Hah, nah, not new here (new account because old one bore a really, really old web address). It's that common decency thing that gets me all the time tho...;)
There isn't a business model that could truly work, at least not a direct one. Commonly floated is the idea that if you release music for free, word of mouth and subsequent sales will make up for this. This, unfortunately, ignores the simple human traits that a) they will take anything not nailed down and b) perceived anonymity gives them an impetus to do things they wouldn't usually do (cf Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory...).
Radiohead made money with their recent dealie because they were established artists with a rabid fanbase, not a new band or a relatively unpopular one. For new artists, that isn't really a viable alternative either; not only because so few people would choose to pay for an unknown quantity, but also because cutting out the middleman (aka the record labels) cuts you off from the labels' traditional strong areas of promotion, distribution and general business nous, which, really, are the only reasons anyone signs with a label. What would be the point otherwise?
In all, my point (yes, I was getting to it in a roundabout way) is that business models based around free/absurdly cheap (read allofmp3) music are either unprofitable or wouldn't fly with shareholders of the major labels. It's a terrible business model unless your explicit aim is "get heard and damn the money". It is of no value except as a talking point for Slashdotters looking for the next justification-du-jour of why they will carry on being cheap rather than paying for what they consume. Like you said:
The record labels are told people will still keep illegally distributing music because the labels aren't providing it online. The record labels finally give in and provide it online, and they're told that people will still keep illegally distributing music because they don't like DRM and 99 cents a song is somehow too high.
They can't win; there's always a new reason. Either it's too expensive ($0.99 a song, $9.99 an album seems reasonable enough to me, where I live that's 2 quid cheaper than even an old mid-price album) or it has DRM (see the "take anything nailed down" thing... you want to try before you buy? Most good online music stores have previews you know...) or it's not good enough quality either technically (there's this lossless format you may have heard of, called the compact disc) or aesthetically.
(I like the last complaint, that people pirate because the music's not good enough; that's definitely why the last Britney album has over 1200 seeds on Mininova and the last Porcupine Tree album's had over 18k downloads...;)
Yes, of course, that's why Windows and Internet Explorer are both bit parts in the computer industry, while Linux commands a 90%+ market share.
Preinstalling Firefox would do a hell of a lot to gain market share for it, especially if it was the default browser. But then, to be honest, I'd rather have no web browser bundled with a Windows install, thanks very much.
Forking is not a problem when code is free as you can tell by looking at the hundreds of "forks" in the Debian repository, or if you look at the thousands of distributions that all get along famously.
Yeah, cos Ian Murdock didn't say that he wished Ubuntu hadn't forked so far from Debian as to be entirely incompatible.
The problem came when they were unable to verify that all of their code was free.
Bollocks, frankly. XEmacs has always been GPL. The problem came because the FSF wanted copyright assigned to them for XEmacs. So yes, complete horseshit, Twitterris.
The "Linux Desktop" is far more unified than non free equivalents from M$ and others where you can't be sure the clipboard is going to work across applications or the network.
I haven't had a single problem copying and pasting between any application in Windows. Or for that matter, Mac OS X and Linux. Care to explain more about this mythical uncertainty? And no, the *NIX desktop isn't more unified than Windows or the non-free equivalent. Windows and OSX have visual styles which export the global style to all applications that are coded to use it. The *nix world has 2 major APIs and numerous other smaller ones. Slightly different, no?
I don't like the cheap POS Vauxhall Nova someone's peddling in a classified ad in a local newspaper; that totally justifies my decision to steal a Porsche.
We could all stay out of trouble if we downloaded and shared music with the permission of its copyright holder. The best way to know that one has permission is to look for a Creative Commons license notice.
I'm sorry, that sounds like common sense there. (Creative Commons sense, perhaps?) The usual procedure here is to bitch and whine about copyright holders taking action to prevent copyright infringement, then claim that the solution to it is copyright infringement. Better luck next time.;)
Reminds me a bit of former UK pop star Gary Glitter. His career ended in tatters after a PC World technician discovered child porn on his PC while repairing it. Easily the best example of why criminals shouldn't call tech support (especially when you keep incriminating evidence on your bloody computer...)
Who, in their right mind, would devote thousands of development hours cobbling something together, then cast it into the wind where basement developers use "what they want, and [get] rid of what they don't?"
Red Hat, Canonical, Novell... hell, even Microsoft have a few open source projects kicking around.
Now that I've paid for the album, I'm waiting for a 320kbps version to turn up on BitTorrent.
Considering that the band and any prospective labels are the only ones with anything higher quality than 160kbit MP3s, you will be waiting a long time.
Unless you're going for that converted from 160kbit to 320kbit "It's technically 320!" warm fuzzy feeling, of course.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point, but then for most peoples' purposes, CDs are close enough to lossless, and especially for the purposes of my example. :)
Hah, nah, not new here (new account because old one bore a really, really old web address). It's that common decency thing that gets me all the time tho... ;)
Radiohead made money with their recent dealie because they were established artists with a rabid fanbase, not a new band or a relatively unpopular one. For new artists, that isn't really a viable alternative either; not only because so few people would choose to pay for an unknown quantity, but also because cutting out the middleman (aka the record labels) cuts you off from the labels' traditional strong areas of promotion, distribution and general business nous, which, really, are the only reasons anyone signs with a label. What would be the point otherwise?
