signing on with these.
Won't happen. EMUSICs focus is small, indie bands (for the most part) because the big labels won't let their stuff be released with DRM 'protection'.
It's good for the indies, really, as all the big stuff is available for free anyhow so this gives the indies some exposure.
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:4, Insightful)
This provides a means of doing it that's 1) cheap for the consumer, 2) not giving it away, and 3) not trying to control the use of the file.
I wouldn't want to see big-name bands on systems like these, because they'd push out the lesser known/indie bands, and the major labels would probably force emusic to use DRM'd files, which would defeat one of the big pro's of this service.
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Keep the major bands in itunes and its clones, leave the indies alone in emusic and its clones. If you like both kinds, nothing stops you from using two or more services simultaneously.
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why pay anything when you can pay nothing?
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine that the indie bands/labels are not charging the same licensing fees as the major labels, and thus a profit can be turned on a smaller per-song fee.
No CD case, no CD "art", just the music. Sounds good to me, but then I AM biased, as I already partake in Warp Records' online offerings at www.warprecords.com/bleep (please pardon my HTML illiteracy)
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:5, Interesting)
here is what it will take for me to pay for music:
1) must host every song ever, available for immediate speedy download in more than a few different formats/bitrates
2) a query tool (genre, artist, date of release, lyrics, etc) at LEAST a simple search utility
3) when I select a song I want to see the list of "other people who selected this song also selected.."
thats it.. first site to implement these 3 features gets my money. I don't care what it costs.
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:4, Informative)
1) must host every song ever, available for immediate speedy download in more than a few different formats/bitrates
2) a query tool (genre, artist, date of release, lyrics, etc) at LEAST a simple search utility
3) when I select a song I want to see the list of "other people who selected this song also selected.."
thats it.. first site to implement these 3 features gets my money. I don't care what it costs.
Hm, would you like those to come with a naked supermodel listening partner, or would you prefer she have a whipped-cream bikini instead?
Seriously dude, if you are setting your sights that high (#1 by itself is im-freaking-possible), then you are not the target market.
-Ted
Re:Want to see what they have? (Score:5, Insightful)
here is what it will take for me to pay for music:
1) must host every song ever, available for immediate speedy download in more than a few different formats/bitrates
2) a query tool (genre, artist, date of release, lyrics, etc) at LEAST a simple search utility
3) when I select a song I want to see the list of "other people who selected this song also selected.."
thats it.. first site to implement these 3 features gets my money. I don't care what it costs.
iTMS has items #2 and #3. Every song ever? Come on, nobody has ever had that, nor would anyone want to. It wouldn't be worth the disk space to store or even the cost of electricity to rip the hundreds of thousands of old albums that will never, ever be purchased by anyone again. And nobody but geeks ask for multiple encoding rates ... the same Slashdot audience that whines about 99 cents being too much to pay for a song. Not exactly the target market businesses want to cater to.
I'm not suggesting that you personally are doing this ... but some people in the past have made deliberately unachievable "want" lists for online music distribution as a justification for pirating music. (And before you ask, yes, I have downloaded music that I don't own; I can rationalize it [not available except on vinyl and I don't have/want a record player] but I know that it doesn't make it right.)
I can say "I won't buy a satellite TV system until it has a.) 1000 channels and b.) costs less than $9.99/month." I can refuse to buy a DTV or Dish system because it doesn't meet my criteria. But it doesn't justify my going out and pirating satellite TV. The point is that you can sit on the sidelines of the legal downloading market for as long as you like, waiting for your wishlist of features, or you can use what's available to you now if it's good enough. Just don't use "it's not quite the way I want it" as an excuse for doing something wrong.
Again - not saying the parent poster is doing this. But just throwing out a little cosmic karma caution to those who may be doing it.
Ummm... (Score:2, Informative)
...where I come from, the presence of Moby in the catalog would be considered a good thing.
I for one... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I for one... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe they have Yusef Islam [reuters.co.uk], dangerous music from a hight level threat to the USA. Kinda puts all that gangsta rap to shame, no?
we listened to Peace Train and we LIKED IT!
I am signing up... (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't even seen the catalog yet.
