Why AnywhereCD Failed

An anonymous reader writes "In an obituary for AnywhereCD, which closes in one week, founder (and MP3.com founder) Michael Robertson chronicles how at least one record label wanted him to embed credit card numbers of buyers into songs. A fascinating story about how at least some of the labels still don't get it and why AnywhereCD is about to be buried."

Comments

FTA

[MyLongNickName]

Here is the real reason the business model failed:

"I believe that if you give people real value (music or anything else) they are happy to pay."

Re:FTA

[User 956]

"I believe that if you give people real value (music or anything else) they are happy to pay."

I believe that if the RIAA members were in the business of giving people anything of real value, there would not exist an RIAA.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people want to spend lots of cash to have a fast internet connection and wait hours if they do not find any value in the content? Everyone I know who have spent hours with a laggy connection because they download Lost episdoes have done it because they wanted to watch them - why on earth else would they do so? The definition of value is that people choose to attain it.

I disagree with the view you present - I see it as a smokescreen for the real issue, which is that people want without paying. To cover this up, they claim the temporarily more acceptable justification that they would have paid if it was easy enough/quality enough/timely enough/service-goody enough. The world was never free of socialism, social-democratism, whatever, and the existence of goods that 'the people' find attractive but cannot attain is an abomination - if that is the case then it's better that they do not exist than they existing for only those with money.

Re:FTA

[Scrameustache]

Here is the real reason the business model failed:

"I believe that if you give people real value (music or anything else) they are happy to pay." So THAT's why iTunes never sold a single song!

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM'd crap isn't a "real value". Hence, people flocking to it!

Re:FTA

[griffjon]

It failed because he directly ignored advice of previous failed online music CEOs:

"As long as you're not trying to deliver music to consumers, you should be fine"
--Joe Fleischer, former CEO of iCast.

Re:FTA

[entrylevel]

Hello? Can somebody give this dude +5 insightful?

All about control

[Major Blud]

The reason that Robertson' business didn't succeed is that the record companies are getting tired of dealing with third-party vendors selling their music. They want total control over their content, whether it be distribution, payment methods, and DRM. They want to decide how you buy it, how much it cost, and what you can do with your purchased music. We're seeing this come to light now, with Universal and others pulling out of iTunes and controlling distribution internally.

Re:All about control

[Gr8Apes]

And this is where the music industry as it stands fails to see the logical end to their model: If it is more profitable for them to pull out of an aggregating portal site and run their own, then what's to prevent artists from doing the same? Why should artists remain with them in this scenario? Artists could, gasp, make their own deals with iTunes or the like. Odds are that artists will wind up with agents that manage that for them in return for a fee.

I would not be surprised to see this develop to their logical conclusion where there are distribution sites that offer a range of services to artists to distribute their work but do not "own" the distribution or copyrights to those works. This can only help artists in the long run, although the conversion to that environment will mostly likely have some short-term hiccups as marketing etc is worked out.

Re:All about control

[gfxguy]

And they are going to wonder why sales drop further as they pick one form of DRM that many players can't handle.

So they'll sell DRM WMA files and lose all the iPod users, or they'll sell AC4 and lose all the "Windows" compatible players.

AND

They'll piss off people who don't want to go to fifty different sights trying to hunt down the music they want.

And then they'll blame piracy for slow sales.

Re:All about control

[compro01]

then what's to prevent artists from doing the same? Why should artists remain with them in this scenario?

usually contracts that state the artists have to pay them $BIGNUM if they decide to cancel the contract before it is fulfilled.

Re:All about control

[moderatorrater]

The labels control the radio and most if not all of the traditional channels that people get their music from. If the labels control who knows about the artists, then only the artists that sign with labels will get known. The only artists that have been able to be successful without being whores of the executives are those people who used to be whores but got popular enough that they were able to break away. I don't see any reason this will change in the near future.

Re:All about control

[king-manic]

And this is where the music industry as it stands fails to see the logical end to their model: If it is more profitable for them to pull out of an aggregating portal site and run their own, then what's to prevent artists from doing the same? Why should artists remain with them in this scenario? Artists could, gasp, make their own deals with iTunes or the like. Odds are that artists will wind up with agents that manage that for them in return for a fee.

At the moment the Labels still have control over traditional media. So While you could theoretically make a living via web distribution it still requires people be aware of who you are. Word of mouth can do it but traditional media has the power of hype. Word of mouth is a natural hype. Traditional media brokers in an artificial hype.

I think it's inevitable that the internet replaces traditional media but it means the death of the super star. We'll go back to more regional artists with few cross region cross overs if there is a lack of a artificial national hype machine like the labels.

I think that may be a good thing. You don't' need millions to produce good music and may mean that instead of a lottery mentality in artists you'd have more of a real natural industry. Instead of 90% going to the super stars and 10% divided over the desperate numbers of struggling artists you might have a profession where you could actually live off playing music without having to be a superstar or have a second job.

Re:All about control

[gfxguy]

True, but contracts end, and newer artists may not sign up at all. Of course, then they lose the promotion, but I wouldn't find it beyond reason that iTMS would be happy to help out these artists seeing as how they could sell for the same price, and both Apple AND the artist would make more money.

Re:All about control

[WED Fan]

The reason that Robertson' business didn't succeed is that the record companies are getting tired of dealing with third-party vendors selling their music.

Yeah, I noticed that Starbucks, Barnes and Noble, Wherehouse, CDNow, my neighborhood drugstore, Amazon, Borders, hell, every place I can think of that used to cell CD's has gone out of...wait, no, they still sell CD's.

Re:All about control

[kat_skan]

So they'll sell DRM WMA files and lose all the iPod users, or they'll sell AC4 and lose all the "Windows" compatible players.

Or. You know. Crazy thought: they could just sell both.

Re:All about control

[Opportunist]

What do you think could keep Apple from muscling in right there? Either by paying a radio station or opening their own radio station altogether. If there's one thing Apple is REALLY good at, it's capturing trends and the zeitgeist and milking them. They got style. And teenagers dig style more than anything.

Apple does have the financial background to become a "label" all by themselves. Unless the Beatles object again, that is. :)

Re:All about control

[Kamots]

Depends how you define successful. Personally, I consider making your living from it being pretty successful. I'd consider doing performances nation-wide (nation-wide being all over the US) being successful as well. Just because you're not aware of the groups doesn't mean they're not out there... it's just typically for relatively niche markets. Take a look at the world of Celtic music for an example.

Re:All about control

[Opportunist]

Traditional media brokers in an artificial hype.

Risking being modded flamebait, but Apple is quite good at creating hypes too... So why shouldn't they succeed if they try to cut the studios and signing up artists directly? I could well see them create some kind of "Apple download chart show" on a few networks that only consist of songs downloaded from ITMS.

Re:All about control

[Opportunist]

There's two things that I blame for dwindling sales: Crippling DRM that scares me away, since I don't know whether the CD (or DL) works in my choice of player (and before I buy a CD that I can't even return, I don't buy it altogether, why should the risk be on me?), and the fact that it's really, really hard to find any kind of music today (from the big labels) that doesn't consist of "hype today - gone tomorrow" people supposedly being "artists".

Re:All about control

[LWATCDR]

Why buy a radio station?
They have the IPhone. How long before that is streaming audio? I bet it hooks right up to any car stereo's IPod adapter. It lets AT&T compete with satellite radio. Throw in iTv for good measure and you have an Apple dominated supply chain.
Not any different that what Sony and Microsoft are dreaming about.
Radio Station? That is so 20th century.

Re:All about control

[Opportunist]

They do not sell CDs. At least many of those flat devices containing encoded data supposedly being music are not CDs.

To be a CD, you'd have to conform to the Red Book standard, which they don't. I dunno what they're called, but if I was Philips, I'd sue if those things are called Compact Discs.

Re:All about control

[king-manic]

Risking being modded flamebait, but Apple is quite good at creating hypes too... So why shouldn't they succeed if they try to cut the studios and signing up artists directly? I could well see them create some kind of "Apple download chart show" on a few networks that only consist of songs downloaded from ITMS.

Possibly. At this point they aren't trying because the highly sought after content is under label control and doing this would create an instant hostile response. If all the labels opt out of iTune, then Apple has no reason not to proceed.. except for that injunction by Apple corp. Due to a previous legal settlement they can't become a music label as the label Apple corp already exists. There was a lawsuit before and it was settled with an agreement for Apple computers to not enter a mostly music content venture to respect apple corps trademark. Apple computers won the case with iTunes as it's content isn't Apple computers but instead the major labels. But going in as a indie label may be venturing too far into Apple corps space.

Although as time passes the relevance of Apple corps (who managed the Beatles catalog) Trademark may diminish. As almost everyone knows apple computers but not that many are aware of apple corp. I do imagine this is exactly what Apple corp had feared.

Re:All about control

[Fozzyuw]

I would not be surprised to see this develop to their logical conclusion where there are distribution sites that offer a range of services to artists to distribute their work but do not "own" the distribution or copyrights to those works.

I think Garage Band has been trying to do something like this for a while. My brothers band used it for a while and I know at least one band that made it big, but did so by going through a traditional record label and having only been discovered on the site.

It's a great site to find indie artists. I've heard some good stuff and some complete crap. In general, I enjoy it for what it's worth: something I won't hear on the radio.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:All about control

[plague3106]

Well the studios still have studios. The artists may have to pay for them, but not up front, and it seems only if the CD sells. If it flops, is the artist out anything?

