Slashdot Mirror

Actually, I was referring to www.mp3.com, which is a lot more analogous to Baen's free library. There are plenty of RIAA acts on the site with mp3s up for download. There are also some mp3s that only allow you to stream it from the site, rather than supporting a plain download.

Compared to file sharing, the available music is extremely limited. On the other hand, compared to the typical Slashdot characterization of the RIAA, it's pretty damn good. And it's legal.

As for your other points, I agree. Record labels should really do more to utilize their older material that they aren't otherwise making money off of. They should offer mix-and-match kiosks. I honestly don't know if we'll ever see it, but they're good ideas.

Baen gives away many items for free (via the Baen free library), but doesn't give away everything. Result: Slashdot-types love them.

RIAA members give away many items for free (via www.mp3.com), but don't give away everything. Result: Slashdot-types vilify them.

Besides, there's also a larger difference between an e-book and a real book versus a properly encoding mp3 and the corresponding original CD track. Reading an e-book is noticeably more awkward than its dead paper equivalent, yet many casual music listeners don't notice the difference between an mp3 and a CD unless they're looking for it.

Actually, I have. You know what I decided to do? Wait a week for the excitement to die down.

Yeah, I'm sure you do that even if there are a bunch of new security vulnerabilities fixed in the release. The script kitties must love you.

after all, it's not copyrighted material, no reason for someone to take it off their FTP site anytime soon!

This is something wankers like you don't understand: open source projects and Linux/FreeBSD ISOs are copyrighted. The authors just license them so anyone can legally distribute them.

As for mp3.com, soon after Universal bought them, they made some wanky policies. They stopped paying royalties unless the artist paid a monthly fee--back then, I believe it was $20/month. Their policy seems to be more relaxed now, but it's not as good as before the takeover. Artists pay them, and they get ad revenue. Doesn't seem fair to me. Sounds like they applied the principles Courtney Love and friends have been complaining about.

Uh, what exactly have they done to you? All I've ever known Yahoo to do is provide free services. I like Yahoo. What have they done?

I'm not going to waste five hours of my time telling why Yahoo has become bad. I'll just say they will do anything to make money, no matter how unethical. Even if you use their store (which pays them money), they'll still sell your private information to the highest bidder. If you do some reasearch, you'll see what I am talking about.

I said:

If you think bandwidth is so cheap, why don't you just pay for the entire world?

You said:

When did I say that?

You implied it. You seem to think anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to create content should foot the bill or have it displayed with tonnes of ads--of which the author doesn't even get paid. That is how the "free" hosting systems work--they get ad revenue to pay for bandwidth, and anything above that is their profit.

If anything, P2P folks think bandwidth is free, as they sit there saturating their pipes 24/7

That is because of the "unlimited" internet access scam. ISPs say their customers have "unlimited" access, but then write their AUP to limit what services are allowed--often to the point only email and the web are permitted. They bait everyone with absurd "unlimited" promises, then switch on confined policies. This isn't limited to P2P. You should see all the bandwidth my roommates waste. If users had to pay for the bandwith they use, they will do something about spyware, viruses, crap filled web pages, and all the other things which waste bandwith. You don't need a P2P program to waste bandwidth.

The whole point of the argument is that with technologies like cars, telephones, guns, knives, etc. we DON'T have 9 out of every 10 users committing crimes with them.

I guarantee you, if people driving cars were treated like P2P users, the situation would change to 9/10 of people who drive cars are criminals. If auto manufacturers were sued into the ground, only organized crime would make cars. If there were snipers on every roof shooting out random car tires, most people would walk. If every time a car drove by, a shopkeeper (or someone claiming to be a shopkeeper) called the police and insisted the driver of the car stole something, only thieves would want to drive a car.

Because of the RIAA, anyone who uses P2P gets shit on. It doesn't matter if they are using it to infringe copyrights or not. In fact, P2P can be used for much more than just trading files. Email and Usenet can be considered P2P systems, would you say they should be illegal too?

Last I heard, CDBaby takes $4 per CD. Of course, they handle warehousing and shipping for you, but then you have to pay to send the CDs to them. For most sales, they also add the standard handling fees that the musician won't see.

