Slashdot Mirror
Universal Music Group's New Music Sharing Service
First I had to decide which reseller of UMG music to use and decided on Liquid Audio's On-Line store. One reason I picked this service is because they are the technology backers of this venture, so who better? I'm really glad I picked them, and you will see why after you read about the issues I faced.
Of course, there were plenty of music choices to pick from and it was pretty easy to find artists I was looking for. I first noticed that not every track is 99 cents. Some are higher -- it seems that the less popular stuff cost a little more. Some singles cost $1.49, but I found one free track on this CD.
After finding a CD I wanted, I purchased and downloaded the tracks individually and as one large download, since they provide both options. After downloading the files I could not get any of them to play. For some time this confused me, then I tried clicking on a link provided in an e-mail that was sent to me to confirm my order. Well, they did not tell me this on the website, but clicking that link authenticated me to listen to the tracks. This was a bit frustrating, but survivable. Also, I found you can only go through the process of purchasing and downloading with IE. I use Mozilla by default and was not able to purchase with that browser. You also need to use IE to open the URL in the e-mail that authenticate your tracks.
Once done with that I attempted to burn tracks to a CD. I was using a machine with Windows 2000 SP3 and Windows Media Player 9 (current release candidate for Win2K). Whenever I'd try to burn a track, the Roxio software would die. So I gave up on Media Player 9 and downloaded Liquid Audio's Player (v 6.1). When trying to burn with this player it could not initialize my HP DVD writer (model dvd200i) and for some reason was calling it a 200j instead. I also tried downgrading to Windows Media Player 7.1, but that did not work either. The burning software did not even know my DVD Burner was there. I also tried Real's RealOne player, but it can not burn WMA files.
So I gave up and contacted Liquid Audio's Customer Service. They informed me (via e-mail exchanges) that their software could not recognize my DVD Burner and I would only be able to burn using a CD Burner, not a DVD/CD Burner. I was offered a refund, but I did not want that. I've got a CD Burner, but on another PC. So I thought I'd be able to move the files and burn there. I came to find out find out that I can move files to listen to them on another PC, but they can't be burned on a PC other than the one to which they were first downloaded. So Liquid Audio sent me another link to download tracks with after hearing I had to go to another PC. Then I was able to download and burn tracks with no problem.
You can play the tracks as much as you like on your PC, burn to CD as many tracks as you want, copy the burned CDs, and use the CD to make MP3s. Keep in mind there is supposed to be some form of digital watermarking on the tracks though. So if you give the music to anyone else, they (UMG) are supposed to be able to know it was you who violated their copyright.
So overall it was pretty frustrating making my first CD with this service, but I'll probably be using it again in the future. Like Tuesday, when some new music comes out. I have been boycotting UMG for almost a year, since when I heard they would copy-protect CDs. With this service I have officially ended my boycott.
Pros:
- Easy to download and burn a CD if you have Windows, IE and a CD Burner (not a DVD Burner).
- Easy to find tracks from UMG artists that are well known.
- Good customer service. They really helped as much as they could given the software limitations and offered a refund even though I would have been able to keep playing the tracks on my PC.
- No need to go to the store in the Winter!
Cons:
- No player seems to be able to burn using a DVD burner.
- Tracks are not authenticated till you click a link in an e-mail sent to you.
- Unable to use the service to purchase tracks using Mozilla.
- No small intro type tracks available, even when you buy a full CD of tracks.
Slashdot welcomes reader-submitted features and reviews -- thanks to darnellmc for this review.
From the article, First I had to decide which reseller of UMG music to use and decided on Liquid Audio's On-Line store.
In other news, Liquid Audio's CEO resigned. Here's the link
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Doesn't sound too bad, but I think I will stick with IUMA. I would rather support independents than coorporate whor....errr, I mean popular artists.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
One thing you don't mention is whether the files are compressed? If they are compressed using lossy encoding, like mp3, that would reduce its appeal to me, since I prefer my 44.1kHz pcm audio. I'd resent paying for inferior quality data, but that's just me. Oh, and since I don't have Windows or a Mac I can't use IE anyway, so it's all academic.
Even if this isn't everything we might want in a downloadable music service, I think that supporting this service will help convince UMG and other companies of the effectiveness of this business model. This is a step in the right direction...