Re:All about control

[acroyear]

Why should artists remain with them in this scenario?

Because there's more to the record label promotional engine than just getting the stuff in the stores.

When "all things are done as they should be", the label gets you on a larger tour than just your local region, often opening for a much larger band that the label also manages; the label gets you on a network tv show (like Leno or Today); the label gets your video on what few video stations/shows are still on the air; the label (still) uses payola schemes to get you on the radio (which in spite of EVERYTHING that sucks about it, it still remains the #1 way of getting music heard and thus purchased).

granted, in spite of the fact that the label owns 88% of your record, they will still take as many of these expenses out of your "recouped from royalties" in order to guarantee that your record never makes a profit and they never have to actually account for you, but that's the Labels' side of the Faustian bargain that is the modern record contract, unchanged since the labels first looked at Elvis and said "hey, we could get rich too if we figure out how to clone this guy...".

that's also a big IF on whether or not they'll do any of that at all - with label heads and middle-managers changing on a daily basis in that hollywood-esque hell, chances are that half way through making the album, your AR man has been fired and you won't get shit for support and will be lucky if they even let you keep the recordings you've made to sell (for points, of course) to another label.

Re:All about control

[Radon360]

Well, one interesting thing to note about all of your examples is that all of them sell other things besides CDs. While CDs might be a sizeable portion of their business, it is not the majority share for any of them. I think record^H^H^H^H^H^H music stores would be a better barometer of measuring music media sales because their business health is much more drastically impacted by it.

Then again, the control that record companies most likely want lies within the antiquated model of producing and distibuting a physical, saleable object and not rely upon empowering someone else to reproduce the product, who could theoretically misreport their reproduction numbers. It isn't so much about third parties selling music as it is about third parties reproducing music, authorized or otherwise.

Re:All about control

[Frizzle Fry]

The label fronts the money to cover the production of your album. If you are going to cut them out and go directly to the aggregating site with your record, then you and your fellow bandmembers are going to need to pay out of pocket for studio time, etc., in hopes that you will make it back.

Re:All about control

[TooMuchToDo]

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails fame has been giving away Garageband files of some of his songs for a while now:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=7xF&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=NIN+garageband&spell=1

Re:All about control

[goaliemn]

I'm sure they would sell both if Apple would license the AC4 DRM, which microsoft does do for the WMA DRM.

Re:All about control

[Prien715]

I think it's inevitable that the internet replaces traditional media but it means the death of the super star. We'll go back to more regional artists with few cross region cross overs if there is a lack of a artificial national hype machine like the labels.

So why aren't podcasts/webcasts and other new media "regional"? Ask a Ninja and other internet shows don't seem to have any geographic area....

I think fragmentation will occur, but I think it will be along more niche lines, just as we have lately. When I was a teenager, I listened to a "rock" station. They'd play Pink Floyd and Nirvana's newest stuff back to back. In a short time, there was no "rock" station any more. We have modern rock, classic rock, 80s rock, soft rock, indy rock, progressive rock, alternative, etc.; even good indy stations segmented their shows into similarly narrow buckets, and sometimes even narrower ones, like psychedelic rock in San Francisco from the 60's that never broke into the top 100. When the first radio generation speaks, there was mostly just "radio" -- without so many categories and sub-sub-genres with entire stations devoted to their worship.

Of course, the mystical musicians who found their own genres, will still be forced to wander as they always have.

Re:All about control

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget (or omit) the part where the record label takes back the full amount of the advance out of the percentage the band gets -- then takes the band's copyright anyway.

Re:All about control

[Em Adespoton]

Due to a previous legal settlement they can't become a music label as the label Apple corp already exists. There was a lawsuit before and it was settled with an agreement for Apple computers to not enter a mostly music content venture to respect apple corps trademark. Apple computers won the case with iTunes as it's content isn't Apple computers but instead the major labels. But going in as a indie label may be venturing too far into Apple corps space.

Actually, there have been further negotiations since the iTMS lawsuit by Apple Corp. I believe the two companies might have finally come to some sort of an agreement other than A.Corp continually suing A.Comp, but the details of that agreement were never disclosed AFAIK.

Re:All about control

[aztektum]

I think it's inevitable that the internet replaces traditional media but it means the death of the super star. We'll go back to more regional artists with few cross region cross overs if there is a lack of a artificial national hype machine like the labels. Why would changing distribution methods effect a company putting advertising wherever they can? The method of delivering content may change, the message will always remain the same: "Buy the hottest new release from $TALENTLESS_HACK!" posted anywhere people will see it.

Re:All about control

[fenderized]

It's an easy mistake to make, but garageband.com the website (from the GP) and Garageband the application are unrelated.

Re:All about control

[Gr8Apes]

The FCC via Clear Channel/Infinity have pretty much seen to the end of radio as we used to know it. It's now one big payola advertising engine meant to maximize exposure for the manufactured chimp of the hour so it can be milked and discarded.

Re:All about control

[Gr8Apes]

But if they create an essentially stand-alone subsidiary named, say, "iTunes", then Apple Comp doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Re:All about control

[Gr8Apes]

I think we'll still have superstars, except they'll be more realized than produced. There's been a number of underground acts that have surged forward in spite of resistance by the labels. Despite their current status, Metallica used to be the underground poster boy.

Re:All about control

[WED Fan]

Hello? Hello? Wherehouse? CDNow? Anyone there? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hello, McFly! (Yes, I'm mixing my movie metaphors.)

Re:All about control

[Gr8Apes]

First off, most acts before the labels toured, found other acts, and would tour with those they liked. In many cases, big well-known acts would occassionally select a small unknown act to tour with them for a bit, thus giving them big exposure.

That's how it used to be and still works in some cases.

Now, as for your comments about the payola system, while correct, have an incorrect basis. Payola and everything that makes it work needs to be tossed. Radio has been reduced to mere cloned trash across the US by the FCC/Clear Channel/Infinity collusion. The sooner that gets untangled, the better. Who would ever have thought that allowing a single company to buy 8 radio stations in a single market would not cause a collapse of programming selection for said market?

Re:All about control

[Technician]

The reason that Robertson' business didn't succeed is that the record companies are getting tired of dealing with third-party vendors selling their music.

Exactly.

some of the labels still don't get it and why AnywhereCD is about to be buried.

They knew exactly how to bury Anywhere CD and used it.

Re:All about control

[mochan_s]

I think that may be a good thing. You don't' need millions to produce good music and may mean that instead of a lottery mentality in artists you'd have more of a real natural industry. Instead of 90% going to the super stars and 10% divided over the desperate numbers of struggling artists you might have a profession where you could actually live off playing music without having to be a superstar or have a second job.

I don't think this will happen ( I wished it would but I don't think it will).

The record companies have completely dismantled all infrastructure for this kind of environment.

1. The local band is touted in your local free rag or the school newspaper but there isn't anything bigger in most places. The journalism on those papers are terrible and probably feature bands that the newspaper editor knows or is a relative of. It's not based on merit. Beyond the local rag, there is nowhere higher to go until you hit major industry controlled national mags. The magazines are not interested in new talent at all. The British music journalism scene seems much much better.

2. The record label you can sign to and make a living is astronomically far away. There is self-production which you have to cut so many corners that the end result is un-listenable music - mostly because of lack of engineering or studio time. 99% of local band music sounds terrible because of the lack of proper studio time and engineering. Self-promotion is a waste of time - when going against TV and internet promotions.

3. There is no hierarchy to rise to. You either are a struggling local band or signed to a huge label.

A old guy was telling me that before if you knew some band who was good, sooner or later they would get somewhere. But, in the modern environment, there was no where for them to go but oblivion playing local bars.

Re:All about control

[patrixmyth]

The agreement pretty much settles things, Apple Computer bought ALL rights to Apple Corp. and grants back use to the Beatles label. So, no more issue with going into any business that they might choose.

Apple Press Release

Re:All about control

[juniorbird]

The labels know their existing sales channels are dead. What they want is new sales channels. But they don't want just any new sales channel -- they want channels with customers already built-in. That's how the iTMS succeeded -- many of those customers already had iTunes installed for their iPods. When Apple went to the labels, they could offer exposure in a channel that *already had customers*.

AnywhereCD had an interesting model. Unfortunately, they had no customers. This made them an unattractive channel for the labels. Building customers was thus the challenge, and, frankly, that's hard with major-label content. eMusic spreads virally because it focuses on a market that communicates via informal networks already. Amazon has an intriguing new service because they, like iTunes, bring customers along with them. AnywhereCD couldn't offer that. To that extent, I'd say that the early effort to get top labels was a mistake -- they should've concentrated on more open-minded small labels and tried to build up a user base based on network effects, then tried to grow upwards from there. Of course, I don't know if that would've brought them enough revenues to reach breakeven, but, if new channels must bring customers with them to achieve credibility, then building a customer base before doing the expensive, complex deals was the best idea.

Re:All about control

[fwarren]

At the moment the Labels still have control over traditional media. So While you could theoretically make a living via web distribution it still requires people be aware of who you are. Word of mouth can do it but traditional media has the power of hype. Word of mouth is a natural hype. Traditional media brokers in an artificial hype.

