Slashdot Mirror

no score +1 and post anonymously..

i was trying not to shamelessly promote - but mp3.com page[mp3.com] should do it.

its dumb pop, its fun.... its bad, but hey its free.

Girl bands? Try MadelynIris If you like experimental stuff, 2NU. Punk? The Real McKenzies. I could go on, but let us know what style of music you like!

Girl bands? Try MadelynIris If you like experimental stuff, 2NU. Punk? The Real McKenzies. I could go on, but let us know what style of music you like!

Girl bands? Try MadelynIris If you like experimental stuff, 2NU. Punk? The Real McKenzies. I could go on, but let us know what style of music you like!

Girl bands? Try MadelynIris If you like experimental stuff, 2NU. Punk? The Real McKenzies. I could go on, but let us know what style of music you like!

Girl bands? Try MadelynIris If you like experimental stuff, 2NU. Punk? The Real McKenzies. I could go on, but let us know what style of music you like!

Girl bands? Try MadelynIris If you like experimental stuff, 2NU. Punk? The Real McKenzies. I could go on, but let us know what style of music you like!

i'm really frustrated with the way the web is going.

sometimes i think the federal government should just take it over and say "fuck it, it's a free national infrastructure for everyone -- register here, put your content here, the hell with it".

for example, the large city libraries could become information nodes, a server farm on one end, access at the other, and high bandwidth to the local cable or telco infrastructure.

i hate to put it this way, but the riaa and mpaa are abberations that steal our freedoms. we, as primates, are natually inquisitive and expressive, in both an auditory and visual sense. for industries to claim they have an inherent right to profit from either side is simply a localized abberation in time against human rights.

visual and auditory products are so easily replicated, and it's such a fine line between parody and duplication, that individual rights (or perhaps individual activites) will, at some point, destroy the visual and auditory monopolies. i firmly beleive stardom, famous actors, and guitar gods will become a thing of the past at some point.

if you have a tangible, physical product, you make money on markup. if you have audio or visual entertainment, you make money on advertising. the powers-that-be may not like it, but they are so screwed, i don't see how they can win in the long run.

simply put, i buy three or four magazine subscriptions. they cost me about $120 a year. i'm not going to "subscribe" to web sites. not gonna happen...at least not yet. the closest thing i've seen to something i'd pay for is yahoo. they have pretty good news, quality personals, lots of informative links. if they had audio and visual, and said they need subscribers to stay alive, i'd pay for them.

same for google. i'd be pretty adamant about a "one-stop" portal, maybe $36 a year, with access to a wide variety of services.

after 25 years of modems you have to question whether the private sector is (in any way) up to the task. federal control of bandwidth and storage could go a long way toward moving the web forward.

my favorite area of mp3.com is :

comedy and satire

...some of the music areas are cool, but a lot of it is real crap.

I think you mean they were inching toward a glory hole. Gortician has made nearly that much with boombox practice tapes and old four-track songs. The best things on mp3.com are old bands. D.R.I. is on there. Dig around, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I think it's crazy that so many people "hate" mp3.com, when they are doing something a lot more important than buggy-ass non-Winpeek()ing Napster ever did. Exposure for new artists is crucial, not swapping major label bands that noone really gives a fuck about next month.

Mp3.com Picks:

GuntGrutcher - Heaviest band in the world. True cyber ultra grind, not that weak shit.
Festering Sore - Ok, don't tell anyone this is a secret side project between Jason Gortician and Lord Vic of Rampage
Doris - Holy fuck! Listen to "Doris Abortions".

Ok, it's mostly good for metal/grind/hardcore people. But if you're not one of them to some degree, you're a pussy.
The rap on mp3.com is shit. Many of the "normal" genres are full of fogettable crap along the lines of "Savage Garden", or some such shit band bland enough for a major.
Oh yeah! TINC Project There is no Cabal! - Usenet's best performance art made aural. Listen to "Snuh Music". It has soundbites from when Rikijo actual SE'd his way into Gortician's account.