So, you could sell your CD for $14 + $2.25 shipping and make $10, or you could sell your CD for $14 + $2.25 and make $15+ before shipping costs. Or, you could sell your CD for $10 + $2 shipping, get about $10 and maybe sell more because of the cheaper price.

As for marketing, you're absolutely right. Labels also take care of weeding the wheat from the chaff (in their opinion), something that indie sales and promotion sites generally don't do (Think of MP3.com). I gather that most musicians want the first problem solved w/o consideration for the second--something that just isn't economically feasible. So for now, you settle for word-of-mouth and hope that sites like CDBaby and FatChuck's Music help you extend the loudness of the mouth.

MABYE THE RIAA SHOULD FOCUS ON MAKING A PRODUCT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR?? if someone wouldnt buy a cd anyway how the FUCK does it hurt the artist if they download teh cd?

Because the artist makes royalties off of the sale of the CD.

And if you're not willing to pay for it, fine, but that doesn't entitle you to steal. Go find music that is being given away for free and listen to that -- there is PLENTY of good, free music available on mp3.com and elsewhere. I mean, shit, go out to a bar sometime and get a CD some local band is giving away for free, you will find LOTS of good music that way.

If the copyright holders decided to give away songs freely as ads for CDs, then that's fine.

But what everybody keeps forgetting is that the choice is THEIR prerogative -- NOT yours, NOT anybody else's.

There's plenty of good free music at mp3.com and other legitimate sources.

Taking copyrighted mp3's off of Kazaa, Morpheus, or whatever is unethical -- yes, unethical:

If you don't like the price they charge, you have no obligation to purchase -- but you have an obligation to not deprive people of their income.

HOLY xor!

isn't mp3.com and all it's artists owned by universal, now? especially considering it just takes artists and then does not let them apply for termination of contract[meaning Every Artist on Mp3.com is Owned by Universal, as is all their content unless otherwise owned by a label/copyrighted/etc before applying for mp3.com/upload?]...this means I am now owned by Apple!!! on the one hand, i've always been more or less a passive apple computers fan but...OMG! ownership rights it seems of my art is transferred to an even bigger company...-~ i don't know whether this is a good thing or not [large corporate entities buying eachother isn't necessarily a good thing]...on the one hand if Apple is pro-P2P technology, and anti-RIAA enough, mabye they may have enough backbone to start pulling things in some direction other than the one things are currently going..-~ of course...or they can become the next -big-brother-.

i personally hope that this is a good thing for musicians and artists...[empowering musicians with technology == a good thing]...but i'm not yet seeing how this would work...

Universal is bought out by Apple then : further integration between technology and content companies. you become part of the "art" system, you become part of the art system. but who would have thought the company that made this system would buy me and tens of thousands of other artists worldwide through universal...it boggles my mind... obligatory beep beep beep link

I think you mean Beatles.
If you did mean Beetles, then that would be the Rolling Beetles!!!

And if the Universal deal goes through, they would be Apple artists!

I guess I have no sympathy for the music biz, and, equally, no sympathy for the Kazaa crowd.

An oldie, but goodie.

www.google.com www.slashdot.org www.fark.com www.drudgereport.com www.regexp.org www.willworkforfood.org www.ryanflynn.com www.mp3.com www.sf.net www.perlmonks.org www.freshmeat.net

• mass-produce something they know they will sell instead of investigating something new
• sell an inferior product to the public while setting their prices arbitrarily
• care only about their own profits while screwing the artists and the consumers.

• mass-produce something they know they will sell instead of investigating something new,
• sell an inferior product to the public while setting their prices arbitrarily
• care only about their own profits while screwing the artists and the consumers.

yo.

here

here

etree.org for a directory huge lossless (true CD quality) legal audio files from FTP sites. Mostly live shows. HUGE files will fill up your space fast.

mp3.com for downloads-a-plenty. All put up there by the musicians, who want you to download them!

Emusic gets my best vote here, because their CDs have a one-click to download all songs on a CD. You can go add say 50 albums to your queue with 50 clicks each night before bed, and fill up your collection pretty fast. (non-windows people use zinf for this one-click capability.)

You can find additional tracks that Stefan has written on http://www.mp3.com/stev/.

Quite a few excellent tunes.

In any case, whether copyright violation was currently criminal or not, my point is that copyright will need a huge enforcement similar to the scope of the war on drugs given the ease of making copies on the internet. That enforcement effort will have a high cost which someone will need to pay. If it is the average tax payer, then it is a subsidy to copyright holders.