Now, you can't even be considered a real musician without a My Space page. It is trendy and almost a necessity, you are almost even forced to put out a few songs for free on the MySpace mp3 player. It is only a matter of time until a band makes it big WITHOUT the industry from MySpace or YouTube.

Myspace is just 1996's Geocity, with a friends list, an even more locked down and restriced page layout, and some embeded media. Now that many more people have broadband, Myspace works. And I say all of that to say. No one saw Myspace comming. I think it is pretty lame. All the tools to make it have been around for more than a decade. But the kids discover it and boom!!! There is money to be made there.

What is the next idea that is to lame for someone over 30 to think of but the kids will fall in love with it? There is one comming that is going to have the critical mass to kick the lables in the balls and make stars out of musicians WITHOUT the old infrastructure.

Just a matter of time.

In the mean time...get off of my lawn.

Re:All about control

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it didn't work is mp3.com started as a pirate site!!!

It got popular as a pirate site!!!

it turned legit and people stayed (and kept going to mp3.com because its.. easy to remember/type), and he sold it for a lot of money..

right place at the right time..

he has no skill at creating good or useful services or websites..

Re:All about control

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What do you think could keep Apple from muscling in right there?

The lawsuit by Apple records in the 60s.

Re:All about control

[J.Y.Kelly]

What do you think could keep Apple from muscling in right there?

The lawsuit by Apple records in the 60s.

Doesn't apply any more. After the latest legal wranglings Apple Inc (computers) now owns all rights to the Apple name. They licence back the name to Apple records to allow them to continue trading under their old name.

I don't think it's ever come out how much this cost Apple Inc, but you can bet it wasn't cheap!

Re:All about control

[clickclickdrone]

>The label fronts the money to cover the production of your album
And it comes right out your royalties so if it cost a lot, you may never get a dime for your number one album. If you had a really shabby lawyer, you might even find it's refundable i.e. your album tanks, you have to pay back £100k to the record company.

Re:All about control

[Chris Mattern]

No reason this will change? How about a new, non-traditional channel that the labels don't, and can't, control? There's this new fangled thing called the Internet. I hear it's going to be really big.

Chris Mattern

Re:All about control

[portnoy]

CDNow is operated by Amazon now, so you really can't say that their primary business is CDs. Wherehouse is still alive, yes, but it's reported that they're making most of their profit from DVD and game sales these days.

Re:All about control

[Karlt1]

What do you think could keep Apple from muscling in right there?

The lawsuit by Apple records in the 60s.
-----

Last January when Apple Computer changed its name to Apple Incorporated, SJ also announced that they had bought all rights for the name "Apple" from Apple Corps and relicensed the name back to them. Apple is no longer subject to the agreement.

Re:All about control

[iainl]

Does anyone actually hit this, though? I've got somewhere north of a thousand CDs, a fair few of which claim to have some sort of copy protection on them, but not one has failed to play in either my standalone NAD player, my car or the CD drive of my PC.

Re:All about control

[Opportunist]

Bluntly? Dunno. It has copy protection, I won't buy it. Why should I risk anything and get upset about it should it turn out to be unplayable? It's not the 20something bucks blown on a song I won't listen to in a year anymore anyway. It's the anger I dread that I waste money on something that doesn't play.

Given that my one and only CD and DVD player is the DVDR-Drive of my computer, I'd guess my chances are high that I might get hit. Not to mention that, in the wake of the Sony Rootkit, I dread putting a so called "original" disk into the machine. Yes, it's running Linux (another reason why it just might refuse to work), but still, I'd rather slip a shady copy from some Chinese "wannabuysomemovie" guy I met on the street into the machine than an "original".

Re:All about control

[compro01]

yes, but it just takes time for those contracts to end and new artists to recognize that signing might not be a good idea.

Another shining example of failure to adapt

[LoadWB]

I have to agree with his biggest point, that people WANT the music, but they also insist on value. This is an area where The Labels have failed to grasp onto the idea of adapting to the medium of the day: the Internet.

Isn't there a theory about failing to adapt and thus failing to survive? Sounds familiar for some reason. (Though, in this unfortunate case, failing to adapt to lack of adaptation lead to demise. Sounds soooo bass akwards!)

Re:Another shining example of failure to adapt

[gstoddart]

This is an area where The Labels have failed to grasp onto the idea of adapting to the medium of the day: the Internet.

Isn't there a theory about failing to adapt and thus failing to survive? Sounds familiar for some reason.

Well, the Labels want to make sure that they get paid every time you listen. If they can't do that, they'll try to ensure you only get to play it if you have the original CD (or if they can install a rootkit on your machine, or what have you).

See, you only have to adapt to survive when you can't have the environment around you modified. When you can get laws passed like the DMCA which allow you to make it a crime to do things that used to be covered under fair use (or, indeed, try to legally remove the concept of fair use altogether), you don't need to adapt.

In their current business model, they can change the reality around them. I'm with you, hopefully "adapt or die" will have to apply to them. But, I'm not holding out any belief that they're willing to accept any scenario in which I buy music, digitize it, and then listen to it on any device I want to when I want to without further requirements imposed by them. To them, they want complete control of how I use it once it's in my hands.

Cheers

Re:Another shining example of failure to adapt

[CodeBuster]

To them, they want complete control of how I use it once it's in my hands.

I don't know about you, but I would *never* purchase anything under those terms. If I cannot have complete control to do whatever I want with the music or movies that I have purchased short of distribution then I will not buy. It is that simple. Public performance or public sharing is one thing, but dictating how a private user can and cannot use something after they purchase it is something else entirely. DRM == NO SALE.

Re:Another shining example of failure to adapt

[Reziac]

Same here. If I can't throw it at my computer or whatever device I like, and have it work without it fucking with my equipment or making me jump thru hoops... I don't want it. Nothing is worth that much trouble.

Re:Another shining example of failure to adapt

[DerekLyons]

I have to agree with his biggest point, that people WANT the music, but they also insist on value. This is an area where The Labels have failed to grasp onto the idea of adapting to the medium of the day: the Internet.

What nonsensical bullshit. When you look on the various third party sites, what do you find? The same bands that you'll find on your local radio radio station and record store - I.E. music produced and promoted by The Labels. The mystical power that you dream the 'net somehow has is singularly noticeable by its absence. The demand for nusic produced by The Labels if noticable by its virtual omnipresence.
 
 

Isn't there a theory about failing to adapt and thus failing to survive? Sounds familiar for some reason. (Though, in this unfortunate case, failing to adapt to lack of adaptation lead to demise. Sounds soooo bass akwards!)

Bass akwards indeed - because its more of the same ill thought out bullshit - only in this case its bullshit you are parroting, rather than bullshit you created on your own. Clue #1: Opening up to distributing their music on the web is adapting. Clue #2: Giving up and giving away their material free isn't adapting, its an adolescent fantasy.

Re:Another shining example of failure to adapt

[LoadWB]

I like to use my parents as a metering stick in a lot of situations like these. My father was dumbfounded by the notice that he could not play his John Wayne DVD on his computer because the video card had TV output which did not have Macrovision protection and could not be disabled. Before then he really did not care about all of this DRM crapola. Now he is a little more wiser.

I observe this shift in other people, albeit gradually. People are realizing that they are not getting value by having to purchase the same song again and again for multiple purposes.

Give me 320kbps VBR Downloads

[fishyfool]

for a good price, and I'll buy. Keep the CD, I'll burn my own. As much as Robertson tried, he still didn't get it.

Re:Give me 320kbps VBR Downloads

[Indecision Bob]

Personally, I find it just as much hassle to burn a cd of everything I buy as it is to rip a cd of everything I buy... And you don't get no artwork...

AnywhereCD ???

[fishybell]

I think I can offer a better reason why this company failed:

Raise your hand if you both a) have heard of AnywhereCD and b) purchased anything from them.

Re:AnywhereCD ???

[twistedcubic]

Even worse, he actually things his "going out of business sale" price of $7 is a good deal for his crappy inventory. I wonder if he'll be shocked when nobody buys.

Re:AnywhereCD ???

[jandrese]

Exactly. I went to the website to check it out (and hey, $7 albums aren't a bad deal and I'm willing to risk a few bucks on him closing up shop early and taking the money and running for a deal) and about the best I can say about it is that it looks "clean". While I like clean design, if I had stumbled across this website randomly I doubt I would have bought anything from it. It looks like a phishing site on the front page. The selection is also very thin, so if you're looking for anything specific you are almost certainly out of luck.

Re:AnywhereCD ???

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Agreed, as nice as it is that it moves quickly, it looks like it's sparse because not a lot of effort was put into it, i.e. illegitimate somehow. Also, I'd like to browse through their catalog by artist, but it's just a random jumble with no option to sort the list. I'll pass.

Re:AnywhereCD ???

[Odin_Tiger]

I probably will. In 3 minutes of cursory browsing I found at least 3 albums I'd like. It's really too bad that word of this business didn't get out more, as fishybell alluded to. I'd have definitely been a regular customer, but yeah...never heard of them before just now. He clearly doesn't get advertising these days, as he talked about how he didn't get media coverage. All it takes is getting the front page of Digg / Reddit / del.icio.us/popular once or twice in 6 months and most internet users will know about you - screw old media coverage.

Re:AnywhereCD ???

[Wavicle]

From TFA:

After signing the contract we invested months of labor and resources into building the technology to amass the digital inventory, creating the web site, constructing the e-commerce system and testing the process.