Re:I am signing up... (Score:3)
I've been a member for almost two years. It's a fantastic service with a lot of great music, even if it hasn't all been blessed by the Top-40 Illuminati.
Re:I am signing up... (Score:3, Informative)
The Fall, Cocteau Twins, Bauhaus, The Pixies. If you can find Cruiser's Creek on there,try it.
encourage magnatune (Score:5, Informative)
Magnatune [magnatune.com]
Free mp3 streaming of the entire catalog.
If you want, pay $5-$18 (you choose!) for an album download (40+ minutes) in mp3, ogg, wav, or whatever it is you like. Artist gets 50%.
If you want a physical cd, pay $15-$30 (something like that.. you choose!) and the artist gets 100%.
There is *no crap* in magnatune; all of their members are peer reviewed. It's solid.
I don't work for them or anything, I am just a very happy customer!
Re:encourage magnatune (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks again, and everyone else should look at it. Quality artists there.
Re:encourage magnatune (Score:3, Interesting)
Gotta love em tho. How many other record companies have a phrase: "We are not evil." AND have a symbol that looks at first glance like it's flipping someone off?
Re:encourage magnatune (Score:3, Insightful)
When I become interested in an artist on Magnatune, I can never find a web page for that artist off the Magnatune site. Is that part of the contract with Magnatune?
Re:I am signing up... (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, I believe the Internet needs to be the next generation radio, instead everybody is trying to figure out new pricing plans or protocols to hose the consumer or the artists. What I want is a way to discover new talent FOR FREE, new music FOR FREE, and be given some reason for faith that the rest of the CD is good too. If so, let me purchase the rest. I'm sure artists are also lookin
I did sign up... cancelled already. (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't even seen the catalog yet. :)
I thought I would check this service out quickly. I trusted them with my name, email, street address, and credit card #. Hopefully that won't come back to bite me in the ass. Anyway, I hadn't seen the catalog before giving out this info either. It didn't seem to be available from the free trial page I arrived at. Feeling adventurous, I took the plunge anyway.
As I suspected, the music selection is extremely limited, and of pretty terrible sound quality, despite be
Slashvertisement (Score:3, Insightful)
Only on slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
And we complain when someone tells where it is.
You guys rock!
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah; why would anyone buy it when it's been given away for free for so long?
monthly/per track pricing? (Score:4, Informative)
allofmp3.com is still superior
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:2)
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:5, Informative)
As far as the 40 tracks/month thing, well yeah. It's called being in business. No pricing policy will ever suit everyone's needs, but these folks have chosen one that appears to work for them and their clients. If you only want one or two tracks a month, this is not the service for you. I've been a subscriber for some time, and it works for me, even though there've been some months I don't use up my quota. Big deal. The monthly fee is about the cost of a decent meal.
As a point of information, a nice thing about their DRM-less existance is that they keep track of what you have download and let you redownload the same tracks for free. So if your hard drive crashes or if you want a copy of a song while you're at work, just log in, go to the page of what you've downloaded in the past, and download it again.
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:2)
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:3, Insightful)
No pricing policy will ever suit everyone's needs, but these folks have chosen one that appears to work for them and their clients.
I see plenty of clients posting here
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is discussion at the following forum as well as many others if you Google for a few minutes.
http://www.delldjsite.com/forums/a [delldjsite.com]
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:5, Informative)
"Anyway, my friend and I were scouring the net looking for info on this site, and the controversy surrounding it. Here's the final word...from the horses'...well, I'll let you decide which part of the anatomy you insert there.
After checking with the RIAA and other licensing agencies, KCTL Kansas City; the radio station for KCTalk.com; has switched from paying $1.00 per song with Napster, to using the "pay per meg" service at allofmp3.com.
After the RIAA confirmed in an email that the service is in fact legal, just under a different contract due to the site being located in Russia, the switch was made immediately. All downloaded music from the site was quote "able to be used in a full broadcast and media capacity".
KCTalk.com just wanted to pass this information on to others that have been searching for a real site to download stuff from without paying arms and legs. Thank you to Dies Irae for pointing out this service.
Furthermore, KCTL has started replacing thier songs that were previously encoded at 128k, with the cheaper, yet better sounding, 192k that allofmp3.com provides. We have downloaded 9 songs, and have not quite used $0.75 yet. Great service!
