News and Reviews > Best Music Service
tech crunch article comparing music services
JavaJones:
Hear-hear! There are some decent services out there for this. They just need support from big names. It's funny too because it's not like they'd really lose a lot of fans just changing record labels - as long as the same merchandise/media were available (and they could/should be). Considering they'd be making more money on every sale most big artists would probably make heaps more with alternative services like Magnatune. Are they simply afraid of change? I know a lot of them have long-term contracts with the record companies, but that can't account for everything.
There's some hope though. Artists like Wilco and others of semi-renown are pushing the boundaries. Hopefully this trend will continue.
- Oshyan
Carol Haynes:
that is a good point but i doubt it will influence the industry. maybe if allofmp3.com had the backing of the artists that it was selling it would work.
-nudone (June 07, 2006, 01:36 AM)
--- End quote ---
Not sure about that - it was the Napster debacle that forced them into the MSN and iTunes (amongst others) model of internet selling. The music industry beofre that was absolutely opposed to anything but selling plastic.
Carol Haynes:
Now their traditional reasoning has been that marketing, production, and distribution costs are very high and this must be accounted for. Well, you can get rid of production and distribution costs for downloaded music. So shouldn't the music either be less expensive or the artists should get more? In fact neither one is true. Go figure. The music industry is woefully corrupt and hoping to support artists by utlizing its services in any way is a lost cause.-JavaJones (June 10, 2006, 02:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
I listen to a lot of classical music (amongst other types) and regularly find that buying plastic is actually cheaper than downloading from iTunes or the others - even when you take postage into account ... this is just plaine ridiculous.
This is also true for a lot of classic pop music (eg. check out the David Bowie Platinum Collection on iTunes and at Amazon - which would you buy?).
The trouble with the current royalties setup is that as far as I can tell the roaylties still go to the record companies - not the artists.
This isn't a new problem though. I remember an interview with Freddie Mercury after the mega hit Bohemian Rhapsody. They were still driving to gigs in a borrowed van and couldn't afford to rent somewhere to live because they were so screwed by the record company even back in the early 70s.
nudone:
javajones, for what it's worth here's my 'real' opinion on allofmp3.com
i'm not at all interested in how much the online music services charge. i'm not interested in how much they pass on to the artists they are selling.
i've never used one of these online services but i was tempted to use allofmp3.com because they are so cheap to use.
i'm still prepared to use allofmp3.com (or any other company that wants to offer such low prices) but only if i know for sure that they have the blessing of the artists they are selling.
the difference between allofmp3.com and the rest is that the artists have obviously agreed for their music to be sold using the other services. whether they receive 1% or 99% royalties is none of my concern. it's the job of the artists to strike out better deals for themselves or move onto other methods of distributing their music - yes, i'd like to see them break away and find a system where they can be paid directly, but for the moment they appear to be content enough not to want to try.
my only interest in any of the allofmp3.com debate is that i find it odd that people are willing to defend a company that (according to the news articles) is just a load of high tech criminals selling goods that they have no right to be profitting from.
it's so simple i don't know why i'm repeating it: (assuming the news articles are correct) allofmp3.com are a load of thieves. they have absolutely no right to sell what they do. i don't care what the morality of itunes or napster is - it's completely irrelevant to my point.
my point is simply this (and always has been): why pay someone when they do not own what they are selling? why pay someone when they haven't the consent from the manufactures of the goods being passed on? why knowingly pay a criminal for stolen goods?
i don't care where anyone obtains their music from. borrow it. tape it. whatever. all i can object to is paying criminals for the pleasure of getting your music.
where such good mannered fair play appears to exist within the DC community, where everyone here understands the point of donating for software so that the coders are rewarded for their efforts - i have to say i'm absolutely astounded that this isn't reflected in paying musicians for their efforts. even worse is that strange contortions are justified in paying a bunch of criminals in Russia (allegedly) that don't appear to honour any agreement in passing on royalties to those they should.
as soon as allofmp3.com start appearing in the news with headlines like 'musicians love allofmp3.com' then i'll subscribe to them straight away. whilst i keep on seeing 'allofmp3.com are a load of criminals' and then reading the related article does indeed convince me that they are criminals then i'll consider it immoral to use them.
my honest to god true opinion is that i don't really care if musicians around the world don't make enough money from being in the music industry - it's the life they've chosen for themselves.
all i ask is why stick up for a company that behaves in a criminal manner. any company. why champion allofmp3.com, why should anyone defend them when we know they are doing wrong. i'm not preaching for itunes and the rest. i don't care if you copy all of your music collection from a friend, i don't care if you've still got 500 gigs worth of mp3's from the old days of napster.
if there was an online service offering software for sale that they had no right to sell because they didn't pay the authors then wouldn't you think twice about paying?
Carol Haynes:
my point is simply this (and always has been): why pay someone when they do not own what they are selling? why pay someone when they haven't the consent from the manufactures of the goods being passed on? why knowingly pay a criminal for stolen goods?
--- End quote ---
The trouble is that this doesn't seem to be correct.
The people who are the representatives of the music industry - not the artists. They are effectively a trade body that also acts in various illegal ways (like international price fixing which illegal), restrictive practices and victimizing anyone (including artists) who disagree with their views. What the articles express is their opinion of the law.
According to the criminal prosecution services in Russia - where allofmp3 trade - there is no case to answer. They have been repeatedly accused and there have been attempts to take them to court but as of today they have not been charged with any crime - despite the interets of mulitnationals with their lawyers.
If you are going to take partisan statements as true then surely Allofmp3's 'putting the record straight statement must also be taken into account too. They claim to pay all royalties required under Russian law and the organisations responsible for the collection of these fees have confirmed that they do pay what is required under Russian law.
I am not sure how Americans or Brits would react if the Russians started to try and dictate laws applicable in other countries ?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version