Months? How many months does one have to work to get quality content like this? Somebody gotted robbed.

I have found 7 albums so far in their inventory that I would like to buy. Unfortunately I didn't realize the cost was $7 + $3 S&H. That's kind of a big shipping premium there. Buying multiple CDs doesn't drop the shipping price one thin dime. I would much rather spend $7 on the mp3's and save $3 S&H. Had they done just that, I would be spending $50 there right now.

Re:AnywhereCD ???

[mbrinkm]

I agree with you on the looks of the site and the selection.

I would also add the site lacks a lot of functionality that I require for an online music store that I would frequent for purchases. It doesn't have a description of the album other than the tracks, cover, and title. No reviews, description of the music within the album, no "similar to these artists". Basically, if you're not positive that these albums are exactly what you want you would have to look elsewhere to make sure, then come back to buy it (which you wouldn't do). The browse functionality is absolutely awful. The genre selection for the browsing does not allow for drilling down for more specific interests (again limiting any musical exploring you may want to do).

Add those problems to the limited advertising, limited selection and the "phishing" look of the site; it's no wonder the place is going under.

It's too bad that there are so many problems with it. The concept is one that I would be interested in supporting. It could be improved upon (lossless compression & OGG in addition to MP3 as a choice, singles discs / downloads, etc.) but it covered my main dislike of downloading MP3's (trading a CD quality track for a lossy compression download usually encumbered with DRM) with the purchase both aspect.

"Dont get it"?

[Anonymous Coward]

A fascinating story about how at least some of the labels still don't get it If the labels are the ones not getting it, how come they are still in business and AnywhereCD is tanking?

Don't confuse good business with ignorance. Just because they act like assholes doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing.

Re:"Dont get it"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the labels are the ones not getting it, how come they are still in business and AnywhereCD is tanking?

Hmm... because Anywhere CD hasn't bought the laws necessary to prop up its business model? Just a guess.

Re:"Dont get it"?

[WwWonka]

"If the labels are the ones not getting it, how come they are still in business and AnywhereCD is tanking?"

...BUT the labels are starting to tank. small labels are folding by the dozens and the big ones are hemorrhaging and don't get why they are gushing blood. It does come down to the simple fact of they "just don't get it". Maintaining an old school mentality in a new world that is changing faster than they can send out RIAA letters to colleges is just not going to cut it. It is going to take a maverick(insert Top Gun references) to work at a label and "get it", thus lowering prices, putting music out there for the masses, and working with what people truly want and how they want it.

Seemed like a good idea...

[bteeter]

I'd never heard of them until today - and I practically live online. They must not have been marketing all that much for me to have not even heard of them.

In any event, it sounds like AnywhereCD had a pretty decent business idea, except maybe that it should be the CD as the "addon" instead of the downloads.

I wonder if Apple or any of the other major retailers will ever offer an option like "buy this digital album for $x and for $y more get a CD copy". I don't see why not. CD's are so cheap you could sell them as add ons for say $5 dollars more than the download and make a nice profit. Plus the buyer will have the permanency of the CD.

Re:Seemed like a good idea...

[tholomyes]

$15 for 100 blank CDs is as much permanence as most people need. If you want true longevity, get the vinyl. I've seen vinyl that comes with free MP3 downloads of the songs, at shows. That seems like a good way to do it.

Re:Seemed like a good idea...

[ColdWetDog]

get the vinyl.

The what? Is that the name of a group?

Oh, got it - the thingy with the little arm that I threw away a decade or two ago.

But getting a mastered CD with artwork and a cute little box (or a mastered record with artwork sized so you can actually see the details) isn't a bad thing. Just not sure where I'd put them...

Re:Seemed like a good idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd never heard of them until today - and I practically live online.

Same here. And I don't just live online. As a half-time DJ and music collector I buy piles of CDs and vinyl all the time - basically all of it online. At this very moment there are maybe three or four different orders being shipped to me and that's nothing unusual. If you have some good discs for a fair price, I'll definitely take a look.

Now, this fair price thing...while reading (yes, really) Michael's article I immediately spotted something:

To entice the labels my strategy was to pay the wholesale price for CDs plus give them $2 for the digital tracks.

Most of the labels refused. That's why the catalogue was "crappy". They wanted more. Possibly more cash, possibly more restrictions. Whatever. The unfortunate side is that even that $2 was a lot more than I'm willing to pay for mp3s on top of my CD purchases.

OK, I'm a geek. I've used MP3 since 1995 or so and a dozen other digital formats as well. I have no problems ripping and converting my own stuff - but does anyone else either? I mean, even Windows Media Player probably has a big red button which copies a CD to a format it can play. I'd assume most portable MP3 players also have a ripping/converting software which loads a CD to the player without any hassle. Why would anyone pay $2 for a job which is trivially easy to do? Maybe it could have its uses with those broken CDs which don't play on a PC without geekish trickery. But then again, why would a record label offer restricted CDs which eventually come with a near-perfect quality non-DRMd digital copy?

I simply don't believe that this one small shop could offer competitive prices when there are several mega-warehouses selling CDs online (including the very latest ones) for less than $14. Most of them give free or half-free shipping. This one asked...what? $3 per disc? I didn't even find the cost easily.

So, the bottom line seems to be "the same CDs as elsewhere for higher prices" and that's it. The 192 kbps MP3 is a nice bonus but pretty much unnecessary to anyone who can operate the simplest ripping software. (Besides, I prefer making my custom files in lossless, VBR, OGG or something similar.) Why should I bother? The labels killed this concept already before it started and the pale shadow which finally launched wasn't advertised at all. Nobody seemed to care either and I can't blame people for that. There's little reason to pay extra for nothing.

Oh well, maybe I'll grab some $7 CDs if I can locate the shipping costs and they're reasonable. You can keep the MP3, though. Not even worth the bandwith it'd take.

Re:Seemed like a good idea...

[Firethorn]

Not to be a downer, but a professionally pressed(not burned) CD should have longevity closer to that of vinyl - most burned CD's are only rated for a few decades, a pressed CD should last your children's lives if taken care of properly. And it'll stand much more in the way of playing than the LP.

Re:Seemed like a good idea...

[tholomyes]

When my old record player died, I picked up one of these, the Numark PT01. It has a built-in speaker, and will run off of batteries, and it even has pitch and tone controls. Best of all, it's light and small :)

The artwork looks even better on the record covers, too. They do take up a lot of space though. I've long since given up keeping CD jewel cases.

Re:Seemed like a good idea...

[ColdWetDog]

Looks interesting, but it would be Just Another Little Electronic Device to clutter up my already completely overcrowded life. That's why I like DAPs and hard drives. Internally, the computer's just as disorganized as the rest of my life but externally it looks clean, neat and organized.

Not even /. covered it

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

Sadly, few press outlets covered our grand opening. Looking back I suspect there were probably many contributing factors.

I did a search for anything here on the /. and, other than this article, nothing came up. I guess that not even /. wanted to cover a new (and rather interesting) online music store.

Re:Not even /. covered it

[jandrese]

Probably he never submitted it anywhere. Even Google doesn't know much about this site; the first page is all new articles about how it is shutting down. I'm wondering if he did any advertising at all (even free advertising by submitting articles to Slashdot and the like)?

Re:Not even /. covered it

[Nightlily]

Or he did post it and it was never approved.

I am one of the people involved with MidnightBSD (http://www.midnightbsd.org). Several of us tried to get a slashdot article about our first release. None of the articles were approved.

Sometimes you can't even get free advertising.

Re:Not even /. covered it

[jandrese]

You need some sort of flamebait in the writeup, that way kdawson will approve it for sure.

Warners Seems To Be The Smartest Label

[illectro]

The idea for anywhereCD was great, maybe a decade ago, I remember a few digital music companies tried similar things but nothing ever on the scale of this. However now the labels are starting to change from their 'sue everyone' attitude which has helped contribute to the digital music monoculture where you play with Apple or you don't play at all. Perhaps most radical is Warner brothers who have basicly made their whole catalog available for free, online at imeem.com - a couple of months ago they were suing imeem over its 'youtube for music' model, but then they surprised everyone by signing a deal.

Re:Warners Seems To Be The Smartest Label

[dbIII]

The idea for anywhereCD was great, maybe a decade ago

Go back even furthur. In 1987 or 1988 an Australian record shop tried to put something similar into practice and had effectively the same problem. They had some other fairly expensive computer gear to put tracks onto the incredibly expensive CD burners of the time, they had a large "Indie" record label on side, they had the endorsement of many of the artists that were going to be at the launch and they had access to a fairly large and reasonably popular for the niche catalogue in digital form to burn onto CDs. There was of course advertising and a bit of press leading up to the launch. In the pre-dawn hours of launch day people in the "indie" record label and the record shop were served with legal papers to desist because it turned out the record label were not as independant as they thought.

Record Labels hate all things digital

[ErikTheRed]

unless it comes wrapped in a mountain of DRM. Let's face it - the entire recording industry's existence is based on its ability to gouge artists on one ends and consumers on the other. They could get away with this because they controlled who had access to their expensive studios and who could get heard on the radio (Payola lives to this day), what was carried in stores, and more importantly what was promoted in stores. The value of each and every one of these points of control is diminishing by the minute. The labels are all fucked, they know it and they're grasping at whatever straws they can and dragging their feet wherever possible. It's all just delaying the inevitable - people will buy reasonably priced music (look at the success of iTunes), but they won't get fucked if they no longer have to. Siooma, motherfuckers.