As far as the motivation of artists, you do point out a limitation in the studies referenced in that article in that they were mainly not about professionals but about average human subjects in lab studies. Sounds like a good place to do more research -- although it is always hard to do academic style research on professionals.

Still, if what you argued was true, why are so many artists not financially successful in life but keep doing it anyway? I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but it points to the fact that artists create for other reasons than financial rewards (even if financial rewards also have an effect good or bad).

Consider that 99%+ of artists and writers and musicians and photographers in the U.S. do not earn a living at it (novels in drawers, singing at a cafe or with friends, making digital paintings for home display, photographic retouching for home use) and so these artists lose out on a rich public domain which might make their spare time art more enjoyable and productive. Consider how the serious threats implicit in recent copyright criminalization combined with broad interpretation of copyright (covering even similar works) may have a chilling effect on these 99%+ of artists sharing their work, growing in creative expression building on inspiration from media they see around themselves, and in general on people sharing with each other.

Also, there are people giving away their own music for free on the internet -- poke around at: http://www.mp3.com/

However, consider this: frequently an artist's creativity is stifled by being rewarded. That is, publishers and fans generally want more of the same and are willing to pay for it. It takes a very disciplined person to turn this cash down and move into a new area and take creative risks -- but being a good artist often requires this sort of reinvention to keep fresh and growing.

Actually, I would've assumed the same thing as you did autopr0n, but no, the AC wasn't me. We've been around long enough to know that plenty of people hate our music, plenty like it, and some actually love it. Our feelings aren't easily hurt after seven years of doing this.

As for your comments, yep those three songs you mentioned are off our first album ($5K to record) and I'd have to agree that the quality suffered from a number of issues. Not sure what you mean about "Asian decent" but I assume you're referring to our bassist. Hell of a guy.

Now obviously, if you don't like emo/powerpop/indie vibe then you are likely to cringe at anything we write -- nothing wrong with that. However, our second album is what got us signed in the first place (and what I was referring to in my first post), and even though you'd likely hate it, we've received good press on it so I figure I'd advertise it: Three tracks from that album are at MP3.com in case want to be tortured some more. ;-)

Cheers.

The 10/10 rule (which I just invented, but is nonetheless real) states that if you start with $1000 you can build a crappy-to-mediocre recording solution, and that forever thereafter you can increase the quality of the sound 10% by paying 10 times the money.

I have that crappy $1000 solution for some home recording, and produced some decent tunes, using mostly software but also some conventional recording. A buddy of mine, who happens to be a real pro in CD mastering, Greg Reierson of Rare Form, volunteered to master our CD on his fantastic studio equipment, and made it sound *so* much better -- and this was just mastering, after we'd already done all the mixing. Studio reference speakers. My god. I had no idea, just amazing, made my home speakers sound like tin cans.

OTOH, even my crappy home studio is significantly better than the gear that most Beatles albums were recorded on. Don't underestimate the importance of talent -- and that most emphatically includes the talent of recording engineers.

It's like laser printers -- they aren't as good as high-end presses, but they're good enough for the undiscriminating eye. However, just owning one doesn't make somebody a designer, any more than owning MS Access qualifies one as a DBA, or buying AutoCAD makes you an architect. The musical equivalent of the "desktop publishing revolution" is hitting -- anybody can do a halfway decent recording of their stupid crummy songs for very little money if they so choose -- but that doesn't make them John Lennon.

The real question isn't, how much does it cost for a label to record, package, and promote worthless parasites like Britney Spears and John Tesh, but how we're going to build a way to find & support the really good musicians out there who are struggling to create great art with no money. Swapping mp3's without paying Eminem doesn't help support music -- we need a positive solution that puts the money where it belongs, in the hands of musicians and the engineers who make them sound so good for so few bucks.

Dee-lite recorded 80% of their huge selling first album on a Macintosh in their living room. Megadeth recorded their first album for $4000 after blowing the other half of their budget on drugs.

If it takes $250,000 to make you sound good, hang it up.

$0, Pure Gold

Forget a cheap T-shirt. Let's all chip in and get her an IPOD filled with MP3s of bands who have released their music in MP3 form. We can include major label talent like Wilco and unsigned acts like Phantom Stranger and HEX. Fill it up with your favorites from MP3.com or any other site that you like. Just make sure that they are all legal MP3s.

