Slashdot Mirror
Musicnet Fails to Impress Customers
mcwop writes "A Wall Street Journal story carried on MSNBC chronicles MusicNet's failure as a service before it even gets started. The story contains some funny quotes such as: 'The first offering was too clunky and too consumer unfriendly to hold much hope for its success, says Richard Parsons, AOL Time Warner's incoming chief executive. So we are going to go back, and we will come out with a 2.0 product which will be more consumer friendly, easy to use. ... This is a business of trial and error.' Any consumer could have informed the music titans that their business plan was flawed. Unfortunately, version 2.0 won't be any better unless the music industry is willing to take some risks. One of the more interesting aspects to the story is how the major music companies could hardly be present in the same room for fear that antitrust laws may be broken." A good business-oriented review of Musicnet's operations. With the artists making a quarter-cent per downloaded song, they're probably just as happy to see it fail.
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
I would love to see their evidence for this. I assume it would be the same crap they've been whining about for months, which is that their sales are slightly less record-breaking than they'd hoped. Whooptee... it's a recession. Guess what kind of stuff is the first to get cut from people's budget? Yep, overpriced crappy music.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
more than they got from napster or any of the current junk out there!
Bull *blank*
When napster was in full swing, Many people used it as a music trial service, kind of like our own personal listening booth. Try and buy.
Let us not forget that music sales dropped 9% after Napster took a dirt nap. Many people blame it on economics. I blame it on the fact that exposure was removed from the mainstream.
A quarter of a cent or 9% increase in overall sales. You decide.
And do the math. 1 million sales is a MASSIVE $2500 for the artists. I make more then that in two weeks.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Yeah, there are gigs of music I have that I might never purchase. At the same time, when I used Napster, my CD purchases were 100x what they were before...
Regardless of the legality of those mp3s that I won't buy, I put far more money into buying CDs than I otherwise would have... to the point where I physically COULDN'T spend more money because I ran out. I bought a lot of the best of what I downloaded.
This, to varying degrees, is a definite trend among people who download music. Regardless of the fact that SOME didn't get purchased, much more money went to the artists than under normal circumstances. This doesn't change the legality of it in itself, but it does point toward different motives on behalf of the music company that have more to do with maintaining a monopoly rather than recouping lost sales.
After all, if more money goes TO the labels, it shouldn't matter how much music goes to me, because it cost the labels nothing to put out (please note the difference in what I'm saying from the lame leeching kiddies... I don't think that because the music costs nothing to transmit that it is worth paying nothing for... just that there are no disadvantages to this scenario for the music companies other than the loss of control... I'm more than happy to shell out cash for good music.)
How does a song that you don't know, from a band that you've never heard, expose itself to you on any of the P2P programs? The reality, of course, is that it doesn't: The only most people ever hear it is if they pulled a fast one and labelled it "Britney Spears duo with Christina Aguilara.mp3". The P2P networks are all built around searching, meaning that you hear a song on the radio, or in a movie, and you think "Hey! Remind me to download that from Gnutella later!".
The big eye opener for me is this line: "It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster or Gnutella or Freenet or iMesh or beaming their CDs into a My.MP3.com or MyPlay.com music locker. It's piracy when those guys that run those companies make side deals with the cartel lawyers and label heads so that they can be "the labels' friend," and not the artists'."
Napster, uh, yeah, I remember them. The guys who tried to move up to the Big League with the labels, right? Didn't they used to run a P2P service? ;-)
That's not to say she's completely getting it though. She's a bit confused about the ability of (e.g.) Gnutella to control the content that's being shared; girlie, there's no point exhorting a bunch of P2P developers to work with you. My god, Limewire (the most professional gnutella client development team that I know of) has six code monkeys and a web guy working on it. How can they negotiate deals with tens of thousands of artists? And that's just one solitary client running the gnutella protocol.
And the horrible thing is, Courtney is still stuck in litigation with Universal. See Hole's web site for the latest news. And notice that despite good intentions, Courtney is still not offering us what we want. You can download 60-some 128 bit MP3's right off the site (all live recordings rather than studio recordings, because lest we forget, the studio owns all rights to the music, and Courtney only owns limited rights to her performances of it), and you can click on a link to buy albums from CDNOW or Amazon. But you can't pay money for the MP3's, or pay for better quality ones. It's frustrating when even the champions of the e-distribution campaign don't give us the chance to show how lucrative sales of uncrippled, high quality, correctly labelled, untruncated, non-radio edit mp3's could be - if they were only given a chance.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You quoted:
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
But you missed this one:
And there are the problematic relationships between the record companies and the rest of the music industry, which make it difficult for MusicNet to offer as much music as the illegal services do.
And this one:
The struggle to create a legitimate commercial online music service goes back years, before there even was a Napster.
And this one:
Yet the industry still feared that creating a legitimate market for music downloads would cut into sales of compact discs.
And this one:
But now, music fans were racing to outlaws such as Napster.
And many others, but you get the point: Not only are we accepting on faith -- and against reams of evidence to the contrary -- that online trading actually hurts sales; but also that any services that aren't set up by the studios are "illegal services," "outlaws" or, at the least, not "legitimate."
Nope, no sig
That's right. Until recently, nobody except the people being screwed knew anything about it. And most of the people being reamed didn't think that it could be any other way so they kept quiet about it.
Nowadays, technology has come to the point that the producers of art (for music and literature, at least for now) don't need these parasites to get their stuff out to their customers. They might need someone to play filter/promoter, but they don't need the labels as they currently are to do that- anyone can play that role, incl. independant labels, etc.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas