The New MP3.com: 3rd Time a Charm?

All we need is Netcraft's confirmation. by grub · 2004-05-12 08:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

For example, with a single search you can find that 'Abbey Road' by the Beatles is not available for legal download at iTunes, Napster, or anywhere else. [...] The real news is what it does NOT include: no free downloads, and no indie artist community.

This submission sounds less like a news item and more like a proactive obituary. It's "mp3.com" in name only.

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:All we need is Netcraft's confirmation. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:49 · Score: 0

True, MP3.com has suffered as a result of these constant re-designs, but at least they're trying. I doubt you'll ever find a music download site that covers all the artists and all the songs you want. Market demand for newer, alebeit shitty, music will push the older songs further and further from reach.
Re:All we need is Netcraft's confirmation. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I doubt you'll ever find a music download site that covers all the artists and all the songs you want.

I certainly wouldn't expect a "one stop shopping" site for my music. However the New & Improved MP3.com offers no free downloads. Do they offer a refund on music you buy that sucks? Nope. Do they offer a "test drive" (say, a time-limited protected music format)? Nope.

When I bought my car the dealership tossed me the keys for a test drive. Not being able to test drive a damn 2 dollar song is beyond reason.
Re:All we need is Netcraft's confirmation. by RetroGeek · 2004-05-12 09:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

When I bought my car the dealership tossed me the keys for a test drive

Well yes, except that you did not have the means to drive around the corner and get the car copied.

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Re:All we need is Netcraft's confirmation. by tanguyr · 2004-05-12 09:35 · Score: 1

Well yes, except that you did not have the means to drive around the corner and get the car copied.

OTOH, these guys are competeing with 0.00$ per song. They want us to be customers instead of thieves, they'd better look up "customer friendly".

--
#!/usr/bin/english
Re:All we need is Netcraft's confirmation. by RetroGeek · 2004-05-12 09:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

To compare to a test drive of a car, maybe they should allow a free sample, say the first 25% of the song.

Then you can buy the rest (well the whole song) if you like it.

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.

Ummmm by MikeXpop · 2004-05-12 08:34 · Score: 5, Funny

..But this doesn't change the fact that CDs last a lot longer [than vinyl]

Excuse me while I hit the article writer with my jazz records from the 40's. Sheesh.

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.

Re:Ummmm by sTalking_Goat · 2004-05-12 08:40 · Score: 1

yeah, wasn't ther an article on /. a few days back that prettymuch disputed this claim. I'm not enough of an audiophile to care, but I would the author would know his stuff.

--
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:43 · Score: 0

The tech content includes such gems as 'how to copy your old vinyl records onto CDs.'

Yes. Insanity.
Re:Ummmm by ax10m5 · 2004-05-12 08:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Sorry to say, but while your vinyl record may be durable, if your record player broke down you would be screwed. Vinyl record players are really expensive and difficult to find anymore.
My father has a huge collection of vinyl records that he accumulated in his youth. They sat in storage for years until around 1996 when I bought him a brand new record player. I had a hell of a time finding one and I think it cost me $400.
It would probably be much harder now to find such a setup for that price.
Re:Ummmm by j_d · 2004-05-12 08:52 · Score: 1

You can buy record players at best buy for a fraction of the price you paid.
Re:Ummmm by bludstone · 2004-05-12 08:54 · Score: 1

Uh.

Isnt the DJ Scene pretty much keeping records alive?

One Google Search Later...

--

no .sig
Re:Ummmm by captainClassLoader · 2004-05-12 08:57 · Score: 1

...Or maybe not. Googling for the string "turntable prices" returns over 91,000 hits. Of course, I'm not a turntablist, so I don't know if the ones the DJs use can be cranked up to 78RPM for the really old shellac records. If your dad had some of those, finding something to play them might be a problem.

--
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
Re:Ummmm by Mwongozi · 2004-05-12 09:02 · Score: 3, Informative

$400?!
Re:Ummmm by DragonMagic · 2004-05-12 09:04 · Score: 1

Depends on what you want in a turntable, and whether it's needle or laser read.

Best Buy has turntables starting at $99, Circuit City the same, etc.

Flea markets and thrift stores should have turntables as well. Just check around.

And $99 for a component isn't too expensive, even with $29 DVD players from Wal-Mart (which is worthless).

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Re:Ummmm by galaxy300 · 2004-05-12 09:09 · Score: 1

I've bought two turntables in the last year for less than $20 each. Granted, both were used...one via eBay and on at a stoop sale.

If that doesn't do it for you, you can always get a new one for way under $100...take this one as an example.

That's probably equivalent to a standard low end component CD player. And most new vinyl (yes, they still release new records - mostly indie and club stuff, but some major label as well) is less expensive than the equivalent CD. I don't even need to bother mentioning that used vinyl can be found lots of places and is usually a hell of a deal...unless it's something rare and valuable, it will probably cost less than $3.00.

--
seriouslyexcited.net
Re:Ummmm by MikeXpop · 2004-05-12 09:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anything comparing a record's longevity to a CD's is priceless. Not to mention completely futile. I have records that are >60 years old. They survived carelessly laying around my grandparent's house. Compare that not to music CDs, but to CD-Rs which the article is talking about, and you have complete idiocy.

Tons of articles and comments pass through /. every once in a while about wether CDs really do sound that much worse than vinyl, which may be something you're remembering. For me, that's kind of a moot point. As a teenager, I can't come close to affording speakers that would be able to differentiate the subtlties of analog vs digital music.

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:Ummmm by Medieval · 2004-05-12 09:25 · Score: 1

Any decent DJ turntable can do all three standard speeds.

http://www.djmedieval.com
Re:Ummmm by athakur999 · 2004-05-12 09:47 · Score: 1

It depends on how you look at it. As a physical media, CD-R may not last very long compared to a vinyl record. But from a data point of view, the data can last forever. Everytime you play the record, it degrades a little bit, and you can't copy it without introducing more degradation. However, with a CD-R you can create a fresh copy of it every year and the 10th generation will be exactly the same as the 1st (more or less anyway).

--
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Re:Ummmm by ajs318 · 2004-05-12 09:56 · Score: 4, Informative

You don't need to be able to run the turntable at 78rpm. Just play the record at 45rpm and correct the speed digitally. sox is your friend. However, you really need a special stylus to track the fatter grooves of 78rpm records properly; the ones designed for microgroove {45 / 33 rpm} records do not touch both walls, but instead tend to dance about in the bottom of the groove and produce extra noise. On the other hand, the bottom of the groove is more likely to be undamaged {fat needles ride high}, so try it first and see what works.

You will require a sound card with a line input, and a preamplifier with the appropriate equalisation characteristic {for a magnetic pick-up cartridge} or a very high input impedance {for a ceramic cartridge}. Don't even think about using the mic input, even though in this case it doesn't matter about being mono: the equalisation is wrong for magnetic, and the impedance is too low for ceramic. To go from 45 to 78rpm use sox song_at_45.wav song_at_78.wav speed 1.733. Alternatively, if you have a very good sound card which lets you set the sample rate precisely, recording at 25442Hz will give the correct speed when played back at 44100Hz. The cut-off frequency will only be about 12.5kHz this way, but in practice this isn't such a problem as the old recording equipment had less bandwidth anyway.

Note you will almost certainly have to perform some additional low-pass filtering. Read the sox manpage and experiment. A spectrum analyser {hardware or software} will enable you to determine the bandwidth of the signal; anything outside there should be discarded.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Ummmm by cens0r · 2004-05-12 09:58 · Score: 1

You can buy a DJ quality Technics for less than $400. I recently (1.5 years ago) purchased a belt drive Denon player for less than $200. You can still find plenty of record players in the $100 - $200 range with pretty good sound. Once you get it about the only think that can go wrong is the belt, needle, or cartridge; all of which are easily replaceable. The hard thing now is to find a stereo that has an adequate phono stage. You almost have to buy a phono preamp to listen to vinyl, and that can set you back quite a bit. Althought you can usually buy a good reciever from the 60's or 70's and it will have a very good phono stage in it.

--
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 10:33 · Score: 0

But CDs can last for up to 80 minutes, and vinyl records only last for 50-something at the max!
Re:Ummmm by rainman_bc · 2004-05-12 11:43 · Score: 1

Well if you hit him with a CD from 90's, it's less likely to break than the record from tho 40's :)

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Ummmm by iminplaya · 2004-05-12 13:13 · Score: 1

We've been over this before...Get a potter's wheel. Wrap a piece of paper in the shape of a cone around a straight pin. Hold the pin gently onto the record while it's spinning on the wheel. See? You don't even need electricity. Or you can look for an old victrola on ebay. If you think it's bad with vinyl, just wait until your CD player craps out. Those CD's will totally worthless when you can't find a compatable machine. Vinyl still works with 80 (90?) year old tech. We won't be so lucky with CD's or anything digital.