In fact, let's get two: One for Hillary and one for whoever replaces her. Then they can no longer claim ignorance of all the music out there that is legal to share.

Very true. The main problem with looking for stuff over at mp3.com and what not is that one needs a broadband connection and some patience. Patience because Sturgeon's Law is definitely in force with those kinds of sites; I usually have to download five or six songs from different bands to get one that is listenable (ObShamelessPlug). Broadband, because downloading and sifting through that many mp3s is downright painful on a dialup. I've done it; never again.

The other problem is that, there is a pretty strong herd mentality with music. Many people don't just want to listen to a band; they want the feeling that they are part of a community of people who listen to the same band.

Because of a combination of these factors, I bought a CD by an RIAA supported band today. I know these guys' music; I know that even their weaker songs will be listenable. I am part of an online group of fans; I know I can share my experiences of listening to this album with them. I didn't have to wait for a download, and I don't have to worry about mp3 compression artifacts.

- Sam

Others, like Rednecks (sp?) went on to release quasi-popular novelty songs, among other things (Cotton Eyed Joe).

DJ MANTICORE - Music to Shag To

But just go here, for now:

For Links To Cool Underground Geek-ish Hip-Hop

For Links To Cool Metal Stuff

actually, i have found mp3.com to be kind of cool and useful for certain things. i found some cool local bands that way. i lvoe finding new bands that no one has heard of and making my friends listen to them. i prefer to do taht with local bands and i found mp3.com to be the easiest way to discover local bands, other than listening to this radio show called local bands on WPLR 99.1 in the new haven area of connecticut. they play music from local bands for half an hour every sunday night at like 10 or 10:30. it's pretty good, although some of the bands suck.

another good way to discover other bands is to look at other bands members of your favorite bands have played with, or opening acts for your favorite bands. they usually have something in common (or sometimes don't, but that's rare). go to a small club or bar in your area and listen to a band or bands for like $5-10. go to the whole thing, not just the "headliner". a lot of times the openers (usually 1-2, sometimes 3) are decent bands. of course that doesn't always happen as i went to see psychedelic breakfast (i went to grammar school with their guitarist) one time at toad's place in new haven (they were opening for max creek that night) and the other opening band, spiral trace, was a high school band that absolutely sucked, so we just left, not seeing the other bands. we ended up getting drunk at yale instead, which wasn't a bad idea at the time. :) if you live in the new haven area, or anywhere in connecticut, toad's is a good place to check out. also pyschedelic breakfast and max creek are on mp3.com if they are new to you and you want to check out their music.

my last suggestion is to join any email discussion lists pertaining to the bands you like or the types of music you like. etree.org has a some discussion lists that pertain to taper/trader friendly bands. always a good way to find new music. so good luck on your music search, i'm sure you'll find a lot out there.

Cavort With Whores[mp3.com]

mp3.com is my favorite place to locate new music, but if you don't like Techno it seems rather weak...

Artists like Hermit Bastard and EDGEY have plenty of material that I've used in my college radio show.

Their Gabber genre (and the genre system in general) has a lot of new sounds to explore.

For non-electronic music I've yet to find anything that compares with the exposure to local/new music you get from working in a college radio station.

mp3.com is my favorite place to locate new music, but if you don't like Techno it seems rather weak...

Artists like Hermit Bastard and EDGEY have plenty of material that I've used in my college radio show.

Their Gabber genre (and the genre system in general) has a lot of new sounds to explore.

For non-electronic music I've yet to find anything that compares with the exposure to local/new music you get from working in a college radio station.

It may not be the answer you were looking for, but Tool covers just about everything I look for in music.

Of course if you were looking for other stuff that doesn't come from a record company then this place has a pretty decent search feature of downloadable mp3s.

Obviously, Pacman sucked because the programmer didn't get high enough... I love this story:

This episode tries to capture the spirit of what it was like to actually work at Atari, an environment that was both a product of the
times - the free-wheeling '70s - and the need to hire anyone who could program the 2600, a feat that ranged from difficult to impossible.
This quote from Todd (Pac-Man) Frye is typical: "They were having a problem getting a programmer to do the Atari 2600 Xevious.
Xevious was a very graphically active game in the arcades, and the Atari 2600 was not really a very graphically active machine. So I
went home - I smoked this joint, with a little psilocybin and a little cocaine in it - and all of a sudden it sprang full forth in my mind
exactly how to do it. And that was the moment of inspiration."