Re:Record Labels hate all things digital

[dupup]

ability to gouge artists on one ends and consumers on the other

Oh, man, not sure which end I'd rather be gouged on. Eeeeww.

Re:Record Labels hate all things digital

[r_jensen11]

Then why don't they bring back the vinyl? Seriously, I'd love for them to go back to producing records. There's something nastolgic about them.

Don't get me wrong, I love CD's too. There's no way in hell I'd ever use a vinyl record in a car, and I'm even hesitant to use original CD's in cars because the roads suck where I live, but when listening on a HiFi system at home, I'd love to have the option to listen to new music on vinyl. Maybe this would also help protect us against a dramatically compressed dynamic range....

Re:Record Labels hate all things digital

[Dogtanian]

Then why don't they bring back the vinyl? Seriously, I'd love for them to go back to producing records. There's something nastolgic about them. Is "nastolgia" something you'd rather forget about? ;-)

Re:Record Labels hate all things digital

[insertwackynamehere]

Vinyl never left for the record (no pun intended), it just hides in choice stores (such as Virgin megastore) and generally only contains new contemporary Pop/Rock, Hip Hop and Dance. Most new dance and hip hop is still pressed to vinyl and sold in stores that cater to DJs and I've seen a lot of contemporary non-club music that's pressed as well. Singles, LPs, 45s, they all still exist but the average consumer doesn't know this. My parents didn't know this and they grew up with vinyl. I'm a college freshman in New York and I just personally discovered vinyl (although I knew it was still produced beforehand) by going to old record shops. I purchased a Stanton belt-driven turntable which was extremely affordable despite the fact it is professional DJ quality (it was cheap because it was belt driven as opposed to direct driven like most turntables these days). Also I had to buy a cartridge separately. I also bought a RCA preamp and an RCA to phono cable and now my turntable runs through a preamp and into my desktop's Audigy ZS2 soundcard. I can now rip vinyl on my computer and play it through my computer's sound system and speakers, doing whatever the hell I want to the sound digitally. The turntable was $100, the cartridge was $30, the preamp was $40 and the cables were $9. So for less than $200, I'm running a professional DJ turntable through my computer (or whatever stereo system I feel like running it through). I got all of the stuff at Circuit City and Guitar Center (a store which is interchangeable with Sam Ash or any other instrument/DJ/audio megastore). I actually could have gotten everything at Guitar Center, but they were out of preamps. The fact is, it was accessible.

I'm playing old records, demo records, tons of stuff I get secondhand and then I can also go to Virgin megastore or online and get new pressings of music.

Basically, this is a longwinded comment with the message that vinyl is no where near dead. Old vinyl is accessible, new vinyl is accessible and vinyl is still supported by many big name audio companies.

Re:Record Labels hate all things digital

[clickclickdrone]

>I'd love to have the option to listen to new music on vinyl
Check out Mute Records web site then. Apart from an impressive artist roster, they sell an awful lot of vinyl versions of most of their artists releases.

The music industry sucks

[mlwmohawk]

Sorry, no one is addressing the real problems:

The music sucks. Maybe one good song on an album.
Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths
Utter and complete pathological need to control the content
contempt for their customers
Failure to recognize that people like music on CDs, MP3 playes, and their computers and don't want to pay three times.

Re:The music industry sucks

[qweqwe321]

> the music sucks

Well, yes, the music does suck, but it's not like music overall has gotten better or worse over the years. Remember the old rule, "95% of everything is crap?" It was true 50 years ago when the record labels were making out like gangbusters and it's still true today. The only difference now is that no one remembers lousy bubble-gum pop bands from the early 1960s like "The Archies." "The music sucks" isn't a real problem-- it's code for "get off my lawn."

Re:The music industry sucks

[mlwmohawk]

Well, yes, the music does suck, but it's not like music overall has gotten better or worse over the years. Remember the old rule, "95% of everything is crap?" It was true 50 years ago when the record labels were making out like gangbusters and it's still true today. The only difference now is that no one remembers lousy bubble-gum pop bands from the early 1960s like "The Archies." "The music sucks" isn't a real problem-- it's code for "get off my lawn."

You may say that, and while I respect your statement, when "I" was in high school and later, my generation listened to the music of our generation. We had the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplen, etc. Want to know what high school kids listen too today? The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplin, etc. Only the jr. high schoolers go for the pop crap these days.

The rare stuff that is good, is, um, rare. The techno talentless crap that shows up on MTV awards sucks. That's why kids aren't buying it.

Re:The music industry sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

SOME kids listen to Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc. It's ignorant to state that all of them do. There are plenty of high schoolers, 20 somethings, 30 somethings, etc. that listen to current popular music.

Re:The music industry sucks

[babyrat]

Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths

Why is this a problem?

Re:The music industry sucks

[mlwmohawk]

Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths

Why is this a problem?

It may not be a problem, but it really isn't "music" either.

Re:The music industry sucks

[pandrijeczko]

The music sucks. Maybe one good song on an album.

Then I suggest that you do not care passionately enough about music to be able to justify the time to go and find good music which lasts for a complete album.

I view CDs as absolutely **EXCELLENT** value for money because:

1. I have a reasonable hifi and spend time **JUST** listening to music without doing anything else - thus I appreciate it more.

2. I do a lot of research into music. I read reviews, yes I "illegally" download music from Usenet or Bittorrent but then either by the CD if I like it or delete the MP3s without wanting to even waste disk space. That way I know I will really like an album before I buy it.

3. I spend time looking for the cheapest CD prices - eBay, the Web, second-hand and charity shops - I'm always getting best value for money.

Anybody who complains about albums having "one/two good tracks" either does not have the attention span to cope with any single album or is just allowing him/herself to be forcefed the commercial tripe that infects the pop charts at the moment.

Re:The music industry sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I view CDs as absolutely **EXCELLENT** value for money because:

Who gives a fukk? You probably buy the shitty that music that he's talking about. And who the fuk are you? the music servant? yet another music slave? save it... the bands you like are weak and the music you listen to is "farts on a microphone". I love when so called "experts" chime in and respond to questions that weren't even asked. Go hang out for hours with your iPod behind the Gloryhole you fool. Whats the soundtrack? Young Jeezy? The Comeback of Britney Spears? Kanye West? Please.... and BTW FUCK YOU....

Re:The music industry sucks

[insertwackynamehere]

I find that comment interesting because me and my dad have always wondered the same thing...the generation that listened to the Beatles as contemporary music did not listen to their parent's music. But the children of the that generation do listen to their parent's music. Whether or not every current generation teenager/young adult listens to rock from the 60s, 70s and (now a bit moreso as we near 2010) 80s isn't the point. The point is that enough people listen to them that they are still popular enough to be emulated, merchandised and given radio stations (I think that Classic Rock and 80s Stations now are staples of the airwaves moreso than 30s and 40s music radio stations in the 60s and 70s, but I could be wrong about that so call me on it if I am). Middle schoolers walk around with Stairway to Heaven Lightbearer tshirts and it is the norm to call classic rock "cool" (it is not a niche market of retro freaks but pretty much everyone who likes Rock and Roll in general). Here is a quick Facebook stats thing for top music:
Philadelphia, PA
R&b
Rap
Rock
Pink Floyd
Coldplay
The Beatles
Jack Johnson
Sublime
U2
Jay-z


New York, NY
R&b
Rap
Hip Hop
Coldplay
Reggae
U2
Rock
The Beatles
Radiohead
The Killers


Los Angeles, CA
Coldplay
Rock
The Beatles
R&b
Radiohead
The Killers
Sublime
Jack Johnson
Rap
Hip Hop


Chicago, IL R&b
Rap
Rock
Hip Hop
Coldplay
Jack Johnson
The Killers
Pink Floyd
Sublime
The Beatles


These four large cities all have similar music interests, both contemporary and old. First of all, the Beatles made it to every list, and it's easy to say "duh the Beatles are popular so that doesn't really count" but the fact that they are still popular is exactly my point. They played music in the 60s, nearly 40 years ago. The young people of the 60s were not listening to music from the late 20s. Pink Floyd also makes it on 2 of the 4 lists. Rock (the genre) makes it to all 4 lists next to more contemporary styles like hip hop. "Of course," you might say. "Rock is still made." But that's exactly my point. Rock music, which began in the FIFTIES is listen to in 2007. By A LOT of people.

Re:The music industry sucks

[Scaba]

We had the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplen, etc. Want to know what high school kids listen too today? The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeplin, etc.

When unsure of the spelling, try several ways - you're bound to get it right eventually. But at least I've now solved the mystery of the guy from 6th period who kept writing on my desk. Also, it's not Lynryd Skynryd - it's Lynyrd Skynyrd. ;>)

Re:The music industry sucks

[Schnapple]

Little girls who can't sing dancing on stage with no cloths

I guess they don't have time to sew them into articles of clothing...

Re:The music industry sucks

[Obyron]

This is obviously a "get off my lawn" post, but I'll rise to the bait. I'm going from the 80s onward, since that's my generation.

U2, Metallica, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Blues Traveler, Dave Matthews Band, Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, Dream Theater, The Prodigy, The Police and then Sting's solo work, Depeche Mode, The Cure, David Bowie's "rock" era, Nine Inch Nails, The Misfits, the majority of all punk (excepting, most notably, New York Dolls and The Sex Pistols who had broken up by 1980), Tool, etc.