Why go through all that BS to pay the same amount for a CD that you can go to your local RecordStore and pick up. Is it worth it to say "I made all by myself?" Next question: Will it work on *nix/Mac?
You can play the tracks as much as you like on your PC, burn to CD as many tracks as you want, copy the burned CDs, and use the CD to make MP3s. Keep in mind there is supposed to be some form of digital watermarking on the tracks though. So if you give the music to anyone else, they (UMG) are supposed to be able to know it was you who violated their copyright.
I'd be interested to know how anybody could tell if you've shared the music and what this 'digital watermarking' is all about. If you made MP3s from the CD you make, how would UMG know you violated the copyright? Is my iTunes gonna email them when I play the pirated MP3?
This sounds dubious but will no doubt be tested by tons of people to see if it's true.
It also begs the question of what consititutes illegal sharing and fair use. Shouldn't I be able to listen to this stuff on my iPod? Would UMG know?
It's been said before, and it should be said again. If you wantw true value for money, emusic are a better deal. Pure MP3s, no corrupt watermarks, and no DRM. And cheaper, too - one monthly fee equals full unlimited downloads.
If I was going to go for any of these services (I'm not, yet) that would be my choice.
Anything involving windows, IE and Media Player is too suspicious for me giving it a try.
You also need to use IE to open the URL in the e-mail that authenticate your tracks
The price is not the problem. The problem is what they allow you to do and what they don't. Next.
I pay the same or more for the download service as for the CD, download the tracks slowly, install their software several times until it works, burn it on a CD, rip it, encode it, then listen to it? And the music companies wonder why their online services aren't insanely popular...
So... how long until somebody figures out how to remove the digital watermarking? Maybe it wouldn't be the easiest process in the world, but it probably would scare the pants off of them as a proof-of-concept.
And probably get their lawyers all excited with the possibility of DMCA-related charges.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
Must remember to surf with IE rather than a browser you prefer.
Must remember to download tracks only while sitting on a machine with a CD-R or CD-RW
Must remember to never let your machine die or be replaced. If you do, you'll never be able to reburn the audio.
Thanks, I'll stick with Slamjamz
The pricepoint is a little higher than what I'd like to see, but this is definitely a step in the right direction for the music industry. Kudos to them for actually trying to solve the p2p "problem" by giving consumers (almost) what they want instead of trying to lock down every electronic device. It may be a clumsy interface, but it seems like a good first stab at a compromise between consumers' fair use rights and copyright holder interests.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Wouldn't ripping the tracks from the CD into Ogg Vorbis defeat the track watermarking. I'm guessing that their watermarking technique is based on the properties of the MP3 algorithm, which would be diffrent in Ogg.
Holy cow!!! That's way too easy! At this rate, it sounds like they're going to have Kazaa and all the other P2P file sharing programs on the run in just a couple of months.
I guess that when we threw down the gauntlet and said "Ok, Music Companies, let's see some real innovation and get an easy to use, cheap, my-mom-could-use-it service for music" they went and did their homework. I bet my mom's already signed up, downloaded lots of tracks (on 56k), failed to burn copies, downloaded all the different players (again 56k), tried burning her music with them and failed, called support, copied the tracks to her other computer, failed to burn again, contacted support again, redownloaded the tracks again (56k, remember), and finally got them to burn so she could listen to them in her car.
It's that easy. Wow.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
since it's easier to use free p2p
Uh, but isn't the whole point that this is a _legal_ way of attaining the music. So first the excuse was that the music was too expensive, now it's that it isn't quite convenient enough?
Sounds to me like they still need to work out issues before making it a service that the average Joe and Jane can use.
:) Maybe for a certain quality, and raise the price up from there for better quality encoding and/or more flexibility. (i.e. pay 99 cents and you can choose your format of choice to download...etc, pay $1.49 and get dvd quality audio...you get the picture :)
What kills it for me (but then again I'm probably not in the majority they are targetting) is the requirement of Windows 2k/XP and Windows media player...
Well its not like I'm downloading MP3s left and right anyways. Most of my music is bought at a store or via one of them music clubs...(Where you can get like 11 CD for 1 cent, so long as you buy 4 more at regular price in 2 years time...which if you play smart you can gets tons of CDs cheap, assuming you dont need the latest release)
Maybe by the time I get a broadband connection, these services will use a more open standard format, and the service will be a lot more flexible.