From "Once Upon Atari: The Agony and the Ecstasy"

Fuck your god

any game that involves deer or turkey hunting...

Hip-Hop for Geeks

There's no way to guarantee that the song you just wrote doesn't happen to be similar to a song you may or may not have heard when you were 6.

Does this mean that if I don't want to go to prison for failing to have enough income to make payments on damages from a copyright infringement lawsuit, I should simply avoid composing and having published musical works that I reasonably claim to have written?

Have music publishers been asking you to make that guarantee?

Yes. Music publishers and record labels require in their contracts that all works submitted by the artist are original works that do not infringe on the rights of a third party. Here are some sample contracts:

• BeSonic terms of service (PDF) section 4
• Film Music Magazine sample video game music composition contract section 9
• Film Music Magazine sample film music composition contract section "Warranty and Certificate of Authorship"
• MP3.com New Artist Music Submission Agreement section 4.5

Are you asking because you've discovered that you've unconciously done this?

Yes. Several times, I have wrote a song that I thought was original, and then a couple weeks later, I heard it on an oldies station. I have talked to others who have had the same problem, but they provided no solution as to how to avoid the problem in the general case. Though I caught myself before publishing anything, I'm afraid that next time I won't be so lucky.

I emailed Santa for my daughters last night, at Santa@northpole.com. I got a bounce back from Santa saying he had to close that account due to spam...

How George Stole Xmas
A Homeland Security Christmas Carol...

No, but they advertised it then

OptimumOnline never advertised the ability to upload. Rather, OptimumOnline advertised the ability to download.

"How George Stole Xmas"

Vocals start after a minute or so...

And all the cool geeks that will help implement it.

I'm kidding. Fuck you.

I'm still waiting for the BeOS version.

Why do I even bother posting this link?

Regards,

John, once again lamenting the human condition

Falling You -- exploring the beauty of voice and sound

The point of them, though, is that the value of the network, HOWEVER you choose to define it (economically, culturally, socially, metaphysically, whatever . . . ), grows in the proportions suggested by these laws.

For Reed's Law, for instance, you might more properly say "the value of the network grows in proportion to the number of nodes raised to the power of the number of nodes".

This isn't saying anything about how much the network is worth, but rather, how much one network is worth in comparison to another network of different size.

For instance, a network that connects two people might have value of $0.0000000000000000001. Then by Reed's Law, a network connecting 1000 people has value $0.0000000000001. And (again by Reed's Law) a network connecting 6 billion people has a value of 36 cents.

Wo-wee! I just proved *scientifically* that maximum possible theoretical worth of the internet is 36 cents. Quick, somebody hand me my No-bel Prize!

Seriously . . . the point of these laws is the theoretical **relative** worth of networks with greater or fewer interconnections.

They arrive at these laws by starting with the assumption that the value of the network is proportional to the number of possible connections it can make (this is where you're getting hung up). But it's a pretty reasonable assumption, because the reason people get on a network is to make connections.

But you're going to say, theoretically there a trillions of possible connections on the internet, but even interconnecting continually at the maximum possible rate I could never actually make use of more than a few million of them! So all the rest must be worthless . . .

Well, this is kind of like the phone system--theoretically I can call billions of people, but in reality I mostly just use it to call my girlfriend. So that one connection is valuable and the other 999,999,999 are, practically for me, worthless.

But what happens when I get a new girlfriend? On a vastly interconnected phone network, the new girlfriend is likely to be there, too. Whereas on a small, piddly network she's not likely to be there. So you have to judge the utility of a network not just on the actual usage, but potential usage. When I need to make a new connection to someone, is that someone likely to be on the network, or not?

With this underlying assumption, it makes pretty good sense to say that the value of the network is proportional to the number of interconnections it can make (note, again, that key word, proportional).