--
What?
Re:Ummmm by jwlidtnet · 2004-05-12 17:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's also this gem:

since a digitized sound loses all of the sonic information between its sampling points

Clearly written by someone who doesn't understand how PCM works.
Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 20:18 · Score: 0

There's also this gem:
There's also this gem:

since a digitized sound loses all of the sonic information between its sampling points

Clearly written by someone who doesn't understand how PCM works.
Clearly written by someone who doesn't understand the difference between analogue and digital. I can't imagine what you are thinking, but PCM produces discrete samples at some interval; the article author's point. It's not a magic analogue replacement.
Re:Ummmm by gotw · 2004-05-12 20:28 · Score: 1

I know there are all sorts of DJ turntables out there, but I thought the de-facto standard was the Technics SL-1200 and similar models. These only having 33/45 rpm with some pitch control, not enough to take it to 78.
Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 22:06 · Score: 0

Heh, please. You can buy record players in any decent store for less than $100.
Re:Ummmm by Medieval · 2004-05-13 01:57 · Score: 1

If you're just wanting to play records for the sake of recording them, a belt-driven Numark 1550 will do you just fine. Less than $100.
Re:Ummmm by Medieval · 2004-05-13 02:01 · Score: 1

Or you could just get a deck that outputs a pre-amped line signal instead of a phono signal or a deck that outputs SPDIF (Numark TTX1s can do line, phono, and SPDIF, for example.)
Re:Ummmm by gotw · 2004-05-13 02:23 · Score: 1

If you're just wanting to play records for the sake of recording them, a belt-driven Numark 1550 will do you just fine. Less than $100.

That seems entirely tangental to the point I was making, that the de-facto DJ turntable. Certainly the most common turntable for most hobbyist DJs does not go anywhere near supporting 78rpm. If I choose to get some flashy deck from vestax the 50% "ultra" pitch control on 45rpm will only take me to 67.5rpm. And I'm sure it'd be incredibly infrequent for the DJ to bust out his old 78s anyway.
Re:Ummmm by Medieval · 2004-05-13 02:30 · Score: 1

If you want to play 78s, then get a Numark TTX1, which, if you press the 45 and 33 buttons at the same time, goes to 78 rpm.
Re:Ummmm by Medieval · 2004-05-13 02:32 · Score: 1

and, as I said in another thread, will output phono, line, or SPDIF, and all three work very well.
Re:Ummmm by jwlidtnet · 2004-05-13 03:10 · Score: 1

I recognize that you're just baiting, but I'll bite anyway. PCM does indeed produce discrete samples at some interval. The traditional fallacy is that these samples *are* the audio, and that your speakers are throwing 44100 of them at you a second, too fast for you to "notice;" by contrast, the reasoning goes, analogue is "continuous" and that's why it's "superior." The sampling points *represent* the audio, and when passed through an AD converter, the audio is continuous; there isn't some magical "loss of data" in the intervals during which no sampling occurs. I hate to cite Nyquist again--as that almost always encourages a "THIS IS FLAWED!" orgy--but there are distinct situations where CD audio captures theoretically all of the audio data; an impossibility, one would think, if the aforementioned sampling fallacy was true.

(and heck, "magic analogue" is hardly continuous, as you have to deal with fun phenomena like surface discontinuities and coloration. People tend to like analogue distortion, though).
Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-13 03:13 · Score: 0

Besides, the author encourages people to use Track at Once while writing audio, a much clearer problem, methinks.
Re:Ummmm by ajs318 · 2004-05-13 09:09 · Score: 1

Outputs SPDIF? Hmm ..... That sounds kewl. But does it take its timing from lines engraved on the flywheel in order to correct against the inherently jerky motion of a DC brushless motor? Or is the motor PWM signal synchronous with the SPDIF clock, so the power pulses are synchronous with the sampling, having the same effect?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

indie artists by Shakrai · 2004-05-12 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps this is more properly a subject for a JE but does anyone have any forums/websites with a list of Indie artists that aren't signed to a RIAA member (and not just the RIAA members that aren't on the board -- i.e: the big 5)?

I don't think I (or most people) can cut RIAA completely out of my life because I do like a few of the artists (though I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a DRM'ed file from any online source -- used cds rock) but it would be nice to expand the horizons and check out some indie artists in the genres that I and my family/friends like.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

Re:indie artists by eoyount · 2004-05-12 08:43 · Score: 1

-1 Redundant for you.

You ask for indie artists that aren't signed to a major label. That's all of them. Indie stands for independent, as in independent of the major labels.

I agree with the second part of what you wrote. I like the bands I like, RIAA affiliated or not. Used CDs do indeed rock.

--
To understand recursion,
you must first understand recursion.
Re:indie artists by Shakrai · 2004-05-12 08:49 · Score: 3, Informative

-1 Redundant for you.

Actually I think that refers to a redundant post not a redundant statement within a post but your point is taken. But hey I worded it the best I could with the boss walking past my desk every five minutes ;)

I agree with the second part of what you wrote. I like the bands I like, RIAA affiliated or not. Used CDs do indeed rock.

Well I do agree that RIAA puts out a lot of noise pollution. I also agree that Clearchannel has ruined radio by playing "for the masses" playlists that never change (I can set my clock by the playlist of the local Clearchannel station that we play at the office) -- I suppose any large organization is going to stagnate overtime.

That said there are a few genuinely good artists that happen to be signed to RIAA labels. So whatta do? Download the music on P2P? Get a crappy (albeit free) copy compressed with lossful compression? I'd rather wait two weeks and pick up a used cd at my favorite local store. It's cheaper then buying a whole album off even ITMS (and for all my complaints about iTunes price isn't one of them --- I refuse to do business for other reasons) and I sleep better at night knowing that my money is going back into the local economy instead of some fat cat RIAA executive that could care less about me or my community.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:indie artists by tobes · 2004-05-12 08:50 · Score: 2, Informative

You can check out my site (www.musicmobs.com for those with sigs turned off). There's a lot of RIAA stuff on there, but the entire site is constructed out of people's playlists, so really there should be any number of non RIAA bands as well (and there are). Just find a major label band that you'd like to find an indie alternative for, and start digging deeper through the related artists till you find something previously unheard of.
Re:indie artists by Valar · 2004-05-12 08:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Read it again: he asks for resources for bands not signed to RIAA labels. RIAA != major. There are small labels that are members of the RIAA too.

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games
Re:indie artists by MightyYar · 2004-05-12 10:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

RIAA Radar was already mentioned, but I'd like to add that they also have a Top 100 Indie chart.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:indie artists by KevinDumpsCore · 2004-05-12 10:46 · Score: 1

> You ask for indie artists that aren't signed to a major label. That's all of them. Indie stands for independent, as in independent of the major labels.
Believe it or not, there are indie artists out there that aren't independent. For example, there are labels that were formerly indie that are now funded in whole or part by major labels. Also, some indie artists use major labels for distribution.
Then there are the "astroturf" labels that major labels start that seem to be indie to those not paying attention.
Re:indie artists by effex100 · 2004-05-12 10:55 · Score: 1

If you want to check and see if a band is RIAA.

Go Here: RIAA Radar

It's a Database of Albums and whether or not they're released by the RIAA. It's really thurough and will tell you down to each individual album wheter it's free of icky RIAA influence or not.

--
SMOKE... are ya smokin yet?
Re:indie artists by Seeker5528 · 2004-05-12 20:01 · Score: 1

http://www.besonic.com has been around for a few years.

There are forums, music news, streamed playlists, real media streaming for all songs, downloads in mp3 format - some free and some for a fee. And they have a radio feature that streams music that is available from the service.

Later, Seeker
Re:indie artists by filenabber · 2004-05-13 00:12 · Score: 1

Try iRate it's a Java app that downloads free MP3s off the net and lets you rate them so that it knows what kind of music you like. Great way to find new music you like. Most are indie bands.

--
Are you a Candy Addict?
Re:indie artists by eoyount · 2004-05-13 00:58 · Score: 1

You proved my point.

There are formerly indie artists that are now funded ... by major labels.

It's all semantics, but I don't consider "indie" a musical genre like I think some people do.

--
To understand recursion,
you must first understand recursion.

Too many cooks in the kitchen by ax10m5 · 2004-05-12 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why are so many hopping onto this downloaded music craze. I thought Apple Itunes, which looks like the field leader, was not making any profit at all, and was just using it as a tool to boost thier ipod sales. Does Walmart and mp3.com really think they fare much better?

Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen by Shakrai · 2004-05-12 08:43 · Score: 1

Why are so many hopping onto this downloaded music craze. I thought Apple Itunes, which looks like the field leader, was not making any profit at all, and was just using it as a tool to boost thier ipod sales. Does Walmart and mp3.com really think they fare much better?

Wal-Mart is doing it for the same reason as ITMS is -- they want to attract people to the Wal-Mart website and hope they will buy other stuff. Apple hopes their DRM lock-in will make you buy an iPod.

As for mp3.com who knows yet? Whatever they are doing I highly doubt they will be selling non-drm'ed mp3 files on the scale that ITMS is selling their files. A crying shame.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen by twofidyKidd · 2004-05-12 09:52 · Score: 3, Informative

You haven't looked at the site, nor have you read the article submission. MP3.com's sole purpose is NOT to sell legal downloads, just like everyone else. They are a multi-purpose site. Digital music news, user guides, compatibility guides, etc. I, for one, like the site. I think it's got a lot of useful info, it acts as sort of a catch-all for user discussion, and it even looks good. I hope they succeed in at least becoming a good, central source for digital entertainment.

I thought Apple Itunes, which looks like the field leader, was not making any profit at all, and was just using it as a tool to boost thier ipod sales.

I feel I have to address this since it seems to keep coming up. Apple might not be making any direct profit from download sales, and maybe neither is anyone else, but someone is, and that "someone" are labels. Given the notion that the business-end of the labels appear to be the least tech-savvy people on the planet, consider iTunes and the rest as the outsourced end of the labels' distribution methods. What I'm getting at is that the services probably aren't going to ever make the money they should in volume, but probably just enough to keep them around as another marketing tool for the labels'. It's like web-banners. You may never click on one, but if you see them enough, you're bound to become familiar with the service/product/etc. that the banner advertises.

Anyhow, wasn't one of the aims of the "downloaded music craze" to improve the quality of the product from the consumer point of view? Consider this: There's about seven or eight legal download services that I consider to be the "primary" services. Together, they make up a fairly large music catalog, and not of just pop music. I can buy a whole album's worth of music for considerably less than what I'd pay at a retail outlet, like a Sam Goody (nearly half the cost if you consider tax on a $17.99 album.) In nearly all the cases, I can burn a CD of the music, which means I can pretty much do anything with it after that. And for those of you that are running Linux, let me ask you this: would it kill you to go out and get a generic windows box, and set it up so that it specifically handles music only? I mean if you are that adamant about not using windows, then don't, but for christ's sake don't act like you have no other option. In most cases, if you don't like anything that iTunes or the like carries, then you won't be needing windows anyhow. Case in point: Audio Lunchbox. 192 Kbps .mp3 format downloads, accessible through a web browser on nearly any platform, and 100% free of DRM and other nonsense.

You have options, and it has gotten better. You still can't walk into a store and preview the music before you buy it, but you can with most of the legal download services. It's a pain in the ass nowadays to use P2P apps for downloads because it takes too damn long, even on my cable modem, mostly because I have to find it first, then I have to try and find a decent sound quality, and then there's the viruses, and what have you...99 cents, you have what you're looking for, right from the get go, it downloads fast, it sounds GOOD ENOUGH (I'm not an audiophile, nor do I care to be one, that's too much work for too little enjoyment)...it's basically a whole lot less of a pain in the ass.

I'm just trying to be optimistic about the whole "downloaded music craze" and hope that it only gets better as time progresses, because everything can stand to improve. If you ask me, we are at a much better place than we were 3 or 4 years ago. Granted we could have all gone without the bullshit lawsuits and the DRM/DMCA crap, but as history will tell you, if you can't learn from your mistakes, then you won't be around long enough to keep making them.

--

Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen by object88 · 2004-05-12 10:59 · Score: 1

As for mp3.com who knows yet? Whatever they are doing I highly doubt they will be selling non-drm'ed mp3 files on the scale that ITMS is selling their files.

Maybe I'm a moron, but I don't think they're selling mp3s at all. Or anything else. mp3.com seems to be about catagorization. Perhaps you're thinking of download.com's music site?
Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen by raodin · 2004-05-12 11:59 · Score: 1

You have options, and it has gotten better. You still can't walk into a store and preview the music before you buy it, but you can with most of the legal download services.
Still can't? You used to be able to, at better stores. All that I know of have stopped allowing this, however.
Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen by object88 · 2004-05-12 12:52 · Score: 1

Still can't [listen to music in stores]? You used to be able to, at better stores. All that I know of have stopped allowing this, however.

The only store in which you could preview nearly ANY CD was a Tower Records in Sacramento. Lots of places have listening stations with very limited selections, but just that one place let me preview an old Exploited CD just by waving a barcode.

I don't know if its still there or not, though.
Re:Too many cooks in the kitchen by raodin · 2004-05-12 13:16 · Score: 1

There were a couple stores that allowed previewing any CD where I grew up (near Seattle, WA). I believe Tower Records was one of them.

Screw pay-to-download mp3s by TerminalInsanity · 2004-05-12 08:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you insist on paying for what you can get for free, cut the middle-man and just send the 50 cents directly to the artist that made the music, because thats about all they get from that 15 bucks you would spend at the store

Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Paulrothrock · 2004-05-12 08:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, let's start a check-writing campaign so that J Lo and Britney know how much they're loved.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by irokitt · 2004-05-12 08:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Hey, some of those emo artists out there really do need to feel loved, so why not?

--
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by the_mad_poster · 2004-05-12 08:42 · Score: 1

If you insist on paying for what you can get for free...

Sorry, you lost me on the "screw paying for what you can rip off" line.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Kenja · 2004-05-12 08:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dont forget to send money to the sound engineers, the studio managers, the musicians, pre press engineer, factory workers and everyone else involved. Or do you think that Madona just grunts and craps out a pile of CDs?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Kizzle · 2004-05-12 08:48 · Score: 1, Funny

Or do you think that Madona just grunts and craps out a pile of CDs?

Yeah I was under that impression.

--
Hacker Media
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by heinousjay · 2004-05-12 08:48 · Score: 1

Or do you think that Madona just grunts and craps out a pile of CDs?

Are you sure you don't want to recast that particular phrase?

--
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by lukewarmfusion · 2004-05-12 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll play Devil's advocate for a moment: Those artists wouldn't be where they are (playing on your radio, or downloadable on your Kazaa) without the support for the label. They certainly wouldn't have had the recording time, staff of engineers/producers/marketing folks, the distribution, the advertisements, or the promotion without those evil labels. As much as I hate it, the 50 cents that goes to the artist (which is much more than most estimates I've heard) isn't really a fleecing.

Think about it: who did the hard work? Who made it possible for them to go from "starving artist" to "pop star?" Other than writing (sometimes) and performing (some of it) the songs, the artist is not the one laboring.

Some of my favorite artists were able to survive without a label (but they never got huge). Others got huge on a label, but were wise with their money and started their own as soon as they could.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Kenja · 2004-05-12 08:52 · Score: 1

"Are you sure you don't want to recast that particular phrase?"
Your right, I should have said "steaming pile".

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:55 · Score: 0

Those guys get paid exactly the same amount whether those "Madona" CDs fly off the shelves, or rot on them forever.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Zebbers · 2004-05-12 08:58 · Score: 1

youd minus the factory worker if there is no cd though
i agree with your point
however
the artists should handle that upfront
i dont think those people should be subject to song royalties(aside from musicians)
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:03 · Score: 0

Apparantly so.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:08 · Score: 0

Or do you think that Madona just grunts and craps out a pile of CDs?

That's what most of Madonna's records sound like to me...
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:10 · Score: 0

What the fuck? The artists don't own the music, the record companies own the music. Just like my employer owns the code I write on his time. The artist gets tens of thousands of dollars when he submits the song, and even more if the thing sells well once the company has recorded and distributed it.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by NigelJohnstone · 2004-05-12 09:12 · Score: 1

"As much as I hate it, the 50 cents that goes to the artist (which is much more than most estimates I've heard) isn't really a fleecing."

I might agree with you, if the cost of the staff/studio/engineer etc., wasn't taken back out of the musicians 50 cents. The cost of making the masters, studio time etc. is all taken from the musicians royalties not the record companies.

If the record doesn't sell, they can recoup that cost from other records the artists make.

"Think about it: who did the hard work? "
The people making the music.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:12 · Score: 0

I am not paying to screw them!
oh wait... i may have misread that.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by NigelJohnstone · 2004-05-12 09:23 · Score: 0

"What the fuck? The artists don't own the music, the record companies own the music. Just like my employer owns the code I write on his time. The artist gets tens of thousands of dollars when he submits the song, and even more if the thing sells well once the company has recorded and distributed it."