A price reduction would be nice, would encourage people to buy the songs the like from a website instead of leeching off gnutella or [insert favorite file sharing client/server here].
50 cents a song sounds good to me
Maybe they can come up with better pricing though.
Hey I can get 4x6 photo prints of my digital photos for 50 cents from Kodak online services!
(Well yeah shipping is like $2.99 though hehe)
.... ... }
int main (void) {
If you're looking for some UMG artists, try emusic. Emusic is owned by UMG and contains quite an extensive UMG listing. For $10/month, you get some UMG artists as well as really good indie labels. If you're into industrial a couple of the labels like Metropolis and Cleopatra are there.
This authors experience bodes well for Apple if they can get the licensing straight. If they can interface with these music sites and make them as easy to use as say the iPod, then they'd have a killer combo. Imagine being able to add tracks to your inbox, pay for them, click a button and have it download AND burn for you automatically. Or download/convert to mp3/shove it over to you iPod automatically. This could be another area where the Mac shines, again, if they can get the necessary buy in.
This seems like just the solution I've been looking for. Oh, and the DRM and the problems with the DVD burner. Except for those four little things, this is it.
some good sites to find cheap prices :
If they are compressed using lossy encoding, like mp3, that would reduce its appeal to me, since I prefer my 44.1kHz pcm audio. I'd resent paying for inferior quality data, but that's just me. Oh, and since I don't have Windows or a Mac I can't use IE anyway, so it's all academic.
Hrmph. 44.1kHz just doesn't cut it for me; I prefer my audio at 196kHz, 48 bits per sample, 6.1 channels, and I resent paying for anything less. But then again my computer is a Thinking Machine CM5, which doesn't even come with a sound card, so I guess it's all academic for me, too.
I tried this service too. It worked pretty well for me, though I had to click the download link twice to get the file. Some comments:
1) they're selling the files in 2 formats, the Liquid format and Microsoft's WMA format. I tried both and the Liquid format only works in the Liquid player, while the WMA files will play in Winamp, MusicMatch, WindowsMedia Player, and others. WMA seems to be the default except in a few cases, so check your format before you buy (and you probably want WMA).
2) surprisingly, there are no burn count limits! When you download, the site tells you what the content usage rules are, and you get unlimited burns!!! Sure enough, I made a few burns of the stuff I downloaded and when I checked the properties, there is no burn counter (you can check the license properties on XP in the WMP).
3) portable device support is limited, but they've covered the major players. Again, this varies by format, but for WMA files you can use your Rio X00 or Creative Labs Nomad. I've got a Rio800 and it worked fine. Another surprise - no transfer limits!
4) I was worried about the audio quality, but the files sound great vs your typical kazaa download.
5) I found the different track prices confusing, but eventually I realized that not all of the content in the liquid store is UMG's.
So I found the whole thing to be remakably easy to use (I didn't have any of the download or burn problems mentioned in the original post) and I was pleasantly surprised at the lack of burn or transfer counts. The files do use DRM, but they've got relatively loose rules. My primary complaint is that the selection is still not fantastic. A bunch of things I searched for were not up. Anyway, it's a good start and I hope that the other music companies follow UMG's lead.
Or, you could email them and complain about how they implemented the business model, requiring IE in order to use their service. I would not pay for a service that requires IE. I hope their customer service lines are flooded. It sounds like it is a total hassle to set up and download music, even if you do have IE. It is amazing that we are this far along in e-business, and companies still don't get it.
But thanks for the review, it was definitely worthwhile. I won't be using liquid.com any time soon.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I'm sorry, not trying to start a flame war or anything. But who is this story for? Windows users?
This service needs IE, WMA, and a Windows Box? It won't work under my MacIntosh, Linux, or Home Entertainment system(s)? The songs won't work in my car, walkman or the kids boom-box?
Well maybe this is news I can use. I know I won't be using my disposable income on this service.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
You do say there is watermarking... which listening tests have shown is subtle, but still audible, so you're already at a loss of quality here.
Also, for cost - popular tracks as high as $1.50, regulars for a dollar... Let's just pick a currently popular, common CD, like The Eminem Show...