I wouldn't classify any of these acts as throwaways, no matter what you think of Metallica's latest albums. There are a few on the list who started in the late 70s (U2, Sting & The Police), but didn't hit the height of their fame until the 80s and 90s. All of these are bands that are well respected in their genres and viewed as inspirations to other musicians who came after. I'm also irked that you wrote off the entirety of electronic music at the stroke of a pen-- er-- keyboard, and in the same sentence refer to it as music that shows up on MTV. MTV had a brief affair with Big Beat and Chemical Breaks style techno, and ended up bringing The Prodigy, The Chemical Brothers, and Orbital to the masses, and they quickly abandoned it when it was clear they didn't "get" electronic music at all. Meanwhile; The Orb, Shpongle, Infected Mushroom, and others are (and have been) revolutionary in the genre, and have done amazing things with it.

That fact that you don't personally like or listen to this music doesn't mean it's not powerful, original, and impactful. I happen to think everything from the Beatles prior to their "experimental, post-record label whore" period is crap. I don't think that my opinion is the reality for all people though. There are plenty of young people listening to throwaway crap like Nickelback or Panic At The Disco who no one will remember in ten years, just like there were plenty of people in my parents' generation who were listening to throwaway one-hit wonder crap that no one remembers now. Let's not try to say that there's nothing in modern music that stands out, or is original, just because you don't like it, don't get it, or haven't heard of it.

Re:The music industry sucks

[gordgekko]

Wow, another child of the 1960s who thinks his music is the be all and end all. The only thing that cheers me is that one day the last of you will die and I will likely be alive to enjoy the fact.

Re:The music industry sucks

[graphicsguy]

anonymous coward writes:

And who the fuk are you?

Oh, the irony!

Re:The music industry sucks

[clickclickdrone]

>Why is this a problem?
They keep trying to sing. The rest is cool though.

Embedding credit card numbers????

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Am I the only one whose jaw just about hit the floor when reading this asinine comment? It absolutely amazes me that ANYBODY would make such a suggestion. I could see identity thieves salivating at the thought of this. (Yes, I know you would need more than just the number to really do anything with it)

That guy should see if the job of CEO at Sony is available...

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[Maximum Prophet]

I would us one time use cc#'s, or I can sign up for a CC, use it only for their products, then pay it off and cancel it.

What's the problem here?

If it had my address as well, I could use a MailBoxes Etc. mailing address, but I probably wouldn't go to the trouble.

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[moderatorrater]

That guy should see if the job of CEO at Sony is available... Looking for a dead-end career path, where your products are full of potential but little value? Do you like insulting your customers and then telling them that they like it? Have I got the job for you!

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[kannibal_klown]

Agreed. It's probably illegal and an insane suggestion.

However, to play devil's advocate, I'm sure the label probably figured "well, if they don't have the exp date or the owner's name they should be OK." I mean, I can guess any 16-digit Visa number and probably guess one correctly. Without a name or expiration date it would be pretty useless.

Again, horribly wrong on so many levels. However I can probably see their train of logic

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[squiggleslash]

Seems to me you've missed why the labels would want this: If your credit card is embedded in an MP3 file, are you really going to even pass it on to your friends, let alone upload it onto a P2P file distribution network?

It actually makes perfect sense, and your exact reasons for being horrified at the idea are almost certainly why it was proposed, not something they didn't think of.

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could correctly guess a Visa card number, you're quite lucky, considering there are 10^16 (10,000,000,000,000,000) digit combinations.

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out one possibility: Perhaps they wanted to "encrypt" the number in DRM, and claim it was secure.

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[jcr]

That one jumped out at me, too. I'm reminded of one of my sister's law school classmates, who worked at Sears, and whose job apparently consisted mostly of telling their execs on a daily basis that their latest hare-brained scheme was illegal.

-jcr

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[Midnight Thunder]

It actually makes perfect sense, and your exact reasons for being horrified at the idea are almost certainly why it was proposed, not something they didn't think of.

But this assumes that the only way of getting at the music is by knowingly passing on the songs. Stolen iPods, insecure PCs, worms and the likes would soon be a source for extracting that information. Not good.

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[mdmkolbe]

Oh, please do tell. I think it would be interesting to hear about their "hare-brained" schemes. (Unless doing that would be illegal =-0.)

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[jcr]

I never got any specifics of what the schemes were. Just that she often had coversations like "what if we do this?" "The cops come and shut down the company." "Well, what if we do this? ", "The SEC, the IRS, and the FBI come and shut down the company."

-jcr

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[CowboyCapo]

"You see that light at the end of the tunnel coming for you? It isn't heaven. It's the five o'clock train."

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[dbIII]

It has to be either a deliberate showstopper or the effects of cocaine addiction.

Re:Embedding credit card numbers????

[Sven Tuerpe]

Embedding credit card data of the legitimate user into files makes a lot of sense if

1. The files are for personal use only,
2. Everybody knows about it,
3. The data can be read out by everyone, and
4. The data cannot be removed without severely damaging the file's content.

Note that I have not the slightest idea whether there is a technology that could achieve the actual embedding meeting conditions (3) and (4). If there was, however, it would make sense to use it: what else could motivate the legitimate owner of such a file any better to make sure the file will not end up being traded in a file sharing network? I'm serious about it, such a technology could change the economics of file sharing. Well, unless somebody invents disposable credit card numbers. Oh, wait ...

Watermarks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A fascinating story about how at least some of the labels still don't get it and why "

Well I suppose if the lesson is, "we don't want to be held accountable for our actions."? I can see why no one with a "reciprocal agreement" business model would "get it". Do you think the consumer will ever figure out what it means to live in a society?

Did you look at the store?

[msimm]

The site looks awful. Maybe the selection used to be better, but what I see there now certainly doesn't warrant excitement or press coverage. I generally find the work that Michael Robertson does interesting but this isn't a project I'd have taken much notice to on it's own merits. At least not as it currently stands.

Re:Did you look at the store?

[lena_10326]

The site looks awful.

My first impression was the site was one of those fake sites with no original content other than keyword ads. The tabular list of category keywords is always a cue for that. And, the yellow banner image looks exactly like a typical banner ad so I completely ignored it at first, which I doubt is intended because it's actually content.

The design of the site is extremely lacking. I doubt it required more than 20 minutes work. It's hard to take a site seriously when they're unwilling to spend any real time on presentation.

The Whole Enchilada

[daskrabs]

The only way the labels can make a profit off of digital downloads is to offer a subscription to their entire library, with on-demand access to any album, available at home and on the road, without any restrictions. That way, you eliminate the need for illegal downloads and file sharing. People will gladly pay for that. I would. And this, of course, does not apply to people who still want to buy CD's for the sake of an official tangible package from the artist. The day this happens, we all win.

Re:The Whole Enchilada

[king-manic]

The only way the labels can make a profit off of digital downloads is to offer a subscription to their entire library, with on-demand access to any album, available at home and on the road, without any restrictions. That way, you eliminate the need for illegal downloads and file sharing. People will gladly pay for that. I would. And this, of course, does not apply to people who still want to buy CD's for the sake of an official tangible package from the artist. The day this happens, we all win.

iTunes showed that most people weren't in it so much for the "free" music as for the "convenient" music. So while there are many who will never pay for music or pay more then a subscription fee, Apple showed there is a significant number that doesn't mind paying $0.99 for a song.

Re:The Whole Enchilada

[daskrabs]

True, some people will pay 99 cents. Most don't, however. The percentage of music purchased from the iTunes store per iPod is very small. The "convenience" factor would be much better suited to a subscription-based model, IMHO.

Re:The Whole Enchilada

[nelsonal]

Last time I checked it was about 5 songs per iPod, that was a year or two ago so it might be as high as 10 or so now. Since most iPods hold many times that number I think we can safely conclude their true purpose for most people.

No Thanks: Re:Give me 320kbps VBR Downloads

[Gr8Apes]

Give me lossless compression please, although uncompressed is fine too.

Who Owns the Record Companies?

[geoffrobinson]

Aren't most record companies part of bigger media companies? There doesn't seem to be anyone above them saying, "you are aren't adapting to the changing market dynamics, start adapting."

Has there been any change in management or management philosophy that I am not aware of?

Re:Who Owns the Record Companies?

[tgatliff]

No, but they soon will be... The music industry as a whole is in the process of serious downsizing, and there is nothing that can be done about it. The internet basically destroyed their "we sell availablity to music" business model. Combine that with the record companies for years forcing people to purchase the entire album rather than the individual song they want, and you have a world of hurt still coming to them...

The end game is pretty well understood here in that it will be more M & A action. Because there are only a handful of players now, I suspect that the entire music industry will be sucked up by the much larger media companies, but they must fall further in value before this can happen. Also, their arrogance must reset as well... There is little doubt that the glory days are over..

Re:Who Owns the Record Companies?

[king-manic]

Aren't most record companies part of bigger media companies? There doesn't seem to be anyone above them saying, "you are aren't adapting to the changing market dynamics, start adapting."

Has there been any change in management or management philosophy that I am not aware of?