Rubbish, the artists are loaned enough to make the master recording.
It's like your company lending you the money to buy the computer they require you to use.

The costs of making the recording are then taken from the artists meagre royalties.
Thats like your employee saying, "you've written this software and now you owe US $100,000".

Your employer then promotes this software, and sure they spend a lot of money promoting it, but then again, they get almost all of the reward if it sells, so they're really promoting their own product.

If the artists are lucky, they do well, most don't make back their costs.
The record company on the other hand makes an overall profit from a much lower sale level, because almost all of the money comes back to them.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by sweet+cunny+muffin · 2004-05-12 09:36 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You mean "you're right", not "your right", retard.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by damiam · 2004-05-12 09:59 · Score: 1

typo != retard

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by sgt_getraer · 2004-05-12 10:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, the sound engineer, the studio managers, the pre press engineer, and the factory worker have already been paid in full. It's the Artist that the music industry shackles into indentured servitude through the corrupt system of 'royalties'.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 10:40 · Score: 0

Thats like your employee saying, "you've written this software and now you owe US $100,000".

No, it's like your employer saying "we payed you already for your work, $100,000 up front, and in the event that the software sells really well you'll get even more. But probably you'll just get the $100,000".
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 10:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Thedse atre typoas...
Thee'se reely our knot typoes.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 11:54 · Score: 0

Or do you think that Madona just grunts and craps out a pile of CDs?

That theory would explain their content.
Re:Screw pay-to-download mp3s by iminplaya · 2004-05-12 13:19 · Score: 1

Can I write a $0.01 check? It may be an old wives tale, but I'm not sure that the banks accept checks for less than a dollar.

--
What?

Wow.... by phaetonic · 2004-05-12 08:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

I haven't even bothered to use iTunes or any other service that sells music online. I thought I'd play with mp3.com, since they have a pretty nice section of eletronic music. It turns out they give you an option to download the music file from various sources, in various formats, including ogg! On top of this, they tell you if the file is DRM'd or not. I might actually be a customer once the "coming soon..." is replaced with an actual link for purchasing.

Re:Wow.... by irokitt · 2004-05-12 08:39 · Score: 1

Me personally, I think I'll rely on what I've always used to find music: Google.

--
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Re:Wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmm, if you like electronic music, definitely stay away from iTunes or Napster, the services have a laughably small selection. I'd recommend SoulSeek (www.slsknet.org) - a free, no spyware P2P program which has a lot of hard to find songs, specializing in various types of electronic music...

sigh by imidazole2 · 2004-05-12 08:38 · Score: 1

The new MP3.com's search results don't even include the 3,500 indie artists from Download.com Music." Integration w/ an existing strong force will be the key to its success. W/o it, it will just be another lame attempt.

--

-Imidazole2

Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:52 · Score: 0

Mod this up

This new wonderchild, imidazole2, is a true gift to slashdot. His insight and intelligence is to be revered.

Please, oh moderators, mod up this young person to +5, Fucking Obvious so that others may glean insight from him.
Re:sigh by imidazole2 · 2004-05-12 08:58 · Score: 1

You are lame.

--

-Imidazole2
Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:03 · Score: 0

ANOTHER spark of glorious insight from imidazole2!! Come /.ers, come read the wisdom! Come listen to the insight! Bring your family!

imidazole2 has spake forth unto you!
Re:sigh by imidazole2 · 2004-05-12 09:26 · Score: 1

You are so lame.

--

-Imidazole2
Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 10:28 · Score: 0

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.

Even if you win, you're still retarded.

You mean... by arrow · 2004-05-12 08:38 · Score: 3, Funny

The new www.mp3.com.com.com.com...

(if you don't get it, visit other C|NET sites.)

--
symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.

Website slowing down ... by ggvaidya · 2004-05-12 08:39 · Score: 1

I guess this is SlashDot's way of saying, "Welcome back"?

Re:Website slowing down ... by elwell642 · 2004-05-12 08:51 · Score: 0

Nah... but it IS /.'s way of saying, "Darwin's the man"

--
<insert witty linux comment here>

An Independent Music Supporters reaction. by platypibri · 2004-05-12 08:39 · Score: 1

Well... Crap.

--
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.

Re:An Independent Music Supporters reaction. by IANAAC · 2004-05-12 14:24 · Score: 1

On the other hand, lost of Indie artists have discovered and use places like soundclick.com and cdbaby.com.
A lot of cruft to wade through to find some good stuff (it exists), but I guess it's no worse that the original mp3.com ever was.

The new MP3.com really sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:39 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, it really really does.

Oh well

Excellent! by patrixmyth · 2004-05-12 08:40 · Score: 5, Funny

~For example, with a single search you can find that 'Abbey Road' by the Beatles is not available for legal download at iTunes, Napster, or anywhere else.

Just what I always wanted, a search engine that would tell me where I couldn't find what I was looking for...

--
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel

Re:Excellent! by swb · 2004-05-12 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

[...]or anywhere else.

I actually wouldn't mind a search engine that gave definitive negative results. I could stop looking and move onto something else.
Re:Excellent! by qc_dk · 2004-05-12 20:41 · Score: 1

They had better watch out for microsoft. I am pretty sure they have patented this idea for their MSDN search engine.

File Support? by __aajwxe560 · 2004-05-12 08:40 · Score: 0

They advertise extensive file support, and taking a quick peak at a few songs, DRM only seems to be predominant for AAC and WMA files (big surprise there). They claim support for: Napster WMA Musicmatch WMA Audible AA MusicRebellion WMA RealRhapsody WMA eMusic MP3 iTunes AAC Live Downloads MP3 RealPlayer RAX Wal-Mart WMA Bleep MP3 Streamwaves WMA Audio Lunchbox MP3, OGG and BuyMusic WMA What, no Sony? :)

Supporting Independent Music by lotsofno · 2004-05-12 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

really, the best route for anyone wanting to listen to music is to stick to more independent material--there's enough good stuff out there to last you several lifetimes.

that way, when you buy a song from Magnatune, Bleep, or Audiolunchbox, you WON'T be:

1.) sending your cash to the RIAA
2.) attributing to the success of a service that fronts the RIAA, supporting the operation of tyrannous record labels with your cash
3.) supporting propietary DRM
4.) locking yourself into using iTunes or an iPod as your portable player

by opting for other services that aren't iTunes/Walmart/Sony/Rhapsody/etc.., you WILL be:

1.) sending more cash to the musicians you like
2.) attributing to the success of a service that better represents and compensates the musicians you like, without restricting how you listen to your music
3.) free to listen to your music however you want, whether it be with winamp or foobar, linux or whatever OS you use, ipod or rio karma

Re:Supporting Independent Music by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:50 · Score: 0

really, the best route for anyone wanting to listen to music is to stick to more independent material--there's enough good stuff out there to last you several lifetimes.

This is certainly true, but there's also a lot of crap out there. I've tried looking for indie music (and I have found things I like), but it seems to be 99.9% crap and 0.1% great music. My time is too valuable to me to sift through 1000 crap songs to find one good one, no matter how good that one is.
Re:Supporting Independent Music by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:00 · Score: 0

My time is too valuable to me to sift through 1000 crap songs to find one good one, no matter how good that one is.
No it's not. Quit overestimating your importance. You don't have shit to do so you might as well listen to music.
Re:Supporting Independent Music by almostmanda · 2004-05-12 09:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

we all know that if/when i start checking out independent music (and others follow), the RIAA will assume that it's not that i don't WANT their crappy stuff, just that i'm downloading it for free, and sue everyone i know even more aggressively.

that's what bothers me about their strategy. they assume that there are two options: A)i buy their music or B)I download their music for free because i just can't resist their fabulous marketing techniques.

the other option, C) I am not interested in RIAA music or am actively boycotting it, never crosses their minds. i've found that the ability to download the music i like encourages my tastes to go farther and farther from the mainstream, and that's what scares the RIAA so much. not lost sales, but lost interest.
Re:Supporting Independent Music by jcuervo · 2004-05-12 09:43 · Score: 1

1.) sending more cash to the musicians you like
Beg your pardon, but I think profit is supposed to be at the end of the list.