20 tracks (though, 5 of those are skits, which you said you're not able to get...) - really 15 audio tracks... At a dollar each, that's 15 dollars. At a dollar each for most, plus $1.50 for the current singles (White America, Cleaning Out My Closet, Soldier, Without Me, Hailie's Song, What You Say) is 18 dollars.
Now, my local Newbury Comics is selling this same album for $14.99 (and with a coupon from the Sunday paper, I can knock 3 dollars off of that).
So, I can either tie up my cable modem and 'puter and download a watermarked, questionable quality version for 15-18 dollars, or I can pay 12 for the original, plus the non-music tracks.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see what the point is...
Of course, say I don't want all of those songs, but five from this album, and five from the previous, and five from the one before that... Then, there is a savings, but it's so miniscule - I'd be getting the popular singles off each album, so at 15 tracks * $1.50, I'd be paying $22.50... and if I bought the albums, either on sale or used, I'd be paying no more than $25-30... and get a bunch of tracks I'd never have heard otherwise that I might like. Plus, 3 separate booklets, liner notes, etc.
There's no way they're going to attract people from P2P sharing if their chosen method is slower, more expensive, and of questionable quality.
-T
NOTE:
This isn't intended to be a troll or flamebait post.
One of the issues that surrounds the music industry is the way that large record labels treat the artists who have signed with them.
Now a record company has suddenly made it (more or less) convenient to download songs legally, and as soon as it gets easy, the ol' consumer mentality will kick back in and the artists will end up forgotten.
The artists won't be thought of, just like most people don't really think about the sweatshop laborers in foreign countries who make clothing, or code cheap software, assemble appliances, etc. Give us what we want, and give it to us cheap. To hell with the people who have to work to produce the lifestyle we get to take advantage of.
*sigh*
The music industry isn't really upset that you're copying copyrighted material. They're upset that you're no longer a consumer. They want you to consume their services, and if they re-work their existing services in a manner so the production costs are cheaper than current costs, but still charge you the same and still screw over the recording artists, then they see it as a major win.
Maybe I'll get lucky and someone will reply and tell me why UMG isn't as bad as the others.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
I read the article and could not help but wonder "What was he so happy about?". I would like to be able to download music but I accept that this service is not for me. I have a DVD/CD burner and want to be able to use it as well... it just seemed like reason after reason to go elsewhere.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
PROS
Service:
there's a real nice looking girl and she knows a great deal about music.
Prices:
It's much cheaper than your service as I can find whole CDs between 1 and 3 euros. Yes, they are used, but it's because the shop re-buy from its customers. They are as perfect as new ones. You can buy new CDs at regular price also. People are not doing it to rip them since the shop existed before cd writers.
CDs:
I'm not limited to one company, as a matter of facts I'm not limited at all since they sell all kind of music from all kind of compagnies from all countries.
Choice:
There's another shop just the same 30 meters away. Only there isnt a nice looking girl there.
CONS:
half an hour of subway.
This is a step in the right direction.
I don't have a Windows computer. This is not a step in the right direction. Before this service I had nothing. With this service I still have nothing, and there is one more pillar under the Microsoft monopoly.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If they can get this to be cross platform (will they ever support Linux? I doubt it), and get the bugs worked out, it would be better than buying a CD from a store. But would it be better than using Kazaa?
This is the problem that these media companies need to contend with. What people want is huge repositories of music for a fixed price that's easy to use, and without stupid DRM restrictions. The advantage that this has over Kazaa is that it's easy to find exactly what you are looking for, but being charged a $1+ per track and having to go through the DRM rigamarole, why would you bother?
Most everybody I know would be willing to pay anywhere between $10-40/month to get access to a huge music repository that they could use without burdensome restrictions. I currently subscribe to emusic for this reason, it's only drawback is that they tend not to have the newest albums. Maybe do a tiered pricing system where you get the back catalog for some more modest price and then you can sign up for a premium membership that will give you the newer music.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
over the last several years, if it is WMA, it would be lousy as well as lossy. I have never heard a WMA file (and I have listened to many) that sounded as good as a well-encoded mp3 at comparable bit-rates. The trouble is, there are a lot of poor mp3 encoders/decoders out there that give mp3's a bad name quality-wise, so some people think that WMA sounds just as good. Not in my book.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Their Liquid Audio player for Mac does not run under OS X, nor does it even run under Classic!