In all, my point (yes, I was getting to it in a roundabout way) is that business models based around free/absurdly cheap (read allofmp3) music are either unprofitable or wouldn't fly with shareholders of the major labels. It's a terrible business model unless your explicit aim is "get heard and damn the money". It is of no value except as a talking point for Slashdotters looking for the next justification-du-jour of why they will carry on being cheap rather than paying for what they consume. Like you said:
They can't win; there's always a new reason. Either it's too expensive ($0.99 a song, $9.99 an album seems reasonable enough to me, where I live that's 2 quid cheaper than even an old mid-price album) or it has DRM (see the "take anything nailed down" thing... you want to try before you buy? Most good online music stores have previews you know...) or it's not good enough quality either technically (there's this lossless format you may have heard of, called the compact disc) or aesthetically.
(I like the last complaint, that people pirate because the music's not good enough; that's definitely why the last Britney album has over 1200 seeds on Mininova and the last Porcupine Tree album's had over 18k downloads...
That's true. Sorry, my bad, I agree entirely. :)
Yes, of course, that's why Windows and Internet Explorer are both bit parts in the computer industry, while Linux commands a 90%+ market share.
Preinstalling Firefox would do a hell of a lot to gain market share for it, especially if it was the default browser. But then, to be honest, I'd rather have no web browser bundled with a Windows install, thanks very much.
Will it still be a POS on Mac OS X? While I'd love to have Adblock etc, for now I'm sticking with Safari because it blends with OSX so much better.
Or cancer... sarcoidosis?
My copy of Win2K SP4 disagrees with you.
+1 Roundhouse Kick To The Faces Of Everyone Else In This Thread
Seriously, great post.
The article was blocked just a few seconds ago. COINCIDENCE? hmm?
Actually, yes.
Forking is not a problem when code is free as you can tell by looking at the hundreds of "forks" in the Debian repository, or if you look at the thousands of distributions that all get along famously.
Yeah, cos Ian Murdock didn't say that he wished Ubuntu hadn't forked so far from Debian as to be entirely incompatible.
Oh, wait. He did.
*complete shite about Java*
What? What are you talking about?
The problem came when they were unable to verify that all of their code was free.
Bollocks, frankly. XEmacs has always been GPL. The problem came because the FSF wanted copyright assigned to them for XEmacs. So yes, complete horseshit, Twitterris.
The "Linux Desktop" is far more unified than non free equivalents from M$ and others where you can't be sure the clipboard is going to work across applications or the network.
I haven't had a single problem copying and pasting between any application in Windows. Or for that matter, Mac OS X and Linux. Care to explain more about this mythical uncertainty? And no, the *NIX desktop isn't more unified than Windows or the non-free equivalent. Windows and OSX have visual styles which export the global style to all applications that are coded to use it. The *nix world has 2 major APIs and numerous other smaller ones. Slightly different, no?
BREAKING NEWS! Google updates logo for public holiday. HOLY SHIT!
Cos I was just thinking, we didn't have enough google (non)-stories on Slashdot...
Not a supporter of Paul, but that's a little off base. He'd probably consider granting the telcos immunity to be unwanted government interference.
Fees were paid as a GBP0.45 (about 90 US cents) surcharge.
I don't like the cheap POS Vauxhall Nova someone's peddling in a classified ad in a local newspaper; that totally justifies my decision to steal a Porsche.
Same logic.
And 3 cups of coffee at Starbucks is around $6, I think its around $2 for a venti coffee.
I don't know what bad crack you're on, but it's about £3 ($6) for a venti latte in Starbucks.
There's not a loud enough WHOOSH in the world... ;)
We could all stay out of trouble if we downloaded and shared music with the permission of its copyright holder. The best way to know that one has permission is to look for a Creative Commons license notice.
;)
I'm sorry, that sounds like common sense there. (Creative Commons sense, perhaps?) The usual procedure here is to bitch and whine about copyright holders taking action to prevent copyright infringement, then claim that the solution to it is copyright infringement. Better luck next time.
True dat. While I love most of OSX, that password prompt always bugs me when I'm installing stuff. And unlike UAC, you can't turn it off... :(
Reminds me a bit of former UK pop star Gary Glitter. His career ended in tatters after a PC World technician discovered child porn on his PC while repairing it. Easily the best example of why criminals shouldn't call tech support (especially when you keep incriminating evidence on your bloody computer...)
If "Documents and Settings" was hardcoded in an application and now doesn't exist that screws the pooch.
You shouldn't hardcode that in an application at all! That's the whole frigging REASON environment variables exist!
You deserve your pooch screwed for that, frankly.
Who, in their right mind, would devote thousands of development hours cobbling something together, then cast it into the wind where basement developers use "what they want, and [get] rid of what they don't?"
Red Hat, Canonical, Novell... hell, even Microsoft have a few open source projects kicking around.
Now that I've paid for the album, I'm waiting for a 320kbps version to turn up on BitTorrent.
;)
Considering that the band and any prospective labels are the only ones with anything higher quality than 160kbit MP3s, you will be waiting a long time.
Unless you're going for that converted from 160kbit to 320kbit "It's technically 320!" warm fuzzy feeling, of course.
Don't Radiohead have to take the production and distribution costs out of what they make from In Rainbows as well? In that case, how is it different?
Does anybody but MS even use rich text anymore?
Apple's TextEdit, for which RTF is the default format, tends to disagree with that comment.