Go, check it out. This radio station has done all of the "legwork" for us. Download, and be merry!"
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, I can read the law, and it's pretty clear that it's illegal unless the US copyright holders are authorizing allofmp3 to do what they're doing. The authorization would have to be made under US law; a Russian compulsory licensing scheme would not suffice.
Given all the totally erroneous claims about allofmp3 being legal floating around out there, I'm pre
Re:monthly/per track pricing? (Score:2)
There is just one big drawback: Artists won't get much money if you spend 3 ct per track on average if you don't download 30 times as much as you would using itunes.
However, I'm wondering how they manage to stay in business (yes, they are kind of legal - but I can think of a 4 letter organi
Pricepoint? (Score:5, Insightful)
First it was anything but $0.99/track is not cheap enough. Then $0.99 is not enough,.. Now people are not even willing to spend a whole quarter for a song? I think there are some people here who will still be complaining when they are free, just because they aren't encoded at a high enough bitrate!
Re:Pricepoint? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pricepoint? (Score:5, Insightful)
You may think 40 downloads is a lot, but for the type of music available at Emusic, it isn't. Most people who posted in the forums at Emusic liked to try different artists and styles. That was easy to do with unlimited downloads. The majority of the music at Emusic is material most people aren't going to know, so being able to experiment was a big part of why customers stayed with them. It's hard to experiment with 40 tracks. I listen to that much music almost every day.
The problem with Emusic's change in service is that many posters on the forums said they would have paid $50 for an unlimited service. I certainly would have. It's their loss.
Re:Pricepoint? (Score:5, Insightful)
My standard model, which apparently was pretty common, was to download a single album from ten bands, burn it on a CD and listen to it at work for a week or two and decide what I liked. Then I'd get more of those bands, burn a CD for work, listen for several more weeks. Repeat a couple times, and I'd have enough new music to last me for several months. I wouldn't download much in that time, but I kept the subscription because when I wanted to experiment with some new bands, I could.
The new model, while still better than some of the other schemes kicking around including others suggested by Emusic, doesn't lend itself well to this experimental style.
It might still work, but the amount of experimentation would be more limited, and I'd have to wait a month to turn experimentation into aquiring more songs from the bands I liked. Eh, maybe I'll try it for a month or two.
Re: Pricepoint? (Score:3, Insightful)
CD tracks were averaging $0.99 when the industry was telling Congress that it would get cheaper after the investment costs were written off!
The cost of online distribution is a fraction of what it once took, i.e. manufacturing, inventory, shipping, personnel, etc, and you are _still_ paying the same price for an inferior product!
This complaint isn't new...you just never listened to the original complaint we had!!!
Re:Pricepoint? (Score:5, Funny)
Different people. Even when some people were saying "$0.99/track is OK" there were others saying "no way, that's the same as CD, I'd rather just buy the CD'.
Here's a hint. At the top of each message is a name. That name indicates a different person. By reading those names you can see that different people say different things. I can see how it might have confused you with lots of people saying different things on Slashdot. You clearly thought it was a single person with schizophrenia. But armed with this helpful hint you should now be able to distinguish different participants. HTH.
That's a pretty safe prediction because those sorts of people have already said as much in previous stories. Many of them want FLAC instead of a lossy MP3 or AAC format. Zero Nostradamus points for you, I'm afraid!
You can buy it for a song... (Score:3, Interesting)
For the record, if TV were pay-per-view, I wouldn't spend more than $0.25 per commercial-free half-hour one-time-view. It doesn't sound like much, but any more than that and the prices take it above cable and rental. Again, 0.10 or less is closer to the value of your average TV half-hour show.
Well, it doesn't matter. Th
Finally, an online music store I'll take serious (Score:5, Interesting)
iTunes is nice since it's cheap per song, but the selection, though huge, misses out one some less mainstream, more niche genres. eMusic seems to fill in the missing areas pretty well (although still not enough psychedelic trance) and provides DRM-free tunes. This company could go quite far.
For most consumers, though, I think the price-per-song versus a monthly price could still be the deciding factor.