High-C - You punks can't rap. The guy they banned from Everything2.com

Stops raising the damn prices of CDs!!!! They have been slowly yet steadily raising the price, ugh! It now costs the same to download a CD as it used to buy one, grrrr.

Are you sure that's all MP3.com's fault? According to their Help section for musicians, the artists are setting prices on their own CDs. MP3.com just sets the limits on the minimum/maximum price (currently $3.99 and $30.00, respectively) for the downloaded CDs, then adds $3.99 to determine the price of the physical CD.

Maybe too many artists bought into the hype they can get rich off the Internet? Or (more likely), they raised their CD prices to compensate for not being in the "Pay for Play" system?

Musicians don't always make sensible business choices when it comes to pricing CDs. (After all, if they knew everything about selling music, they'd probably run a record company.) For example, I've found one singer who charges $6.99 and $10.98 for the netCD and DAM versions of her CD, when the real thing only costs $6.49 through her label's web site. I like her music, but I have to wonder what she's thinking there....

Stops raising the damn prices of CDs!!!! They have been slowly yet steadily raising the price, ugh! It now costs the same to download a CD as it used to buy one, grrrr.

Are you sure that's all MP3.com's fault? According to their Help section for musicians, the artists are setting prices on their own CDs. MP3.com just sets the limits on the minimum/maximum price (currently $3.99 and $30.00, respectively) for the downloaded CDs, then adds $3.99 to determine the price of the physical CD.

Maybe too many artists bought into the hype they can get rich off the Internet? Or (more likely), they raised their CD prices to compensate for not being in the "Pay for Play" system?

Musicians don't always make sensible business choices when it comes to pricing CDs. (After all, if they knew everything about selling music, they'd probably run a record company.) For example, I've found one singer who charges $6.99 and $10.98 for the netCD and DAM versions of her CD, when the real thing only costs $6.49 through her label's web site. I like her music, but I have to wonder what she's thinking there....

I have been an artist on mp3.com for about 3 years, and at first I thought it was a great place for an independant artist such as myself to promote my music, however as soon as commercial bands began having sites there I believe that mp3.com turned too much into something mtv-esque. For instance there are schlock bands such as the pre-made-on-tv O-town hosted there now. After that I decided I would add all new material to besonic.com, a great site which is populated mostly by independant artists. As for the payback for playback, I didn't really make enough money to warrent the 20$ a month it cost to stay in the program. I also believe that that program caused some artists to become greedy. Now they want visitors to pay aswell? I don't see it as being worth it. For all I know, I would say MP3.COM IS DYING. Perhaps they have suffered one suit too many.

Since I am not a music industry guru, I sit back and wonder why more independent music isn't free on the Internet.

I sit back and wonder how you managed not to discover MP3.com, Trax in Space, and other similar sites that showcase independent music.

Are most like my musician friends from high school - just waiting to make millions when they are discovered by a big recording label?

I believe that the people in the music business solely for the money do not deserve to be in the music business. Very few artists make millions of US dollars; Courney Love did the math on a typical recording contract and found that the majority of royalties that appear to go back to the artist actually go toward "recoupable" expenses.

(My largest barrier to composing music is coming up with an original melodic hook so I don't get sued. Any hints?)

You know, I tried to ditch the "Brobdingnagian" name, but our fans threatened to lynch us. (seriously)

And you'd be surprised though how many people are familiar with it...sure it's probably less than 5%, but we meet enough educated people now and then...or at least meet someone who's read "Gulliver's Travels."

So now the big job is educating the fans. Mayhaps in time.

MARC GUNN, BARD of the Brobdingnagian Bards
http://mp3.com/thebards?em
A bard by any other name...has a shorter name!

Then again trance[]control has made ~$2500 this month alone. And I'm sure there are others doing better. So what's the point exactly?

True. The main reason is that until the past few months I didn't do any self-promotion at all; and even now, I don't do very much. The reason is because I have a day job, and I'm pretty happy doing what I do for a living (coding!). But my friend who DOES want to do music for a living does a much better job, and (as you say) makes like a bandit.