So, starting with this assumption, they then analyze how many possible interconnections are created by the network. The math to work it all out is quite simple. (If you have a group of people, and each person can have a conversation with any other single person, then how many different 2-person "liasons" are possible? When you work this out, you come up with Reed's law . . . well, not Reed's Law, but something proportional to Reed's Law, which for our purposes is the same thing . . . )

How much actual value any particular connection has (or whether it has any real value at all) is, I suppose, up to those who are on the network . . .

--Brent Hugh

Music of the Human Genome on Mp3.com

Clealy sir is powermad.

Rock that shit, homie

I just want the websites I work on viewed and enjoyed.. the money is just a bonus.

Oh wait, I have bills to pay! Excuse me if I'm greedy and want to be paid for my work.

Most musicians, painters, sculptors, and authors know that they have almost no real chance of "making it big." They know that there isn't even a real chance of making enough money to pay their bills. Yet they continue to create anyway. Why? Because they have passion for their work. They must create, even if it isn't profitable. They want to share their works with others.

Sure, they'd like to make enough money from their work to pay their bills, but that's not really a choice they have. They don't have a "make money or give away work" choice. They have a "give away work and share it with others or hoard work and have no one else ever see it". Given this choice, many would chose to give it away in a moment. (And based on the large amount of legal and free web comics, software, mp3s, and other creative works online, it looks like many people agree.)

This is the difference between your website work and the work of artists. Apparently to you it's just a way to make money. To an artist, it's something that they're driven to do, something they must do. If they can't make money, it's a shame, butthey'll take a small fan base and no money over no fans at all.

I disagree, tho there was "Big Buzz" in the 90's Trip-Hop is listed HERE ON as a sub genere of down tempo, with many new artists listed

I am so happy! I'm doin' the Snoopy dance!

Regards,

John, doin' the Snoopy dance

Falling You -- exploring the beauty of voice and sound

"Typos, misspellings?

Whatever, dude..."

Gangsta Geek Rap

You notice that it says free...It doesn't break down if they were download illegally from a filesharing service or if it was from legitiatmate sources, such as DMusic.com or Mp3.Com or for that matter the artist's websites?

Free does not neccesarily mean "stolen". Sounds like you've bought into the RIAA position lock stock and yardarm.

OK, for all to know. You need buzz-tracker. Its freeware, has a million simulated machines (drum machines, effects, reverb, flange, distortion, physically modelled instruments). Its completely pluggable. It can be found at djLasers site or at BuzzMachines.com. Try to download the biggest pack possible. It runs on Windows, just FYI. If you want to hear some stuff made on it, you can check out dTx Productions. Some of the songs towards the top there were made entirely in Buzz with no mastering. I wish somebody would take Buzz into sourceforge, and attach a different IDE to it. The current is very usable, but it could be better. Anyways, hope that helps.

Actually, I am getting the sense that Slashdot is becoming more and more dominated by mp3 traders who spout empty slogans like "Information wants to be free" or "Oh, I don't like the cost of CDs, so it's perfectly OK for me to copy them and share them with all my friends".

The problem with these kinds of people is that it is obvious that such people are really not concerned with the people who make the music in question; they are only concerned about getting the fruit of those people's labor at the lowest possible cost.

When comments like this get moderated down, I know too many people who blindly support self-serving file trading and have no consideration for the people who actually make the music are becoming moderators.

Let me put my position out there: I am opposed to any type of software piracy. I think Microsoft software costs too much, so I use Linux. I think most CDs cost too much, so I go over to mp3.com or buy the RAP CD ($15, 4 CDs full of music) instead of buying mainstream music. I think most movies and TV suck, so I only watch movies or TV as a social gathering. Instead, I hang out with college students or go online.

Yes, I am opposed to legislated technological solutions because they make anyone with a digital recorder guilty. The RIAA's efforts of 15 years ago, which created the HRRA, killed the DAT audio format. I am sure that the RIAA, unfrettered, would destroy the PC revolution.

- Sam

You're backwards. It takes one highly literate propeller head to support Linux, and an army of mole-people to support Windows.

Was done by Amiga Artist Jim Sachs, who did a lot of great games like 'Defender of the Crown'. Damn I miss the Amiga. Why don't we ever hear about the new Amigas on Slashdot?

Drugs and Geekiness Don't Mix

Now, i'm sure they had other things in that update, and it wasn't just on my account, but they thought it important enough to roll it in anyway. I thought that was the coolest thing :-)

Regards,

John

Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.mp3.com/fallingyou