I let my account lapse 3 months ago (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, there are too many Live recordings (read: poor sounding recordings). For example, they have a bunch of The Selecter tracks, but they're all live. Sorry, I want to studio versions.
I hope its useful for you. But I paid my money, downloaded some good tracks, a bunch of bad tracks, and walked away.
Re:I let my account lapse 3 months ago (Score:2)
I honestly havent used them myself, but browsing their catalog, they do have a VERY nice selection of Punk music (my genre of choice), and I will probably sign up for the trial at least when I get home tonight. They have a lot of non-mainstream stuff, they just cant cover every possible genre of non-mainstream completely.
Re:I let my account lapse 3 months ago (Score:2)
Re:I let my account lapse 3 months ago (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I let my account lapse 3 months ago (Score:3, Informative)
If you're not into "uhn-tss uhn-tss uhn-tss" there's not much there for you, but it's great for club music.
No search without free registration? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No search without free registration? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh... near CD quality? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uh... near CD quality? (Score:2)
Re:Uh... near CD quality? (Score:2, Insightful)
320kbps vs cd qualtiy and it is nearly impossible to tell the difference, even on really good speakers. Any difference you can tell will not be 75% difference between the actual source.
Re:Uh... near CD quality? (Score:2)
Re:Uh... near CD quality? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh... near CD quality? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh... near CD quality? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are aware of compression, aren't you? y'know.. that whole MP3 thing? I know it's lossy, but it would be rather pointless if MP3 at 14% the bitrate was 14% the quality of uncompressed - you might as well just drop the uncompressed bitrate.
IMO MP3 at 128 is listenable, but a bit on the rough side, and if I was paying for MP3s I'd want them to be at least 160
Re:Uh... near CD quality? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not the same as quality. Quality in music is the amount of discrete dynamic information recorded within a sample. Believe it or not, storing an accurate representation of the data at a given sample rate and bit strength is not necessarily the best way to preserve quality. It's certainly not the most efficient. With a 1411 kilobits, psychoacoustically compressed sample, you could easily have a much higher bit strength or sample rate with more discrete dynamics than even the CD. Shit, even lossless compression could get double the quality or more at 1411 kilobits than a CD can.
That number is mostly meaningless for this reason. So is the term "CD Quality." I've seen it used for 192 kbit MP3, 128 kbit AAC, 64 kbit WMA...fact of the matter is, "CD Quality" is whatever you perceive it to be. I happen to really like AAC at 128 and higher bitrates, it preserves the precision I expect when encoding a rhythm section without creating shimmering or tiering. It's great for rock and hip hop. And that's all that matters.
Selection isn't so good. (Score:2)
I got my membership, one month free when I bought my neuros [neurosaudio.com] in March of '04. I just recently canceled it, because I felt I wasn't getting $9.99 out of the service per month. Canceling was a breeze though, not like the usual - find your reg id that was sent to you months ago, blah
another option (Score:2, Interesting)
192 VBR Good enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no, I'm lying. I encode with ogg, set at quality 6. That's not bad, but it still isn't CD quality.
If you have a *good* stereo (no, your computer speakers, or a headphone pluged into your soundcard does not count), you'll hear artifacts if you actually have the real source. In addition, mp3's at moderate quality always sound "flat" to me.
I'll wait until someone offers lossless quality downloads. Until then, I'm far better off buying used CD's...at $3-$5 a CD, it's a far better value.
Re:192 VBR Good enough? (Score:2, Funny)
I kidnap musicians and force them to sing and play by poking them with sharp sticks........
I still remember (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, they're "relaunching" again with what looks like a smaller catalog, the same monthly restrictions, etc. I'm trying to see how this is better. Most likely an attempt to appear as a "new" alternative to iTunes, et al when in fact they've been there all along and are actually on a downward spiral.
Same here (Score:3, Interesting)
I did, however, get a whole bunch of George Carlin, T. Monk, and other collections before I jumped. That same stuff would take a year or two at 40 tracks/month.
Re:I still remember (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixed client? (Score:3, Informative)
If they've fixed the client I'm willing to give emusic another try. The selection is good enough that it's worth $.25 a track, and obscure enough that you're not likely to find it cheaper anywhere else.