Wow I should really look closer at my own links. I thought Anet was doing well, but the top bands make that much in a month. Flickerstick (the winning band from VH1's "Bands on the Run") has made a staggering $20,292.75! The Offspring has made over $40k! Freaky.

Wow I should really look closer at my own links. I thought Anet was doing well, but the top bands make that much in a month. Flickerstick (the winning band from VH1's "Bands on the Run") has made a staggering $20,292.75! The Offspring has made over $40k! Freaky.

It seems that you've only made $250 total, and you're up to $37 this month. How much of that do you see? I notice you haven't sold a single CD this month; is this typical for a given month?

One Mp3.com artist I'm rather fond of, Anet, apparently makes off like a bandit. Comparatively, that is.

It seems that you've only made $250 total, and you're up to $37 this month. How much of that do you see? I notice you haven't sold a single CD this month; is this typical for a given month?

One Mp3.com artist I'm rather fond of, Anet, apparently makes off like a bandit. Comparatively, that is.

I'm an independent musician on mp3.com, and I want people to download my music and spread it on Napster (well I did, until Napster started to suck. OK, WinMx then.) It's all about exposure. Nobody will hear my music on the radio, mp3.com and Napster et al are my best venues to advertise.

MP3.com made compressed copies of about 900,000 songs, which it placed on its computer servers -- without obtaining the rights to do so.

I wish they gave more details, this makes no sense. mp3.com makes you click-sign an agreement saying that this is all OK.

The MPzip 3-inch MP3/CD Player has been available for a while now.

Personally, I think the relatively small capacity and dubious availability of 3" CDRs make these players a poor choice.

You're better off with a full size MP3 CD player or a big memory unit like an Intel Pocket Concert Audio Player if you need the smaller size.

The MPzip 3-inch MP3/CD Player has been available for a while now.

Personally, I think the relatively small capacity and dubious availability of 3" CDRs make these players a poor choice.

You're better off with a full size MP3 CD player or a big memory unit like an Intel Pocket Concert Audio Player if you need the smaller size.

95% of all the music on my CDs is legally free for download over the internet, and the rest is stuff that you couldn't find on a commercial CD if you tried, because it is released by the original artist/remixer over Napster, WinMX, etc. While I have in my posession some pirated music, a lot of the stuff I got off of Napster was 100% legal in one way or another (example: my mp3 of Weird Al's Amish Paradise is legal because I had the tape and not the CD at the time, thus I couldn't [easily and with comparable quality] rip my own MP3 to put on my comp. example2: The Tetris Techno Remix that starts with a synth-voice saying "Let's play some Tetris motherfucker" is, last I checked, not a commercial song. Example3: pulse120's red planet is free for download at his mp3.com artist page) In other words, my use of Napster has largely not detracted from CD sales, and yet the RIAA doesn't let me use it to get free music that I couldn't find anywhere else. Leave it to the people in power to screw everyone else over.

If its a business, the big playersll just buy it out like they do everyone else. Otherwise, can a non-profit organization (offical NPO status granted by the government) be formed to sell something?

Anyhow, Skaven is also releasing music, check out www.mp3.com/skaven, as well as doing art on Max Payne for Remedy.

Oh, and what do you know?! Purple Motion has more tracks up properly at www.mp3.com/purplemotion. Cool!

But when you think of Carmack being id, and Sweeney being Epic, you should also think of Psi as being the Future Crew. He was the genius who did all the really cool coding. Real name Sami Tammilehto, he also wrote the famous Screamtracker MOD trackers.

Last I heard he was working at Bitboys (or was it Pyramid 3D?) doing a new chipset. Slashdot even did a story on it here. I'd love to see an interview with Sami, he was a real genius. It seems sad that these demo guys didn't get the recognition they deserved in the USA, probably because they weren't making a product they could sell (like games).