Not yet. My generation is the first of the "less TV" generation. We watch less then our older counter parts did and tend towards other sedentary activities like video games. Once we get into power we may start changing things. IF the major media giants don't adapt they may become irrelevant. Viewer ship in the prized 18-34 male demo is slipping. So perhaps when todays 18-34 year olds become studio heads we may see some change.

Don't forget clunky software...

[nweaver]

Rather than just "Download file" you've got to download some random third party app to actually receive your music on MP3.

Re:Don't forget clunky software...

[WK2]

Rather than just "Download file" you've got to download some random third party app to actually receive your music on MP3.

Not sure I would call flash a "random third party app." I agree that a direct link to the mp3 would be better. A thinking individual would have done both. Although, you know how labels can be.

PCI anyone?

[alcourt]

Somehow I suspect the credit card companies wouldn't like that idea. It would use the PAN in an area where it is not required and storing it (presumably) unencrypted.

Credit gift cards

[Weaselmancer]

Michael Robertson chronicles how at least one record label wanted him to embed credit card numbers of buyers into songs.

Credit gift cards are excellent to use if you're buying stuff online and don't want the vendor to have any personal info. Good for sites like mp3sparks. Or if you're buying modchips. Or any online transaction where you don't want the buyer to know anything about you, or have any access to your accounts.

Or so I hear.

Re:Credit gift cards

[Monchanger]

...any personal info... That's great, but you forgot to mention to the truly paranoid that they would also need to buy the gift-cards out of state, use a TOR-like anonymity solution, mask their browser settings, and not buy music they actually like (or at least buy a few country albums to confuse big brother).

Oops... I forgot to post as an anonymous coward. Now they know my modus operandi. Better get my aluminum hat on quick...

Never heard of it before now

[jj00]

I believe the real reason is that no one has really heard of the service and the site seems pretty amateurish.

Re:Never heard of it before now

[nwf]

Indeed, it looks just like a domain squatter site. When I first went there I though it was already gone and replaced by an advertisement site.

Tip for potential businesses: don't make a site whose business model relies on tech savvy people look like a site tech savvy people are trained to ignore.

Re:Never heard of it before now

[TommydCat]

Ditto on the impression of the site...

I especially love the going-out-of-business "EVERYTHING MUST GO!" banner -- exactly what stock are they trying to move off the shelves and out of the warehouse?
What was the previous price on albums (GOOB price is $7)?

Re:Never heard of it before now

[Anonymous Coward]

$7.00 is CD + MP3s, so there are physical items they wish to sell.

Re:Never heard of it before now

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor website. Never heard of it. Wasted time trying to pick out stuff, then compared to new CDs from Amazon. $7 per CD plus $3 per CD shipping. If these are the going out of business prices, what were the original prices?

Re:Never heard of it before now

[ozmanjusri]

I believe the real reason is that no one has really heard of the service

I knew about it, and would have bought CDs, but it's US only.

Thanks for all the feedback

[Lindows.com Michael]

A couple points I might add:

- Until 9/30 most all of the CDs are $7 which includes a physical CD and 192K MP3 files loaded nicely and permanently into your locker.

- One poster complained you can't download the MP3 file without installing an application. That's inaccurate. You can download all the tracks individually directly from the locker - no application install required. Just click on the triangle in the flash UI and select "download".

- We do provide several different applications for your convenience all of which work on Linux as well as the other PC OSes. There's an Album Downloader which will with one click download any new purchases and load into iTunes or your fave media player. There's also Locker Sync 3.0 which will sync your entire music library from locker to PC. So lots of different options.

- Slashdotters might be interested in our API (see: http://mp3tunes.com/api). My vision is all your music goes into your personal locker and then with a click can be streamed or synced to ANY device in the world. It's a very open view of the world and of your media. We have 100,000 lockers and a great list of devices coming by this holiday season all of which talk directly to a locker. We're even having a contest to spur developers for $10,000 to come up with new music devices/interfaces: See http://mp3tunes.com/contest

-- MR

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

- One poster complained you can't download the MP3 file without installing an application. That's inaccurate. You can download all the tracks individually directly from the locker - no application install required. Just click on the triangle in the flash UI and select "download".

I would have to install a Flash player. No joke. Fair or not, I don't see the logic in needing Flash to download a player. That may not be an AnywhereCD-caused problem. But any pothole on the road to paying for music detours me to gnutella

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[dennism]

I would have to install a Flash player. No joke. Fair or not, I don't see the logic in needing Flash to download a player. That may not be an AnywhereCD-caused problem. But any pothole on the road to paying for music detours me to gnutella

At this point in time, having a Flash plugin installed is not something considered unreasonable. Refusing to install Flash, IMO, is like the people who refused to use a graphical browser a few years ago.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[GWBasic]

Until 9/30 most all of the CDs are $7 which includes a physical CD and 192K MP3 files loaded nicely and permanently into your locker.

I personally think $7 is too much to pay for an album. I'm at a point where I just want the bits, not the plastic. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but why does music have to be so damn expensive now that it can be sold in volume?

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[Reziac]

Too bad this is the very first I'd ever heard of the venture. I think the idea is sound enough, tho the firesale pricing is more like what I'd have hoped for as everyday.

(Too bad this happened when I'm too broke to pick up a bunch of stuff...)

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[mabinogi]

If you want the bits and not the plastic then you were never a potential AnywhereCD customer anyway.
They're selling the CD - that's the point, and you get the mp3 version immediately so you don't have to wait (and don't have to rip it yourself if you don't want to)

So if you're not interested in getting the CD, then go to iTunes or something.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[GWBasic]

So if you're not interested in getting the CD, then go to iTunes or something.

Actualy, AnywhereCD's sale prices are lower then Amazon's MP3 downloads. What I'm trying to express is that music prices are waaaay toooooo high.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[mako1138]

$7 sounds pretty good to me. I hate the RIAA labels but $7 is a price I can't argue with -- it's reasonable.
I especially dislike Warner, which has a stranglehold on the Columbia and Atlantic jazz catalogs.

It's hard to find jazz albums for $7 used, let alone new, so I'll take this opportunity to patch holes in my collection. Having the tracks stream-able is a neat bonus, even if I don't see myself using it often.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[clickclickdrone]

>$7 is too much to pay for an album
I read an interesting piece on the relative cost of music over the years. If CD's had kept up with inflation, they'd be about £40 ($80) now.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[mabinogi]

> What I'm trying to express is that music prices are waaaay toooooo high.
And I totally disagree with you - at least in the context of a $7 physical album.
Where can you get up to 72 minutes of entertainment for $7?

In terms of what you get for your money, $7 for an album is pretty fair. Particularly since no one would buy an album they only planned on listening to once.
Even if the music itself cost nothing at all to make, $7 is not a wholly unreasonable fee for the service of making it available and convenient to get.

Of course, once you start talking about $20 albums the picture becomes different, but you specifically said that $7 was too much.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

72 minutes of entertainment for 7$ ?

1. pornosite
2. bookstore
3. bar/disco
4. some non major league sport event
5. and of course there's always the Go Nature/park/forest quality time with wife sorts of options too

Though i agree with you, 7$ is a good price.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[GWBasic]

I read an interesting piece on the relative cost of music over the years. If CD's had kept up with inflation, they'd be about £40 ($80) now.

And if the cost of an x386 kept up with inflation...

Will you pay double for your next computer? It'll be twice as fast!

The fact is that the value of information is deflating.

Re:Thanks for all the feedback

[5pp000]

Your site just doesn't work. I'm trying to put together a substantial order, and sometimes when I add a CD to my cart, the previous contents of the cart are replaced by other items I didn't select. Sometimes they disappear entirely. Your code is crap, and that has to be at least part of your problem.

It failed because it doesn't fucking work

[noewun]

So, I figure I'd throw a few bucks into the company's till try to find some music I like. I did find some oldish Oakenfold I never got around to buying, so I got it, followed the instructions in the email they sent me and figured I download the mp3s while I ran some errands. The only problem is I can't.

Well, that's not the only problem. Problem #1 is that I have to download some third party app to download the mp3s, which doesn't make sense: I have downloaded thousands of things off of websites, and none of them has needed a third party app. What does this third party app do? Does it install spyware on my system? Does it report back to the record companies? Where's the info telling me what it does? But I did it anyway, cause I want my music. Only now, it won't download anything: it's stuck in "adding album to queue", where it's been for fifteen minutes. I looked in the email, and it mentioned another way to download the tracks, which is to click on the Playlist in my online music locker. Only problem is that the music I just bought isn't there, so I can't download it. Boy, I hope I get the CD in the mail, or I just wasted $20 on nothing. Or, in other words, I just got ripped off

So, Mr. Robertson, your idea failed for one simple reason: it sucks. Apple's iTunes Music Store runs circles around CDAnywhere in ease of use and execution. So does eMusic.com. You failed to produce a competitive product, plain and simple, and all the conspiracy theories in the world won't explain it away.

Re:It failed because it doesn't fucking work

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Mr. Robertson, your idea failed for one simple reason: it sucks. Apple's iTunes Music Store runs circles around CDAnywhere in ease of use and execution. So does eMusic.com. You failed to produce a competitive product, plain and simple, and all the conspiracy theories in the world won't explain it away.

Phew, good job Apple's iTunes Music Store doesn't need a special app to download the music!

Oh, wait ...

Maybe they should have tried...