Now, I know that Apple is obviously the Big Evil One to Hollywood because they allow *gasp* MP3's by default with iTunes, but come on, people.
I want to see a song I like.
I want to pay $1 or $2 for said song.
I want to either put song on a music CD (they can mail me the CD, I don't mind), or put the song right on my iPod.
This should not be difficult. But it is - because the music company is so concerned with *their* wants rather than *my* wants.
And I'm even willing to pay for it. Go figure.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
All it takes to produce good music is talent. And both of those are actually optional.
It costs a lot of money to build a Ferrari, and only a couple cents to press a CD. With this service, that cost actually goes up. (Contrary to popular opinion, large chunks of bandwidth ain't cheap.)
The biggest cost should be paying the salaries of the music company (Which only needs to be a few executives and a good team of technicians, not the bloated beuracracy you normally saw in the 90s and, to some extent, today.), and then maybe fifteen or twenty cents (per track) for the artist.
Even if the artist only sells a mere 1,00,000 tracks, (more likely, considering unwanted tracks will no longer be a deterrant from buying an album), that's still $150,000. For more popular artists, or artists who'd rather release better stuff, but less often, you could raise that by ten cents and they'd have $250,000 to hold them over while they produce their next batch.
At this point, even niche artists make a good living, while consumers pay only a fraction of the cost they pay now.
What's this Submit thingy do?
There are plenty of caveats with the Liquid Audio system. The one great thing about it though is "CDs" never have to go out of print again.
For some time I was looking for an obscure CD called "The Great Game" by Brother Sun Sister Moon (now called Luminous for their second release). Impossible to find on CD, and impossible to find on peer to peer networks (except one track as noted below, which helped get me hooked) I looked on. But it was on Liquid Audio, and despite my reservations about a proprietary file format, I plunked down the $10 for the entire digital album.
Download: There were problems downloading. As in the Liquid player crashed during download didn't recognize that the album had been partially downloaded (files were not there), and didn't let me re-download the missing files. Cleared up by customer service.
Audio quality: decent. I think I've read that the Liquid Audio is really mp3 @ 192kbps inside their "secure" wrapper.
Compatiblity: Bad. I use WinAmp, and hardly ever listened to the Liquid tracks because I couldn't listen to them in WinAmp.
Portability: Disappointing. Only playable on the machine you download them to without a MS Passport, or something like that.
Burnability: Good, once I got a CD-R drive in the computer I downloaded them to.
Security: Puzzling. What good is distributing music in "secure" files when the Liquid Audio software lets you burn them to an unprotected CD format? I ripped then of course into mp3 format (using a very high bitrate to avoid as much as possible problems with recompressing already compressed audio) and the results are not bad. Now I can listen to them in WinAmp! (nearly every day)
(btw, in case anyone out there is an Information Society fanatic, Paul Robb is one half of BSSM/Luminous. Definately worth checking out. The one song that I found on p2p was Bangkok, off some movie soundtrack if you want to have a listen first.)
You can play the tracks as much as you like on your PC, burn to CD as many tracks as you want, copy the burned CDs, and use the CD to make MP3s. Keep in mind there is supposed to be some form of digital watermarking on the tracks though. So if you give the music to anyone else, they (UMG) are supposed to be able to know it was you who violated their copyright.
From my understanding, a "watermarked" audio stream is one where identifying information is included in an imperceivable portion of the audio stream.
Given that lossy encoders (MP3, OGG) use psychoacoustic-models to reduce data in the audio stream that it considers outside of the human audible range, wouldn't encoding to MP3 or OGG damage or destroy the watermarking?
An alternative view:
.WMA files. The download topped out my DSL at 1.5 Mbit. I immediately burned the tracks to CD, which was one of the only disappointments in the process. The standard (free) Liquid Audio software only burns at 1X. The other problem is that the Liquid Audio format does not include a track number, so I had to arrange the tracks manually.
.WMA format. The download took something like 30-45 seconds. I don't need a whole CD for one song, so I burned it to CD-RW in Media Player (quickly, this time) and ripped it to MP3. It cost me $.99, instead of the the $15-$18 for the whole "new" Nirvana album of music I already own.