Mental Surgery, Panic, Unreal, Second Reality. Ah, incredible memories :) (..foBik/CyberSquad)

Anyhow, Skaven is also releasing music, check out www.mp3.com/skaven, as well as doing art on Max Payne for Remedy.

Oh, and what do you know?! Purple Motion has more tracks up properly at www.mp3.com/purplemotion. Cool!

But when you think of Carmack being id, and Sweeney being Epic, you should also think of Psi as being the Future Crew. He was the genius who did all the really cool coding. Real name Sami Tammilehto, he also wrote the famous Screamtracker MOD trackers.

Last I heard he was working at Bitboys (or was it Pyramid 3D?) doing a new chipset. Slashdot even did a story on it here. I'd love to see an interview with Sami, he was a real genius. It seems sad that these demo guys didn't get the recognition they deserved in the USA, probably because they weren't making a product they could sell (like games).

Mental Surgery, Panic, Unreal, Second Reality. Ah, incredible memories :) (..foBik/CyberSquad)

Personally I have a two sided approach to the format. Firstly I have a reasonable collection of MP3 files to complement my rather large CD collection, and the majority of those files are encoded at 192kpbs. I have no idea why people encode MP3's at any less than 160, and i've put it forward to MP3.com to accept files of higher than 128 (why 128! - this is supposed to be a site for musicians!).

Secondly, as I am a musician myself, and one who has accumulated a large number of samples and beats, I've recently employed compression onto my primarily WAV sample collection. What I chose was the OGG format as it allows me to encode at 350kps, reducing most of my files to a quarter of their original size, and still retain a high level of quality (for perfect quality mixes, the original files can always be resourced). The primary reason why I switched to OGG though is that its always free!, every music application I use exports and imports OGG files, and I don't have to register a damn third party encoder / decoder to use it.

I think either format is acceptable for listening (if they've been encoded correctly), and I think acceptability will come down to how well their implemented - for example the P2P search engines such as Audiogalaxy. This is the best example of post-napster music-engine, and its a pity its MP3-centric.

Chris Fraew Andrews

I think you are completly wrong!!!! I mean there is a lot of great talent on mp3.com. There are many great artist out there just starting out. My girlfriend being one of them. So if like listening to good music that might jsut scare you check out Naomi Hall @ mp3.com. So there, that proves you wrong in your statement of mp3.com being full of Crapola. And the rest of your argument just makes me laugh...
:o)

I like game dev for one... very good mag.

anyone have other favorites?

subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue

why use something like direct x when opengl is an open standard with sourcecode and specification open to all?

It's scary that so many people are relying on M$'s proprietary graphicx technology. at any time they could discontinue it, or change the API in such a way to make all games broken. I wouldn't put it past them.

subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue

is 1.4 backward compatible? 1.3 and 1.4 are a direct3d thing, what about opengl?

so what if we all just use opengl instead? open standard etc... would definately worth it to pressure the ARB to extend their spec to shaders.... NVIDIA shader extensions would have to be uses cause the opengl ARB is very slow in adopting new standards (like pixel shading)

subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue

SGIs are so slow. The thing that make them fast are their mobo. Very fast bus, multichannels, etc... Their processors are ok, but price vs value doesn't make sense.

really they only make sense when you're finely tuning your code to them, but you can't expect all software to be written to take advantage of them.

so, IMHO a render of farm of PIIIs would be much faster in certain cases. and definately makes much more sense for cost. Renderman is free, the hardware is virtually free (real cheap). Expand your farm to make it faster.