[psykocrime]

doing some advertising? I never even heard of this outfit before today. And I probably would have bought
some stuff from them, depending on the price. Heck, while I'm at it, I'm taking advantage of the "closeout sale"
to pick up some stuff I didn't have (a couple of Kix and Skid Row CDs) for cheap.

Re:Maybe they should have tried...

[psykocrime]

Or it could have something to do with this: http://anywherecd.wordpress.com/

Artists still need a label ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Why should artists remain with them in this scenario?

Artists need a label if they desire a certain level of commercial success. It takes a lot of money to promote an artist and bring them to the attention of the mass national or world market. Artists can not afford to do this on the money they making playing in small venues, among their core audience. If they manage to feed themselves they are doing above average, if they can support a family they are so rare they are nearly an anomoly.

The label system persists because there will always be some artists who want large scale success. Of course these successful artists gripe when they think about the small percentage they receive themselves but the truth is they are getting a small percentage of a much larger pie. If you are only getting 5 cents on the dollar, but you are generating several hundred times (or more) the revenue then they are far ahead.. To be faiir to the labels they need a disproportionately large cut from one artist to pay for the dozens of other artists they had *speculatively* financed they did not attain large scale commercial success. Please understand that I am not saying the current label/artist split is correct, I have no way to calculate what the split should be. I am merely arguing that the label system is quite logical and it is economically justifiable for the labels to receive a large percentage due to the speculative nature of their investments.

Artists have almost always needed patrons throughout history. Centuries ago it was the church, royalty, or the wealthy. Today the record label fulfills that role.

I would not be surprised to see this develop to their logical conclusion where there are distribution sites that offer a range of services to artists to distribute their work but do not "own" the distribution or copyrights to those works. This can only help artists in the long run, although the conversion to that environment will mostly likely have some short-term hiccups as marketing etc is worked out.

The marketing required is far beyond hiccup level. What is the source of money used to *speculatively* promote an artist beyond the level I decribed above?

Re:Artists still need a label ...

[Ghubi]

There are great ways of "promoting" that don't require a lot of speculative investment... Amazon already uses them.

'people who bought this CD also purchased these...'
'89 out of 100 people gave this song a positive rating, average rating 4.5'

Rhapsody

[durdur]

Sounds like Rhapsody.

Re:Rhapsody

[daskrabs]

Close but no cigar. Doesn't work fully w/ iPods. You have to pay twice for music to "own" it.

http://learn.rhapsody.com/faq?pageid=unagi.11894418.wrapper&pageregion=A1&src=rotw.learn_overview&pcode=rn&opage=rotw.learn_overview

Infomercial?

[PalmKiller]

Oh please...its obviously a marketing ploy. Hurry come buy mindlessly while supplies last, only 5 days left on this greaaaat offer.

Good idea. Bad execution?

[dpbsmith]

I was tempted by the "bargain sale" and went to the website, which I thought was crudely designed and difficult to navigate. I had a lot of trouble figuring out whether there was anything there I was potentially interested in.

It was full of problems like this album. The title that shows up in the list, before you go to the album, is

"Most Popular Tv Themes In The"

When you click on it, you get to see the cover art, and learn that the album title is "The Most Popular Classical TV Themes in the Universe." And what's on it? Well... the helpful track listing is:

"1. Track 1," "2. Track 2," ... "25. Track 25."

The conductor? The orchestra? Who knows?

Uh...NO.

[Svartalf]

What if you're running on a PowerPC Linux box, amongst other things?

No Flash plugin there for you. It's not about refusals, per se.

Re:Uh...NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! And what if you're running Linux on your toaster? Or using an ice cream maker to spin records?

This is totally bogus! If Macromedia nee Adobe doesn't support my wrist watch, Wii, sun glasses and subscription to Vogue magazine soon I'm going to stop using their software entirely.

Re:Uh...NO.

[Vegeta99]

Sounds like its as big as a problem as trying to drive a car that needs leaded gas.

You can make your own leaded gas, but it's a pain. You can make your own Flash player, too =)

(virtual) death to superstars!

[davido42]

I think it's inevitable that the internet replaces traditional media but it means the death of the super star. We'll go back to more regional artists with few cross region cross overs if there is a lack of a artificial national hype machine like the labels.

I don't think this implies regional artists, but a LOT more self-promoting, small label, indy artists. In the end, we can only hope, artists with interesting, creative, innovative music will grow their own following and end up doing a lot of their own distribution, with small download distributors like, oh I dunno, http://www.bitworksmusic.com/, helping them to do it themselves.

The cool thing is, download distribution is still in its infancy. Artists need to evolve their notion of the download medium. They're selling software now, not just music.

The real news in this article...

[Nezer]

The real news in this article is that, according to Michael Robertson, iTunes is selling EMI's catalog as MP3 files. Here, all this time, I thought it was an 256k AAC file.

He stated this fallacy twice. Perhaps the real problem is that he isn't keeping accurate tabs on the competition! (Though, in his defense, his other reasons are all pretty sound as well.)

Live and learn.

Short version...

[jemenake]

In case you don't want to read the article, here's the synopsis:

"So, I had this idea for an internet start-up. And it looked good on paper (to me, anyway), and so we went forward with it. Problem was, our suppliers were skittish about how we planned to distribute their goods (I mean, who'd have thought that the record companies would be hesitant to change their business model? That's so out-of-character for them...). Then, a huge competitor to us started offering a product more like what we were offering.

So, now, we're going out of business, but I didn't get filthy rich, yet... and I'm going to have to go back to a regular job and still didn't get a pony!"

Well, cry me a river.

Let me 'splain you something: Any business model that includes "and then, we get the [Record and/or Movie] companies to slightly change their business model", just close up shop now (unless your name is Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, or you're the head of some other corporation with so much weight that the RIAA or MPAA have to take you seriously). Second, it might have seemed like a great idea to *you*, but that doesn't count for much. In fact, the simple fact that nobody has tried it *before* you probably means that nobody else thought it could fly.

So, your start-up flopped. Get over it.

Re:Short version...

[bogidu]

Ow, pretty harsh considering the other things Mr. Robertson HAS achieved. At least he TRIES to take on projects that change the way the world works, what have YOU done? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Robertson

Popularity

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catch-22 is that the artists, generally, rely on the record labels to spread their sound so that people find them worth buying in the first place (whether because it's a genuinely good sound or because it's the sound of the week).

The record companies, therefore, have craftily built themselves into positions of power by becoming the ones who decide which records get the most attention, and we the consumers take our buying cues from this attention. The consumers pick which ones rise all the way to the top, but from among a field chosen by the record companies.

Since the record companies have legitimate claims to manage the music from artists signed to them, it won't be until we look en masse for buying cues from elsewhere.

Frankly, I'd love to be able to say I did around and find the music out there that most appeals to me, but digging through all the crap to find a few good records is a lot of work. I personally don't know where to look to be exposed to a cut of decent music. For the most part the radio stations have failed in that respect too.

Of course, the record companies are also able to preserve their position by being the guys with money that your stereotypical starving artists crawls to when they actually press a record.

Re:Popularity

[volsung]

One word: Pandora
Best thing ever. I've found and purchased 4 albums from artists I never would have heard of otherwise.

Embedding idiots????

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stolen iPods, insecure PCs, worms and the likes would soon be a source for extracting that information. Not good."

Oh right. Pull the other finger. Why does slashdot treat it's audience like idiots? You know as well as I do that the majority of the material out there was placed intentionally by "customers".

How sad

[FreeBSD evangelist]

This Slashdotting of the Going Out of Business posting is the first I've ever heard of AnywhereCD. Which is unfortunate, because I'd be a customer.

I have about 400 CDs, and buy one or two a month from Amazon. If I could get the same CDs, at approximately the same price but someone else would do the ripping for me, I'd be there.

Where did they advertise?

Re:All about control (Right, but not that easy)

[FauxReal]

Everythign you said is insightful and logical. The only problem is the "old boy's network"... you still need to be an insider to get anything done. There's payola to overcome and marketing would be a huge hurdle as well.

Here's an excerpt from the San Jose Mercury News article, "Why commerce is killing the true spirit of hip-hop" by Davey D 03/2007. The original article is gone from the Mercury's website and not in their archives for some reason. (tin-foil-hat)

In our conversation, Porter [Paul Porter former music programmer for BET] also pointed to something more sinister: payola. He claimed hip-hop is dead only because payola is rampant at labels intent on investing in songs with sexual and violent themes. During a separate conversation, Questlove of the Roots supported Porter's allegation with his own story about the process behind the group's Grammy-winning hit with Erykah Badu, ``You Got Me.'' He said the Roots had to pony up close to ``a million dollars'' to a middle man who ``worked his magic'' at radio stations.

Busted!

[Nazlfrag]

Amazing in TFA and his reply here he never mentions that his only record label contract was canceled. All that bullshit "Maybe the price .. Thanks to iTunes .. Maybe nobody cares about CDs anymore? .. Maybe having just a fraction of the major label music .. Maybe .. Maybe the press is Apple-fixated? .. Maybe I didn't do a good job .. "

Or maybe, just maybe you lost your only major label contract. Well, at least he has the right lack of ethics to be a music distributor. I suppose the truth might impact his firesale.

I can see why...

[pontifier]

According to the main page right now they only have 5921 different albums to choose from. Wheres the long tail? My music store wont launch with such a puny collection... If it ever does launch, geez, I've been working on it off and on for like 5 years...