What Relaunch? (Score:5, Informative)
Emusic used to be $9.99 per month and unlimited downloads, over a year ago. It was an absolutely amazing service and had me thinking that the world of digital music could be great for all parties.
I was wrong. Last Fall Emusic was bought out by some other company who changed the policy to the $9.99 for 40 or 50 tracks and its been that way for over a year. I cancelled my subscription.
After the annoucement was made, but before they switched formats, they pulled horrible stunts like not actually allowing you to download unlimited music (per their contract) but putting some aritifical cap on your downloading. They also used to incriminate people for downloading too much even though there was a unlimited deal in the contract. I started to lose respect for them.
I don't think there has been a relaunch. I think there is an executive at Emusic trying to get more business via Slashdot.
If you are reading this Emusic executive, bring back the old unlimited format (even at a higher cost)! Honor your contracts!
*thumbs up* (Score:5, Informative)
But, the revenue sharing program does give 50% to labels/artists, so I found that if I did have extra credits in a month, I would download albums that I had once (illegally) downloaded. This made me feel better about myself.
I lasted for about 9 months on the old emusic, and it was $100 well spent.
No thanks (Score:4, Informative)
Relaunch? (Score:3, Interesting)
Their selection is a combo of new, indie artists and great old jazz artists. There is a lot of techno, too. If you are into jazz or techno, or just like listening to interesting indie bands it is worth it.
This story, though, doesn't sound like anything more than a PR dump on the
Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Informative)
They have no DRM what so ever, so it's great for you Linux users. Also, it's based in Russia, so it lends itself to those classic Slashdot "In Soviet Russia..." jokes. (In Soviet Russia, Music DRM You!", sorry, the lamest I could come up with)
It also has the most complete catalog (including Beatles), is priced right at $0.01 US per megabyte, and has a multitude of on-the-fly encoding options, including ogg Vorbis, Flac and mp3 up to 384 kbps. (however, I think FLAC and other "premium" encodes runs you $0.05 US per megabyte).
Suposedly it's perfectly legal under Russian copyright law, as long as they compensate the artist directly. Perhaps it's just paying for illegal music downloads that you could otherwise get off Kazaa.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:5, Informative)
Compulsory licensing, so it's legal as far as they care. It's not really legal to distribute that music outside of Russia though.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:2)
Don't bother using their web interface to download. Clicking to download sucks. Just grab their Allofmp3 Explorer program, it automatically downloads everything that is on your download list on the website.
Re:Allofmp3.com (Score:3, Informative)
The difference is that 602(a) provides a remedy for the copyright holder, and bars importation where neither the exemptions of 602(a)(1)-(3) nor 109 apply. 602(b), OTOH, is enforced by the Customs Service, not the copyright holder, but is limited to copies that, had they been
there is also magnatune.com (Score:5, Informative)
They are more indy (Score:2)
Metallica: 0 Music Albums
Foo Fighters: 0 Music Albums
Franz Ferdinand: 0 Music Albums
Modest Mouse: 0 Music Albums
Kid Rock: 0 Music Albums
Bare Naked Ladies: 0 Music Albums
Subscription. Yay. (Score:2)
I guess I'll just need to labor on under the oppressive yoke of iTunes' Draconian Rights Mangle-ment (get it? DRM! Hyuk!)
My recomendations (Score:2)
A few recommendations:
Price Point? (Score:2, Troll)
It is ok to dream people, but honestly, shouldn't realistic expectations be part of the equation some where. The current offerings are about 1 dollar per song, or about $10 dollars for a cd, which is
Bleep (Score:5, Informative)
That's not entirely true. You can buy from Bleep.com [bleep.com], and it's basically the same thing. Non-DRM 192kps MP3s. You just have to like their selection (mostly electronic music on Warp Records). It's been up for a while now, and you pay per song (or album), not a monthly fee (which I prefer).
Slow as hell (Score:2)
random samples (Score:2)
Doors: no
Boston: only their last album
Rush: no
Zappa: one obscure collaboration
Springsteen: no
Allman Bros: no
Beach Boys: one obscure CD
Nirvana: no
Guns and Roses: no
Jefferson airplane: no
All in all, this is definitely not a site catering to mainstream rock tastes. Maybe that's why they don't allow searching of their catalog before sig
I'll take the bait. (Score:3, Funny)
So do you have a Cheryl Teigs poster on your wall or Bo Derek?
AudioLunchBox (Score:2)
I hate this word. (Score:2)
Another infection on the English vocabulary. I love it when people criticize "utility cover" as double-speak, then are the same people who fall for marketing droid words like this one. Everytime I hear 'pricepoint' I envision some slacker student waking up in the middle of a economics lecture, hearing only that word then writing it down. A couple of years out of Cardinal-Direction State U., the same person wakes up in the middle of team meeting and blurts this word perfunctorially. The next thin
Whatever happened to mp3.com giving them away? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, we have the same thing and it's only $9.99 as opposed to free. Wonderful. Is it just me or does it seem like the Internet is
You're bringing back good memories (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah...I remember the good ole days. Remember going to the binary bboards and "downloading" the pictures. Then I finally got UUEncode and could download the ~really big~ pictures. So you grab "babe_pt1", "babe_pt2", and "babe_pt3", merge them as you get ready to see some hottie and then realize you just wasted all that time putting together a picture of someone's pet pig. Such innocent days...and f
My only concern is... (Score:4, Interesting)
...when you buy digital music such as this, what proof do you have that you really own it?
I've got a large collection of music in mp3 and ogg formats on my laptop, ripped from my CD collection. I've often been worried about going through international customs at airports and having some over-zealous security nut decide to search the contents of my hard disk drive and then fast-track me to death row for DMCA infringement.
Now, at least with my mp3 collection, I can point to all of my CDs (well, at home) as proof that I own them. But if I were to buy mp3 files from emusic, what proof do I get that I really own them? Are emusic keeping records of all purchases and will they be willing to provide
NOT the only one for Linux users!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Both of these are DRM-free and will give you files that work on Linux (or BeOS or PalmOS or an Amiga or a Newton or whatever).
audiolunchbox.com (Score:4, Informative)
--DRM free
--mp3s and ogg vorbis encoding (most tracks can be downloaded as ogg, there are a few that are only mp3s I think)
--independent music
--similar price scheme as iTMS
--bigger catalogue than emusic (in fact, most of the good stuff from emusic's glory days is on audiolunchbox.com)
--did I mention the no DRM
Audio Lunchbox.... (Score:4, Informative)
I hate plugging stuff but it's a really small company, they don't seem to do much advertising, and, first and foremost, noone seems to have heard of them, and they deserve better than that. They've been great to me and they have stuff that's often hard to find on p2p.
Thanks, but no (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I am not a music fanatic. I don't ponder laboriously over which CDs to buy. I don't read reviews, and for the most part I put absolutely zero effort into sifting the shit away from the worthwhile stuff. I treat music exactly like TV. I don't have favorite TV shows, I simply sit down on occasion and watch whatever happens to be on. I never sit down for a regular show. The only regular shows that I sit down for are the ones I get from Netflicks.com that I watch at my own leisure. To put it bluntly, there is more then enough entertainment out there that I don't want to waste my busy day having to look for it or sift out the shit from the worthwhile stuff.
If the Internet used the stupid pricing schemes that the music industry uses, that is to say that you have to pay open a webpage instead of a flat rate regardless of how many webpages you open, I wouldn't use the Internet.
Until someone uses a less asinine pricing scheme, I have all but given up on music. At best I go on the occasional downloading spree in a P2P. I am more then happy to shell out a pile of money each month for a service that simply gives me a massive bank of music to brows at my leisure. Until someone responds to what the market obviously wants, I will just spend my money on other media. There is a reason why Netflicks gets my dollar and Blockbuster doesn't any more.
Re:Allow me to translate... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nelly == Good Music
Brittney == Good Music
???
Re:Allow me to translate... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm.. let's see: Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Wes Montgomery....
Yep, these guys knew nothing about music..
I hope my sarcasm is showing..
Re:Sounds like a front page ad as usual. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
I reward musicians by going to concerts. That is where they make their money. Unfortuately, most artists have sold out to the RIAA to become "rich and famous".
Also, the RIAA take away an artists copyright and then almost always give th