I didn't even touch the subject of GeForce vs Onyx3. For most rendering (especially architechture/games/etc..) geforce is going to kick SGI onyx.

subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue

at least the "graphics jargon" is useful to some of us...

subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue

another thought. hoaw about mind control? how soon before the gov tries out some nano mind control. maybe not on their people, but maybe the supposed "enemy"?

subatomic
http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue

I wonder how long it is before countries around the world unleash lethal nanobots into foriegn water supplies? A lot like Neal S's diamond age with all that "toner", but what about the nanos that actually do get into humans and cause some damage?

subatomic

http://www.mp3.com/subatomicglue

Am I the only one that see's the positive light in MP3.Com as it SHOULD be taken. I'm an MP3.com artist myself, and I've ammassed a massive $1.60 in earnings over the past few months. THIS DOES NOT BOTHER ME IN THE SLIGHTEST. I am a musician, and what I see as being great about MP3.com, is the fact that around 700 people who may have never even heard my music in their life have now done so - and I've gotten positive comments from all over the world and I've even made contacts. Although I'm glad every time my $ raise a little (hey I might have enough cash one day to send myself a CD of myself!), its not the reason I joined and its certainly not the reason I stay on MP3.com. I think the readers on Slashdot (which I know a fair proportion of actual perform music) should stop worrying about whether they can download the Madonna song thats on the radio ALL THE TIME anyway, and appreciate the service for what it actually provides.

Chris Fraew Andrews
Email me!

Although people do have the taste of free music in their mouths now, it doesn't follow to say that this will revolutionise the music industry/business or how people interact w/ music (cd or mp3.

since napster's death, it's been pretty hard to get easy access to mp3s of non-famous bands.[1] gnutella, limewire, imesh, etc, are all great and stuff, but they're missing the one factor that made napster stand head and shoulders above the others: they're not massively popular.

napster's popularity was both it's blessing and it's demise: users knew of it and joined up, making lots of diverse music available. then again, companies (and metallica[2], and dr. dre, etc.) also knew of it, making it a great target.

napster is(was) probably the main reason that broadband was making as good headway into homes as it was. now that there's no large centralised version of it (or similar) there's not going to be a whole lot of reason to switch over from dial-up to cable/dsl (for most consumers in the U.S., anyway.) i'm pretty sure that this is the result of apathy and nothing else; if you're shopping for something on the web, do you really care if amazon.com loads a little slower on your dial-up? do you feel the need to look through cdnow at cable/DSL speeds?

mp3.com's songs as advertising model isn't working very well for most people simply because you (the artist whose sonsg are on the mp3.com site) have to pay to use it (afaik, i haven't been to mp3.com in quite a while). basically it only really works for already established acts, like whitehouse. other acts who don't have a lot going for them (advertising or underground following-wise,) aren't really going to make money doing that.

[1] real world example: i'm a big fan of a recording project of bryn jones, who recorded under the name muslimgauze or http://pretentious.net/muslimgauze for the goatse.cx paranoid. there's a lot of records of his out there. (to give you an idea: he died in january of 1999; since then, there have been roughly 37 releases of his music, most of them NOT re-issues). so anyway, trying to sample the records is a bit of a pain, cos some are GREAT and others are absolute shit. napster helped me decide to get a few discs i would otherwise have skipped over.

[2] who have sucked ever since '91's "the black album". i know it's cheap to make a dig based on personal opinions of art, but hey: if you suck, expect to get called on it.

-d.
--
Slashdot: When News Breaks, We Give You The Pieces

Really? How can you explain the 1,000,000+ tracks from 150,000+ artists available for free on MP3.com? The reality is that most artists (the ones who don't make any money from their art) want the widest possible distribution of their music. The best way to do that is to make it available for free. But, after they find fame and are finally able to charge for their music, they want to stop contributing to the public domain. I don't have a problem with this; those first songs were just the equivalent of a "loss leader" in product marketing. They were the price of building a brand.

My proposal doesn't necessarily require an authorized member of the band to submit approval, although I initially presented it that way. It hinges on the idea that anyone can submit music for sharing. A distributed MP3.com, if you will. A large network of moderators (probably voluntary, a la Slashdot but probably with more qualifications than pure random selection) would approve songs for distribution. How about a hybrid opt-in/out: Napster could filter opt-in requests with the opt-out database it currently keeps, relaxing it to reduce the false-positives. Let the human moderators manage the false-negatives.