--
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
Re:Supporting Independent Music by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 10:59 · Score: 0

Well said! Here's (as an AC so as not to whore the karma) an excellent comment by Linuxbaby, who works at the superb CDBaby service (hats off for being such an ethical company!):
Try some of the more open/competititive ones! (Score:5, Informative)
by linuxbaby (124641) * on 04:43 PM May 7th, 2004 ( #9085738)
(http://www.cdbaby.com/)

Worry not. There are many many MANY more to come that are being very competitive AND open. CD Baby is delivering over 250,000 songs to EACH of the companies below, and the norm for the smaller companies is to receive MP3 or even FLAC delivery.
So instead of whining about how some big major-label Universal album (where the artist hardly gets paid anyway) is DRM'd or expensive, be an independent thinker and go try some of the smaller services.
Emusic
Website for Mac, Windows, Linux where members can download up to 40 tracks per month of high-quality MP3 files. Has been around for YEARS doing both 99-cent downloads, and all-you-can-eat downloads for paid members. Has great catalog of indie label music - company is currently reforming.
AudioLunchbox
One of the first all-independent music download sites. Tracks retail for 99 and albums retail for $9.99. ALB pays out 59 per song and $5.90 per album.
NetMusic
Digital download and streaming service. We get 65 cents per downloaded song. Entire-album downloads usually retail at $9.99.
Emepe3.com
Website that primarily targets Latin America, USA and Spain. Tracks sell for 99 cents. We get 65 cents. Entire-album downloads are usually $9.99.
Etherstream
Website that offers a la carte downloads. Tracks sell for 99 cents. We get 65 cents. Entire-album downloads are usually $9.99.
Music4Cents
Retails independent music at very reasonable prices. Pays 55 cents per download. Sells independent music - they will sell CD Baby songs at $.69.
QTRnote
Artist gets about $.64.
TriaSite
TriaSite retails independent music downloads. Pays $.65 per download
Puretracks
Canada-only service that offers $.99 downloads. Website is currently available to Candian residents only. Puretracks is acting both as an online download retailer and a back-end service provider for other retailers. Downloads cost $.99 per track - artist gets about $.59 per track.
CatchMusic
Download site focusing on independent music. CatchMusic sells a la carte downloads at $1 each. Songs retail at $1 - artist gets about $.55 per song.
Viztas Digital Marketplace
Viztas Digital Marketplace will sell all kinds of digital media - not just music. Tracks retail for 99 and albums retail for $9.99. Vistaz pays out 60 per song and $6.10 per album. Viztas has not yet launched.
DiscLogic
A la carte downloads. Tracks sell for 99 cents. We get 65 cents. Entire-album downloads are usually $9.99.
** BEGIN added to original comment by AC poster **
CDBaby
CD Baby is a little online record store that sells CDs by independent musicians. I don't think they sell downloads, but I

Chevy Nova, anyone? by tbase · 2004-05-12 08:41 · Score: 1

This is mp3.com like this is an Impala SS. Dual chrome exhaust tips and a supercharger doesn't make a front wheel drive V6 into an Impala SS.

--

666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast

Re:Chevy Nova, anyone? by freakmn · 2004-05-12 09:59 · Score: 1

Hmm, that link showed me a corvette, a chevy avalanche, and a meessage about having no flash...

--
warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
Re:Chevy Nova, anyone? by tbase · 2004-05-13 03:21 · Score: 1

I hate it when that happens. It's supposed to be a link to the new front wheel drive V6 Impalla SS.

--

666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast

Oh boy, they have issues by alta · 2004-05-12 08:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Read the article about converting vinal to optical...

Notice the steps...
Step Five:
Step Seven:
Step Eight:
Step Seven:
Step Eight:

Note: Repeat steps three to eight for the other side of the LP.

Step Nine:

Wow, that's great!

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.

Disbanded groups by RobertB-DC · 2004-05-12 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm still wondering if there's a way for a band that has disbanded (heh) to put its material back on garageband.com. I'm particularly interested in a bluegrass group called Big Twang -- for details, see my mirror of their now-defunct site. They had three songs at mp3.com, but since the band was gone by December 19, 2003, I guess there's no way to get their account back.

Of course, the .mp3's are safe... on my hard drive. Don't tell the lawyers!

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

"Launching the tools that feed your groove" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:45 · Score: 0

Well, that there just does it all for me.

My groove is in need of feeding and launching some tools up there is what it needs.

The site claims it's beta. Are you sure it's not first-year-design-student sub alpha?

"News"? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-05-12 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

The real news is what it does NOT include: no free downloads, and no indie artist community...

This is only "news" if you haven't paid any attention at all to who owns MP3.com, and the "general trend" in on-line music sites to charge for downloads. Really, to say this is "no surprise" is even an overstatement. Just another music-for-sale download site. Move along...

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

You get what you pay for by haute_sauce · 2004-05-12 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was depressed to see that section on mp3/digital format players was a far cry from what the 'old' mp3.com had. Instead of listing pretty much every player (portable or not), it now appears that the only players listed are the ones that have paid for the spot ! I could be mistaken, but I did not see any mention of mp3/wma home appliances (ala audiotron) nor did i see any of the lesser known brands of portables (like the nex II). So what was once a shot at getting the 'lille guy' in front of the world, is now a slick marketing engine. Sad, very sad.

improper page loading.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I just tried loading this site with my Opera 7.23 browser and its completely out of sync.. The right side (main area) of the front page is blank and seems to have loaded at the very bottom of the page leaving a huge empty white space where there should be content.. and the left sidebar menu is improperly aligned and doesn't look as it should.. anyone else having this issue with their browser?

You'd think they would at least test their new site in more than one browser before such a massive launch.. sigh

Re:improper page loading.. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-05-12 09:10 · Score: 0

Well, what do you expect? It's (snicker) "optimized" for Windoz users...

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:improper page loading.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 23:08 · Score: 0

I actually do happen to be running Opera 7.23 on my Windows XP box... :)

CSS Based Layout by colinramsay · 2004-05-12 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

I found it interesting that MP3.com is the third large site to relaunch recently with a CSS-based layout. Fileshack and Blogger (with Blogger being an education for all web designers) have also used CSS in their new layout.

The point? Interesting to see that MP3.com are forward thinking - in their web side anyway.

--
Free iPods - now in the UK!

Re:CSS Based Layout by General+Sherman · 2004-05-12 09:55 · Score: 1

I think it's also to save on bandwidth costs. Browsers can cache the CSS page, and then just get the content. With likely thousands of people downloading music from them, they'll probably want to save every single kilobyte that they can.

--
- Sherman
Re:CSS Based Layout by colinramsay · 2004-05-12 10:07 · Score: 1

Totally. That can be confirmed by the fact that none of those three sites I mentioned actually validate, and that goes a way to proving that these sites are CSS based for practical reasons rather than some abstract ideological one.

--
Free iPods - now in the UK!
Re:CSS Based Layout by /dev/trash · 2004-05-12 11:28 · Score: 1

Forward thinking? Jesus, CSS has been around for what 7-8 years now?
Re:CSS Based Layout by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 11:34 · Score: 0

It's also kind of cool to see that they're using PHP to do some of the content management.

See: http://www.mp3.com/tech/index.php
Re:CSS Based Layout by colinramsay · 2004-05-12 12:44 · Score: 1

Yeah and how long has it taken people to take it up in real world applications?

--
Free iPods - now in the UK!
Re:CSS Based Layout by Greg+W. · 2004-05-13 01:13 · Score: 1

With likely thousands of people downloading music from them,

You didn't actually go to the new MP3.com site yet, did you?

There's no music there.
Re:CSS Based Layout by General+Sherman · 2004-05-13 05:49 · Score: 1

The assumption is that there _will_ be.

--
- Sherman

Needs more Boards by Erik+Fish · 2004-05-12 08:47 · Score: 1

I used to find the hardware forum on mp3.com fairly useful back when MP3 CD players were new. With this new site that subject is crammed in with posts like "WHAT IS BETTER QUALITY???? MP3 FORMAT OR WAVE??? REPLY!!"

C|Net should really separate MP3 hardware topics from the generic "Tech Guide Discussion" board they've got now.

1.7 million songs? What does that tell us? by phr1 · 2004-05-12 08:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

I read recently that there are around 30,000 CD's released in the US every year. At ten songs (average) per CD, that's 300,000 songs/year released on CD. I don't know how long the original mp3.com was around but it was probably less than 5 years, and it probably put up mp3's at a faster rate near the end than near the beginning. But even at a uniform rate over the whole 5 years, it sounds like one web site was distributing more songs per year all by itself, than the entire CD industry released put together. Add to that the number of musicians who distribute their stuff through their own sites, and it's clear there's a heck of a lot more music being released as gratis downloads than as proprietary CD's.