First off:
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
ALBUMS ARE $9.99
Three quarters of the arguments here are about how expensive this is. It's not! I bought the newest Beck album through this service for $9.99. This was the best price I could get outside Best Buy, which is $11.99 and about 20 miles away.
I downloaded the album in Liquid Audio format, because I didn't want Microsoft to get the commission on
Immediately after burning the CD, I ripped it to MP3, (which is what I would have done if I bought a physical CD). These tracks aren't going to P2P or anywhere else. I just want the MP3s for my own personal use, and I paid for them.
THE TRACKS SOUND FINE. I do not have a $50,000 audio system, nor do I have $50,000 ears.
Not caring for my Liquid Audio experience, and wanting the new Nirvana track, I paid for and downloaded that one in
In summary:
1. I paid $9.99 - no tax - no shipping, for the new Beck album. I downloaded it immediately and quickly. No re-tagging, no broken downloads, no bad rips. I burned it on to CD (slowly, this time).
2. I paid $.99 for the new Nirvana track. I wasn't buying an album of music I already own to get one track I don't. And I didn't have to.
I have always said that if 'they' offered this stuff for a reasonable price and so that I could do what I wanted with it, I would buy into it. I'm practicing what I preached.
1. I download in a protected format, but I can burn to CD, which is what I would do if I were downloading MP3s,
2. Once it's an audio CD, I rip it to MP3, which is what I would do if I bought the CD itself.
3. I pay for music instead of getting it free, which I always said I would do. It feels good to practice what I preach, instead of constantly bitching and then changing my tune (haha) solely to allow myself more bitching.
4. The albums are $9.99, which is MUCH less than I would pay for anything new.
This is a good thing. Pity that most of you can't see that, even though this is very close to what many of you asked for all along.
The traditional answer would be "whatever the market can bear". If, for instance, somebody digs up sheet music for a hithertoo unknown symphony by Beethoven, and it's judged to be authentic, then it wouldn't be surprising if the first recordings commanded a markup.
Unfortunately,
(1) The RIAA isn't fully allowing a free market, because of price fixing, and
(2) Consumers may decide that the only price they can bear is "free" -- in other words, that they'll be happy downloading music so long as it's somebody else that already paid for it. If very few people are willing to pay, then the marketing machines can no longer survive. This might be good for artists that are already famous and don't need much publicity, but otherwise... *shrug*
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Thats how the music got out of my hands.. And must be how all that other copyrighted software got on it, as *I* would never do such a thing..
Now, prove im lying.
In all seriousness this DID happen to me once... but all was done was they setup an IRC server.. but the point is still valid..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So imagine you're a record company. You see a problem: People are downloading .mp3 files that they can then do what they want with of your intellectual property off the internet. You know from seeing it happen that people like .mp3 files that they can do what they want with. You think, "Gee. I'd like a piece of that action."
.mp3 files that people can do whatever they want with.
.mp3 files they can do what they want with?
.mp3 files are free, people for the most part want .mp3 files that they can do what they want with.
.mp3s they can do what they want with, and,
So this thing comes out. You can download music off the internet now, and it's legal! It's not ridiculously priced, but there are problems-- it's not
The question becomes, then: Were people interested in digital music that they didn't have to go to a CD store to get? Or were they interested in
I suspect that, particularly since the
So, if you're a record company, how should you go after a piece of that action?
Well, let's look at p2p programs. Say you want the latest track from Foo, called Bar. You ask for bar on the p2p client. You get back 142 responses. Now, of these 142 responses, 100 were bogus entries trying to get you to download their porno virus spam. 30 are busy and won't talk to you now, 5 have something completely bogus, 5 are people on the wrong end of a 14.4 modem, and two actually have what you want and open slots to download it, but one of those has it at 96 kilobits.
Now, if I haven't made it sufficient of a hint, perhaps the proper way to sell digital music online is to
a) Sell people
b) Make a reliable service to get them in good quality so you don't have to sort through 142 options to find the one that actually has what you want and will disconnect you halfway through the download anyhow.
How do you make money selling something that's free? Make it convenient. You can offer people both of those things and still get as much money for them.
-JDF