A simple reporting mechanism would fastrack songs to be removed. Ever surf HotOrNot.com? I don't know the mechanics, but there's a link to click if a picture is "broken, copyrighted, or inappropriate." If enough "basic" users report a song or a single moderator (or a record label or the original artist), the song gets yanked.

Napster will never develop a filter that will reliably differentiate copyrighted from noncopyrighted songs. It's as absurd as claiming I can build an OS that's uncrackable. We humans are pretty clever-- we'd figure out how to get around it in no time. Which is exactly what the record companies want-- Napster beat them to the punch with electronic distribution, and they want their piece of the pie.

Of course there are a ton more kinks to my idea. But I think the broader solution of opt-in would be more successful than their current opt-out strategy. Someone else mentioned eDonkey2000; I love their concept of "slices" (my term)-- if I'm on my broadband connection and ten people connected to the net via modem have the song I want, I can download different "slices" of the song from them simultaneously, aggregating their bandwidth. Finally, all those modem user libraries don't go to waste!

There are tons like that. The one I'm thinking of gettig is this one. Audio CD, or file CDs (CDR and CDRW), and a steering wheel remote. For $299. Forgetaboutit. The cheapest one on that page is $199, though it doesn't do CDRW.

There are tons like that. The one I'm thinking of gettig is this one. Audio CD, or file CDs (CDR and CDRW), and a steering wheel remote. For $299. Forgetaboutit. The cheapest one on that page is $199, though it doesn't do CDRW.

But what about all these artists at mp3.com ?

Most of them can't afford 2000$...

Sod it! At the end of the day, people should just listen to what they like and ignore all the trends, hype and even their friends opinions. Anyway, if you do believe in 'looking cool' by beating all your mates to listening to band 'x' then I can highly recommend checking out tRANSELEMENt who dump on 99.9% of contemporary acts from a great height! Avante Garde? Check. Punk? Check. Techno? Check. Good pop? Check. Electronica? Check. Psyche..... the list goes on!

Personally, I hate the idea of being spoon-fed a steady diet of this band or that artist and told this is cool and that is not. And well, I won't bow down to that. But I think what is important for us to grab from this article is not "how do we change who determines what is cool (a la GPL type music referral system), but rather to give a wake up call to the people.

Our society is built upon this whole money-driven system that determines what music is hot, what trends are cool, what clothing you just gotta buy and even what car to drive. If our society really wants to have this life of individuality, then it also needs to start thinking and purchasing for itself--not driven by marketing and advertising types. One of the most pathetic examples of being driven by marketing and advertising was seeing someone driving down the street in a gray Ford Focus with the license plate "Duuude". That's great and all if they honestly did that out of their own volition, but really now... it was just a commercial.

And regarding one other user's comment:

Well, there are three major corporations that manufacture all American cars. And only a couple of major U.S. banks. And only a handful of large retailers left. And only a couple telcos left. And so on.

Consolidation saves money. That's how things are done, and all the bitching in the world on Slashdot isn't going to change things. Fighting the music companies is a lost cause because they will always win.

I'm not sure if I agree with you. Every Goliath has its weak spot. The only way they can continue to win is if we continue to buy into their crap. I hate to use this example, but I'm going to anyway: in the movie A Bug's Life, when the ants realized that there were more of them and less of the grasshoppers, they were able to overcome the grasshoppers. Ambitious, yes. A big ideal, most certainly. But far-fetched, perhaps not.

But I guess if you are content being spoon-fed crap, then by all means buy into the recording industry's crap. But there is much freedom in exploring the artists who aren't well-known and who create and perform music because it's their PASSION, not necessarily their JOB.

As much as mp3.com and Vitaminic may have a lot crap on their sites, they've also got a lot of great artists who just have little visibility. Take some time and check out all the great indie artists out there. Seriously!

Free Your Mind.

Michael
dock72 music group

While the independent music market has been revolutionized with technologies that allow the indie to create, publish and promote their music, we've seen such an explosion in the industry that I think it has become increasingly difficult to be heard.

If you take mp3.com, they've got thousands upon thousands of artists in their system; and unless you've got the cash and working extra hard to promote your music, website, etc., you're just a drop in the bucket of hundreds of thousands of independent artists. Not only is that an issue for the independent artists, but also for the end consumer. With so many choices--and many of them poorly produced, recorded, written, etc.--the independent artists out there are generally given (or contributing to) this stereotype of a less-than-professional and poor-quality music category... the indie. (like the kid down the block who just downloaded a hacked version of Acid and Cool Edit Pro, bought a cheap radio shack microphone and is now a self proclaimed artist).

While there are a number of quality independent artists out there (and I've worked with a number of them on various projects), there are infinitely more artists out there who do a half-assed job at presenting their art. Does the technology really revolutionize the industry? Sure it does, for the hard-working and refined artists out there. But I think that it has created this illusion, that just because indie's have the power to create, publish and promote their own material, quality can be overlooked as merely an optional element in their music.

I think the indie artists of today need to ask themselves some pretty tough questions; questions like:

• What makes my music unique enough that there would be a demand for it?
• Am I prepared to invest money into this (and we're not just talking payola here, but advertisements, marketing at music trade shows, etc.)
• Am I willing to hire other people to help produce my material? With our own biased ears, we hear what we want to hear and not necessarily what others hear. Consider getting others involved in the process

And there are dozens of other questions that independent artist really out to ask themselves before pushing their product to the public. But I think the big challenge that technology has created for artists today is the saturation factor, which poses the issues of too many choices available to the consumer and insufficient visibility (when constrained by your budget and the resources available to you).

Good article! Keep up the great work exposing the current music industry for what it is.

Michael
dock72 music group
committed to the development of today's artist

D
Mad Scientists with too much time on thier hands

It would be nice if we could convince enough people to operate that way. Then the artist would be paid for their work

See also MP3.com's D.A.M. system. An MP3.com artist makes several albums available, and when a consumer buys an album for USD $8 + S&H, the artist gets half of that, the rest going to duplication of the CD and of the box art.

...mobile reception of streaming mp3's, from my home computer or from mp3.com.

Now you'll finally have time to listen to all 33,000 trance tracks.

(Synthr's Spiderman soundtrack remix is actually kind of nice :)

Well, I'm no stock analyst, but I worked in the industry and might have a few insights into what mp3.com has that might be valuable.

First is their cash position. You can check out MP3.COM's 01Q1 10Q right here. They have about 90 million in cash right as of april 1st. They also have about 40 million in pre-paid multimedia licenses to the labels. They count total assets of US $190m.

Second would be their network. Networks for serving massive amounts of high bandwdith content are difficult to build, and are valued highly by wall street and investment bankers. The process of building one from scratch is difficult, and very time consuming. Not to mention the value of having done it for some time, having worked out the kinks, monitoring systems, staffing, etc.

Third would be software innovation. Universal recently paid millions of dollars to www.com for the farmclub jukebox project. It was lame. MP3, while perhaps not the best at what they do, has consistently developed and rolled out products that push the industry. A record of performance in software development can be worth a lot.

Forth might be elimination of competitition. With the .com crash, mp3.com may be one of the only viable competitors left in the space. Real is locked up, microsoft has been convinced to stay out of the market for the time being. Eliminating competition is never a bad idea.

So I don't know if they are worth $372m, but of course, that's essentially the going price. I doubt they're too worried about either the brand or the existing application. I doesn't make sense to value them on users as one would assume duet will bring it's own users.

Just my $0.02.

The above post is merely sarcastic, not off-topic, and anyway is worth a reply: I'm an mp3.com artist myself, and no, it hasn't been that nice at all, at least not for the last year or so. They have gotten worse and worse in terms of service (delays before new songs get approved, technical support is an euphemism for what they have to offer...), and starting from last month they require you to pay a monthly fee of 20$ in order to be able to collect any of your 'payback for playback' royalties! Which doesn't really pay in my case, so I was about to leave them for good anyway.

So, obviously, no tears from me.