Some people blame diminishing CD sales on unauthorized CD copying; others blame it on technological obsolescence (people buy DVD's instead of CD's now); still others say it's because poor artistic decisions by record labels result in releasing uninteresting music that people don't want to buy. I haven't yet seen a connection made with authorized, freely downloadable music, that people can listen to instead of buying proprietary CD's, just like they can run GNU/Linux instead of buying Windows, Apache instead of IIS, etc. Sure, a lot of mp3.com downloads are crap, but lots of commercial CD's are crap too.

Another really good site, by the way, is Magnatunes. They publish entire CD's under a Creative Commons license and you can download the complete CD's in mp3 format and pass around copies noncommercially. You can also pay to download in FLAC or Ogg Vorbis format, or buy commercial licenses (e.g. if you want to use one of the CD's as a movie soundtrack) through a simple web interface. There is some really excellent music there too.

mp3.com markup by mqRakkis · 2004-05-12 08:53 · Score: 1

Nice to see they design with web standards in mind; the page looks pretty funny in Opera (7.50 B1). All the menus (genres, tech guide, newsletter) appear on top of the actual content, pushing everything else below them. And yeah, I know opera has its clitches with markup (which browser doesn't?). It doesn't take much to design web pages that are standards compliant and appear right in all the major browsers.

So they're a search engine now.... by sTalking_Goat · 2004-05-12 08:53 · Score: 1

everyone wants to be Google.

--

My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

Interesting definition by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:54 · Score: 0

I went to the linked recording article and noticed something interesting on the left side. They listed a definition for DRM from their glossary. The definition given was:

A variety of systems that enable the copyright owner of a piece of intellectual property (such as music, video, or text) to specify what someone else can do with it. Typically, this is used to offer downloads without having to worry that the user is freely distributing the file over the Web without any compensation to the copyright holder.

Interesting. So DRM is all about keeping people from freely distributing the file over the web. And all this time we thought they were worried about p2p filesharing. Silly us.

Everybody, feel free to make fun of this definition. There's plenty to laugh at.

well blah by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 08:55 · Score: 0

"The real news is what it does NOT include: no free downloads, and no indie artist community."

...which of course was the entire point of that site. Well done killing it :-(

MusicVine by Dracolytch · 2004-05-12 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, OK, so the site is disapointing.

One good thing that it DOES have is the musicvine. Shows the relationship between artists in a (not horrible, not great) flash interface.

This sure beats using Amazon to help me find the relationships between artists, and scouting out new sounds for my "distinct" tastes.

~D

--
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.

Re:MusicVine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:00 · Score: 0

Yeah, Monkey Porn soundtracks are real hard to come by....
Re:MusicVine by Shadwell · 2004-05-12 09:31 · Score: 1

See Music Plasma for an awesome artist relationship display or sign up for an Audioscrobbler account.
Re:MusicVine by KGBNick · 2004-05-12 16:36 · Score: 1

For a site that shows relationships between artists, as well as in-depth analyses of the smallest of genres and other great information you might want to try out AMG All Music Guide

ZeroPhase? by gearmonger · 2004-05-12 08:56 · Score: 2, Informative

I think (note that implies less than 100% certainty) that zerophase.net has what you're looking for. They're very independent and very into supporting innovative ways to (legally) share music.

Re:ZeroPhase? by rfelix · 2004-05-19 04:13 · Score: 1

I'm Richard, from Zerophase. At ZP we definitely are attempting to bring something new to the game.. we're forging alliances with quite a few independent labels right now, and are supporting lots of different music scenes all over the world. We want to focus on quality, not necessarily quantity (there are enough sites focused on profit as the bottom line, therefore they get really massive and it's hard to sort through all the crap). All artists on ZP are artists who we believe bring a bit more to the table and deserve to be recognized for it. Please feel free to check out what we're trying to do, and link us up if you so desire. There are buttons and such for you to use on our HELP page. zerophase. ((the best you've never heard))

mp3.com.com.com.com by fastdecade · 2004-05-12 08:58 · Score: 1

Download.com Music (mistaken by some for the new MP3.com)

Not to be mistaken for CNet's mp3.com.com.

Which does, of course, exist, but is not redirected to Download.com Music.

Of course by Experiment+626 · 2004-05-12 08:59 · Score: 1

So, MP3.com is trying to be the place to go to search for music, none of which is actually in MP3 format. It all makes sense now.

No way by Srin+Tuar · 2004-05-12 08:59 · Score: 1

She can pay them out of her cut.

Re:No way by object88 · 2004-05-12 11:32 · Score: 1

She already does. The cost to produce a recording come out of the artist's cut.

Ingredients... by Sophrosyne · 2004-05-12 09:00 · Score: 1

gather your elements we're going to remove the hiss

why? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:01 · Score: 0

Why did they not save the music? What kind of an attitude towards art is that? We can only hope every artist saved all their songs and are ready to upload them again... and that there is a site where they can do that.

Oh Joy by autosentry · 2004-05-12 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can look forward to even more spam from these folks! Seriously, they were still heaping mounds and mounds of promotional crap when they weren't of any real use to anyone, crossing that fine line between chutzpah and bullshit many, many times.

--
Monster Zero is the reason we cannot live on the surface, but must live forever live underground like this.

I really won't miss the indie music. by br0d · 2004-05-12 09:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Sorry, but most of what appeared on the old mp3.com appeared there because the artists were too lazy and too insecure (read, too immature as artists) to bother with releasing CDs or registering domains. Most of it never deserved to be world distributed in the first place, and I really won't miss it. Whenever someone sent me an mp3.com link, my first thought was always, "Oh, here comes some crap."

Re:I really won't miss the indie music. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:10 · Score: 0

Your subjective opinion is noted. Also noted is your opinion that some art could be removed no matter what others think.
Re:I really won't miss the indie music. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:25 · Score: 0

Well, at least you're not an asshole.
Re:I really won't miss the indie music. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 10:05 · Score: 0

Sorry, but most of what appeared in the old music stores appeared there because the artists were too lazy and too insecure (read, too immature as artists) to bother with releasing mp3s or registering domains. Most of it never deserved to be world distributed in the first place, and I really won't miss it. Whenever someone released a CD, my first thought was always, "Oh, here comes some crap."

They're paid up-front for their work. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:13 · Score: 0

No text, except to foil the lameness filter.

Use RIAA Radar by reptilicus · 2004-05-12 09:15 · Score: 2, Informative

While it's not a forum/website with a list, it is a handy tool one can use to tell if an album is affiliated with an RIAA label or if you can buy it guilt-free: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

What's the point? by DynaSoar · 2004-05-12 09:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why bother to use a name that ends up being misleading? MP3.com == downloads. Garageband has picked up the old playlists and music.download.com is growing into what MP3.com was. About the only thing it could be is a come-on for pay-per-song portals, and it'd take the peculiar thinking of a dedicated marketoid to think that'll go over.

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B

How to tell if you are fattening the RIAA execs by GedConk · 2004-05-12 09:21 · Score: 2, Informative

RIAA Members Check what the label of the artist you are listening to is and check if that label is on that list. So, if you have a choice, then try to buy cds from labels NOT in that list !

Re:How to tell if you are fattening the RIAA execs by object88 · 2004-05-12 10:54 · Score: 1

I'd be skeptical. Not so long ago, the RIAA was running advertisements which featured a list of associated labels-- a few of which had nothing to do with the RIAA, and resented the implication.
Re:How to tell if you are fattening the RIAA execs by GedConk · 2004-05-12 11:22 · Score: 1

I didn't know about that. the best thing to do then would be to ask the record label if it is member of the RIAA and if not, then let them know they are being listed as member.

The artist is paying all of these people by reptilicus · 2004-05-12 09:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Maybe you're not aware of how major label contracts work, but the artist has to pay the costs of recording, marketing, etc., out of their royalties. The only thing the label gives them is essentially a loan, with an extremely high cost (loss of ownership of their creation, and serious doubt as to whether they'll ever get paid what they're owed). Some relevant links: Steve Albini's rant on how contracts work: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html A recent decision showing the RIAA owed $50 million in unpaid royalties to artists "they couldn't track down", like Dolly Parton: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-05-04 -music-royalties_x.htm And most importantly, the recent story of Marillion, who proved that you absolutely do not need a record company in this day and age: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/marillion_ comeback/

iTunes has tons of independent labels by reptilicus · 2004-05-12 09:26 · Score: 1

At last count, iTunes carried music from over 450 non-RIAA affiliated independent labels. You don't have to avoid the iTMS, just be careful what you buy there.

then you don't need it... by xedd · 2004-05-12 09:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

When I bought my car the dealership tossed me the keys for a test drive. Not being able to test drive a damn 2 dollar song is beyond reason.

[beyond reason]? Not really.
The car in question cost quite a few thousands of dollars. It makes sense to accomodate test drives, and show rooms, etc.
Do you really insist on getting a free test of anything before you spend 2 dollars on it?
For a $20,000 ITEM, hell yes.
But for a $2 item? Personally, I don't waste 5 seconds deliberating over such trivia. If I need to 'test' a $2 item before I am convinced I want to buy it, I DON'T FREAKIN NEED IT!

Meanwhile, I agree with the sentiment that what the music industry has let itself evolve into deserves to die a painful death, since technology has made them little more than unnecessary middlemen, and they should go the way of the buggywhip.

But your logic is faulty.

Ever wonder why gasoline costs so much now? Take a look at all the SUVs.

Speaking of issues... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:28 · Score: 0

What exactly is "vinal"?

The Zombie Effect yet again... by TooMuchEspressoGuy · 2004-05-12 09:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't you just hate it when your favorite insightful, helpful, or even downright revolutionary websites/programs get cancelled, only to be replaced with what is essentially a neutered, brainwashed shadow of its former glory?

Like Napster before it, it seems MP3.com has fallen victim to the RIAA's insatiable greed. What before was a bastion to new, emerging, and often innovative bands is now pay to listen, and no indie artists.

I like to call this the Zombie Effect - websites and P2P programs are killed by a higher authority, and then resurrected under complete control of that authority. It's happened before, and unfortunately, as this example shows, it will happen again.

--
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.

the techno emporium by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:33 · Score: 0

Blame advances in synthesized computer music software. Now anybody can throw a few pre-made loops together and slap on some slow crap made up in Rebirth, Reason or Cubase VST (take your pick) and then upload it. That's what a huge part of mp3.com was made up of.

Re:the techno emporium by br0d · 2004-05-12 10:42 · Score: 1

Exactly my point. That's not flamebait, that's a fact. The lower the barriers to entry in any field, the worse the signal:noise ratio. Sure, some good music came out of mp3.com, but nowhere near the amount of good music that results from even small indie label signings.

cnet strikes again. by hp46168 · 2004-05-12 09:36 · Score: 1

first they take over www.catchup.com to dismantle it (for their own evil purposes?) Now, they are using the mp3.com domain to try and sell music. And, on the subject of lastable medium, heard the report on national communist, err.. national public radio that early CDs aren't as timeless as originally thought. The term they used was CD Rot. The data layer starts to erode from the edge of the cd to the inner circle. A firm in the U.K. is gold-layering the top data layer to make the data more permanent and impervious to the CD rot. fwiw

Re:cnet strikes again. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 13:03 · Score: 0

FYI - this was a Library of Congress report - result of oxidation of the metal layer (or thermal degradation of the data layer in CDR/RW)

Fair clever and just, or just fairly clever? by dacarr · 2004-05-12 09:38 · Score: 1

I only ask because this sounds like something I can *possibly* dig up off of Everything2.

--
This sig no verb.

Browsers by rf0 · 2004-05-12 09:42 · Score: 1

and under Opera the site breaks horribly, which is nice

Rus

--
Cheap UK and US VPS

Re:1.7 million songs? What does that tell us? by yavinmoon · 2004-05-12 09:48 · Score: 1

I really like their tagline: Magnatune: We are a record label. We are not evil.

CDBaby (was:Supporting Independent Music) by turnstyle · 2004-05-12 09:48 · Score: 1

Regarding the notion of "Supporting Independent Music" I hereby plug:

CDBaby , a good service, with good music, run by good people.

A little while ago, I happened to whip up a best of CDBaby site (selections based on their editor picks, and here presented via my PHP/ASP app Andromeda).

--
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda

Disturbing. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:49 · Score: 0

MP3.com lead's to CNet's MP3.com.

MP3.com.com leads to CNet|Music.

Re:Fixed:Re:Wow.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:50 · Score: 0

"...tired free love horseshit..."

free love my ass, do you have any idea how much those club drugs and retarded clothes cost?

Old News Already by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 09:56 · Score: 0

The new mp3.com site went live days ago.

How do you do it by G00F · 2004-05-12 10:00 · Score: 1

"Excuse me while I hit the article writer with my jazz records from the 40's. Sheesh"

Keep up that treatment of your records, and they wont last the next story.

--
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive

NOogle.com by mlh1996 · 2004-05-12 10:36 · Score: 1

Enter search query: _Abbey Road_
Search

Looking......................

Nope. Don't seem to have any of that. Let me look in the back.

Looking.......................

Looks like you're out of luck. You sure you don't want some Madonna?

--
Lack of creativity is no excuse for not having a .sig

Editor war by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 10:38 · Score: 0

(mistaken by some for the new MP3.com).

Wow. Did Michael just slam CmdrTaco in a front-page story?

You can buy Abbey Road online by abe+ferlman · 2004-05-12 10:42 · Score: 1

Napster, Itunes, Walmart, mp3.com - eat your hearts out.

You can buy Abbey Road online here..

--
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...

Re:You can buy Abbey Road online by kir · 2004-05-12 14:26 · Score: 1

I was going to post the same exact link, but I figured some already did... and I was right.

allofmp3.com simply rocks.

--
3cx.org - A truly bad website.

Abbey Road by swillden · 2004-05-12 10:59 · Score: 2, Informative

For example, with a single search you can find that 'Abbey Road' by the Beatles is not available for legal download at iTunes, Napster, or anywhere else.

You can find it for download here, in your choice of format and bit rate (up to 384kbps), DRM-free, for $0.01 per MB (and, BTW, when they say MB, they mean 2^20 bytes).

As I understand it, it is a legal download, though it probably makes the record labels angry.

(How is it legal? IANAL, but my understanding is that it works like this: Under Russian law, there is apparently no difference between broadcasting over radio and "broadcasting" over the Internet. allofmp3.com pays royalties just as though they were a radio station and thereby obtains the right to "broadcast" over the net. I'm sure the RIAA is trying to figure out how to close this loophole in Russian law, but they haven't been able to do it yet. Oh, and AFAIK there is no law against importing music files from Russia, although it may be the case that you're supposed to pay some sort of import duties.)

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Isn't the 3rd iteration usually the failure? by cjmnews · 2004-05-12 11:03 · Score: 1

Why does this cliche exist? Isn't it wrong?
How many of these succeeded?

Tandy Color Computer 3
Apple 3
Any movie sequel that goes beyond the second
Windows ME (95 = v1, 98 = v2)

Of course there are successes in the 3rd iteration as well:

Pentium III
Windows 3.1 (sort of)

But usually the 3rd iteration just sucks!
Too bad I can't quickly find that web page of all the items that all failed in their 3rd version, that would have really helped my original argument...

--
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.

As a musician and artist by twofidyKidd · 2004-05-12 11:08 · Score: 1

If you insist on keeping that sort of attitude and mentality towards music, then I'll cut the middle-man and just give you the finger in person, because that's about all the respect I have for that sort of thing.

--

Hades, PoD: Official Advocate

Re:As a musician and artist by MacWiz · 2004-05-12 18:47 · Score: 1

That's right. Some artists can get $2 off that $15 sale.

The new mp3.com is the old mp3.com ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 11:42 · Score: 0

about as much as the new Napster is the old Napster, i.e., in URL only.

Third time's a charm? by phorm · 2004-05-12 11:46 · Score: 1

How about: 3 strikes you're out.

Mp3.com once had a good thing going with the many indie bands I discovered there. Over time, it went more corp-signed-artists, and began to mostly resemble the crap I heard and the radio and was trying to avoid. Now, free downloads and indie are both gone... what makes it different from any other mp3bandwagon.com outfit? Seems to me all they have is a name, and many other names have already eaten away at that mindshare whilst they'be been away.

Now, I am free. by Vinnie_333 · 2004-05-12 11:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, I recently recieved an e-mail from garageband.com telling me I could re-post all of my garage bands songs by just clicking on a link. But, I figure, I'm better off without a label holding me back, yeah know? I need to be a free man, making music for me, not for some guy in a suit ... sitting at a computer ... clicking buttons and stuff ... any way ...

--

"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot

Why...? Allofmp3.com by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · 2004-05-12 12:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why even bother with any of these music services when allofmp3.com still exists and accepts paypal? Almost any music i want, in any bitrate i want, in any format i want (sometimes even lossless) With a great download manager that sorts my mp3s perfectly... all for what, .60c an album in 160kbps ogg?

Probably not legal in the US, but the russian government fully backs it, and with it accepting paypal to charge an account, I'm a happy customer.

--
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean

Still Trying to Figure Out... by MacWiz · 2004-05-12 12:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

...how Universal was able to sell the licenses of 1.7 million songs it did not own to Trusonic, who was then able to sell them again to GarageBand.

Universal made $31 million selling the independent library, that they CHARGED musicians to post.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum...

Re:Still Trying to Figure Out... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 14:07 · Score: 0

I posted more than a hundred songs on MP3.com and wasn't ever charged to post them.

What they ended up charging for was if I wanted to display more than 3 songs at a time. The other tunes were only available to those who bought a CD. I think they also bolded the names of bands who forked over the bucks. But I was never charged anything (as you suggest) for merely posting a tune.

As for how Universal was able to profit by selling the licences, I'm pretty sure the agreement between the musician and mp3.com allowed for that. Perhaps not a good thing, but that's the way it was done.
Re:Still Trying to Figure Out... by MacWiz · 2004-05-12 16:29 · Score: 1

That would be the Terms of Service, which did NOT allow for assignment and clearly indicates that such a right does not exist.

Didn't you ever read it?

http://www.azoz.com/riaa/legal/mp3TOS.pdf

Only one search to find out you can't do it? by serutan · 2004-05-12 12:45 · Score: 2, Funny

On the file sharing networks I use, it only takes one search to download Abbey Road.

Double negative by key134 · 2004-05-12 13:53 · Score: 0

The real news is what it does NOT include: no free downloads, and no indie artist community...

I'm confused. So does that double negative mean that it does include free downloads and an indie artist community?

So much for that by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 14:31 · Score: 0

Another example of a wonderful web service, bought out by somebody else, and completely screwed over.

I LOVED the old MP3.com. BAH! BAH I SAY!

Re:So much for that by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 15:33 · Score: 0

I loved it too and really miss it. None of the others even try to hold a candle to it.

Woodstock's over...

Goldwave???? by xjimhb · 2004-05-12 15:06 · Score: 1

I read the article on LP-to-CD, and they keep talking about doing this in Goldwave and selecting that option in Goldwave ...

Last time I looked, Goldwave was a Windoze program. Has that changed, is there version of Goldwave for Linux now? If not, obvious question, what software WOULD one use to do this job in Linux?

This is not academic, when packing to move from NY to FL, in spite of all I discarded, I kept several boxes of LP's, a couple of old turntables (may need some work or a new cartridge), and a couple of 60's-vintage amps.

Stuff you just can't get on CD, like 60's folk music (Chad Mitchell Trio, Limelighters, ...) and some other 50's/60's stuff. But all the "labels" do is release ONE "best-of" album - ONE best of Tom Paxton, ONE best of Alan Sherman, and NONE of some of the other stuff - I'd gladly buy it if I could, but it AIN'T there!

So what's the best way to do LP-to-CD in Linux?

--
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story

Re:Goldwave???? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 15:38 · Score: 0

Alan Sherman

Is he still stuck at camp Grenada with Joe Spivy?
Re:Goldwave???? by xjimhb · 2004-05-12 16:29 · Score: 1

Problem, you can get "Camp Grenada", but you can't get such classics as "The Ballad of Harry Lewis"
(I'm singing you a ballad of a great man of the cloth,
his name was Harry Lewis and he worked for Irving Roth,
he died while cutting velvet on a hot July the fourth,
and his cloth goes shining on!)
or "Sir Greenbaum"
(In Sherwood Forest there dwelt a knight,
who was known as the righteous Sir Greenbaum,
and many dragons had felt the might,
of the smite of the righteous Sir Greenbaum!)

Got it on vinyl, just gotta figure out how to get it to CD/MP3/OGG or whatever ...

--
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
Re:Goldwave???? by linefeed0 · 2004-05-12 20:38 · Score: 1

Gnome Wave Cleaner. I haven't done much with it yet but it looks pretty versatile.

Page layout screwed on Opera/PC by TintinX · 2004-05-12 16:12 · Score: 1

It's just as well that I'm apparently not missing much...
The layout is all over the place when viewed with Opera 7.5 on a PC.
FF and (surprise, surprise) IE check out fine.

Not even correct instructions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 17:10 · Score: 0

"...turn down the volume on your stereo" will reduce the sound in the room but doesn't effect the level on line out.

Test a portion of the song? by danielsfca2 · 2004-05-12 17:33 · Score: 1

> To compare to a test drive of a car, maybe they should allow a free sample, say the first 25% of the song.

A free portion of the song...you had better watch out, that's such a good idea, it wouldn't surprise me if all the other download sites outright stole it from you!

Re:Test a portion of the song? by RetroGeek · 2004-05-13 02:07 · Score: 1

Well, I do not go to those sites, so it really was a new idea for me.

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Re:Test a portion of the song? by danielsfca2 · 2004-05-14 20:54 · Score: 1

But surely you have visited, say, a product page at Amazon.com, or CDNow...I mean, Amazon.com. Or VirginMega.com...I mean, Amazon.com.

Ok, so every online CD store is now part of Amazon.com, but my original point was just going to be that they all offer the same thing too (the 30-second preview is the most common standard).

But I was mostly kidding around.

mp3 players are the replacing CD's by Phazz666 · 2004-05-12 17:53 · Score: 0

mp3's players will replace cd's like cd's replaced records. Then we will be forced to buy something else replacing mp3 players. The cycle of life continues.

How to turn vinyl LPs into CDs: Step 0.5 by PoisonousPhat · 2004-05-12 19:27 · Score: 1

Clean your LP and perhaps your stylus. LP: At the cheapest, try water and mild dishwashing liquid. I'd never do that, but most probably have that around. On a level higher, get yourself a Discwasher LP cleaning kit--basically a big velvet-like brush that gets into the grooves along with some cleaning fluid. There are more specialized vinyl cleaners that do a better job of cleaning ingrained mold, dirt and grease from grooves, but obviously will come at a higher price. If you're really serious about your vinyl, perhaps if you have a significant collection of hard-to-find records, try a Record Doctor II. It'll set you back a good $200, but it'll clean your records with vacuum power. Suck the vinyl so the vinyl doesn't suck. Stylus: Your stylus may be both really dirty and badly damaged. Good cleaners include LAST, Discwasher and Stanton. If you need a replacement, spend $40 and get a nice Audio-Technica, Shure or Grado phono cartridge. If you at the very least clean the LP, I can almost guarantee less hiss and less clicks, along with a good chance of hearing more out of that recording than you had since it was brand new. There's a lot of cheap, used vinyl out there waiting to be found. PoisonousPhat, self-proclaimed vinyl freak.

--
Losers choose to abuse the use of "loose".

garageband.com NOT a ressurection by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 20:07 · Score: 0

It's more like an obfuscated memorial.

There's buttons on the website for MP3 format tunes, in some places. However, it seems all of them lead to a page about it being disabled. So what you get is realaudio, a proprietary format...
Also the layout is slammed together into an unmanagable format, with none of the capabilities of mp3.com:s sub categories.
Yes folks, that means the mellow whoooshy ambient chillout tunes end up together with the hundreds-of-bpm distorted-amplified gabber songs.

If they'd just managed to ruin either the content or the metadata I'd just have shaken my head sadly and went on, but this site made me want to slam my forehead repeatedly into a brick wall.

Speedy CD players.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-12 20:52 · Score: 0

"Select Track-At-Once, Close CD, and 2X as your burning speed (unless you know that your stereo equipment can handle CDs burned at higher speeds)"

What on Earth is this guy talking about, does he think that burning at high speed leaves 'shallower dents' in the CD-layer? DUH!

Re: allofmp3.com by Greg+W. · 2004-05-13 01:23 · Score: 1

Hmmm... sorry, I can't read Russian. And the "english" link doesn't work (White Page of Death -- it's 100% pure javascript, no HTML, sorry charlie).

Thankful for what I got by celimage · 2004-05-13 02:19 · Score: 1

CNet created Music Download.com and many of the former MP3.com artists put music on there. Now there is a another MP3.com with major label artists, except for the link in the upper right hand corner to Music Download.com. Currently it costs nothing for the artist to put music on Music Download.com and there is traffic there. As long as they dont put the bite on the indie artist like VU MP3.com did it is okay. If you notice MP3.com does not have any classical but Music Download does. In this age of corporations controlling radio and major media any chance for an indie artist is appreciated. Dennis Jennings Celestial Image http://celestial-image.com

Correction by gotw · 2004-05-13 02:28 · Score: 1

The pitch control on that deck is 60%, still only cranking me to 72RPM

A big disappointment, but not a surprise by Trixter · 2004-05-13 05:35 · Score: 1

I mean, come on, anyone here remember what mp3.com started out as? It was originally a search engine to help you find mp3 files on the web and ftp sites. Essentially a warez engine.

Slashdot Mirror

The New MP3.com: 3rd Time a Charm?

213 comments