The easiest and fastest way to make money for an artist you like on MP3.com is to buy a DAM CD. Not only does it mean money straight into the artists' pockets, but it boosts the rank of the artists' songs (that are on that CD) in the charts, giving them better visibility, and more downloads, and thus more money.
Other good things to do are:
(1) Stream the music regularly. Set up a station with your favorite songs and listen to it, add the songs to your my.mp3.com account, or just bookmark the page and visit from time to time!
(2) Share the music with your friends, and point them to the site.
(3) Buy a "back the band" spot at the top of the page; this way, you also get to toot your own horn and provide a link for visitors to my page to use.
So if I listen your music like nonstop for a month, do you make uber-amounts of cash?
I do make real money; if one person listens to each one of my songs once every day, it ends up being worth about $10-$15. The formula for P4P payments is pretty closely guarded, so I don't know if 10 people listening to 10 songs a day is more valuable than 1 person listening to 100; however, 10 people listening to the SAME 10 songs per day is worth more than 1 person listening to 100 if they do it all in the same day, because that will boost those songs in the charts, causing more people to click and listen to them, generating more money overall.
True. The main reason is that until the past few months I didn't do any self-promotion at all; and even now, I don't do very much. The reason is because I have a day job, and I'm pretty happy doing what I do for a living (coding!).
But my friend who DOES want to do music for a living does a much better job, and (as you say) makes like a bandit.
"You said it, pal; That's precisely why they get so worried about places like that."
Well, rather than worry, they should be supporting it. That's why I'm there in the first place -- I'm supporting the site that's supporting me. Since they are pretty much the home for all of my music on the web, I should be trying to help their artists out too, no?
"They should go ahead and sue people making mp3 rippers too. (doesn't matter they have a legitimate use, people could have distributed mp3s with those utilities!)"
Hush! Watch what you say! We don't want to give them any ideas!:)
"If these artists found their work being passed around Napster, they should be happy, not angry. I bet more people have now heard their names and maybe even some bought an album or went to a live show."
Well, back when Napster was under major attack, it was pretty widely spread (at least here, if not in the major media) that Napster use correlated with people who bought more CD's, not fewer.
But you've got a better point that finding your music on Napster is a good thing. I'd be thrilled if I found my music on Napster. In general, you have to be doing really well to find people trading your music on Napster. I have a friend who makes $50-$100 per day on just one of his MP3.com pages (the one for his band, as opposed to his solo work), and even then he's only got a couple of songs I've seen on Napster. But those couple are an indication of his success, and don't represent real money he's lost.
I look forward to the day I find my music's popular enough that people will want to trade it on Napster.
...especially when you compare the percentage of money and rights they give to their artists to what the RIAA typically gives its artists.
And for a lot of us, it's a great way to supplement our income from gigs and real album sales.
The $19.95 "Premium Artist" service done right is actually ludicrously easy to break even with. I have yet to have a month where I even came close to going negative, and my only form of advertising is a link at the bottom of my slashdot sig!
Also, just because you put songs up on MP3.com doesn't mean you have to put ALL of them up there. In fact, not doing so is a great way to draw listeners into buying your CD's and attending your gigs.
So I don't think MP3.com is ripping me or anyone else off. I think the people who complain about such things are the people who tend to complain about everything -- the ultra-paranoid who think EVERYONE is out to rip them off.
I think he (and this suit) are referring to the My.MP3 fiasco of a couple of years ago, where MP3.com put a large number of songs up that hadn't been submitted by the artists -- songs by signed artists such as Metallica, Madonna, etc.
In general, I've found that the independent musicians who put their songs on MP3.com don't have their songs Napstered (at least, back when Napster did that sort of thing); those who do are usually making so much money (thousands per month) from MP3.com that they don't really care.
I really don't like this trend of everyone and their dog suing MP3.com. I, and many of my friends, depend on MP3.com as a means of distribution for our music. I've also found it a wonderful place to find new music. I don't even go into record stores any more, simply because I appreciate being able to listen to the music I want to buy before I buy it. Even if people just click and download songs to try them out, we get paid.
I'm not going to be rich because of it, but for at least one friend of mine's band (The Brobdingnagian Bards: http://mp3.com/thebards), it's a really good step on the way to being able to make music for a living.
For all its flaws, it's a great service both to music fans and to musicians. I hope that a few bad apples won't ruin it for the rest of us.
Don't forget that more than passwords are vulnerable. I use ssh to prevent eavesdropping, but apparently, ssh needs to do some keystroke timing hiding to improve security for the entire interactive session. (I'll let the expert paranoids figure out the best way to do that).
Listen to music while you compute, and type along with the beat!
Worst case scenario, they know what kind of music you like.;)
Ahhhh...I see. I remember a couple of friends of mine a while back trying to do something with alpha blending. They wanted to make a transparent overlay on top of the Windows desktop. They used TNT2's and one of the 3D API's to turn the Windows desktop into a texture on a flat rectangle that would then have varying degrees of transparency. They then made the picture they wanted into a another texture, and could get the two to fade back and forth by varying the alpha levels on each.
The real magic in their code was how they convinced Windows to make the desktop into an interactive texture displayed on the screen.
It was a neat hack, but lacked anything resembling portability. I think it really only worked on one or two of the machines they tried it on.
Oh, well...now that system-wide transparency is becoming available as part of the API, maybe something like this can be done more easily?
When I connect to a remote box from Windows, I use the free ttssh extension to the freeware terminal program Tera Term. When it asks you for a password, it captures everything in a dialog box, and sends the password as one chunk.
For those using a command-line version, who are really paranoid, you can just vary the rhythm of your strokes (type along with your music!). Or use RSA authentication.:D
But in general, I don't think anyone needs to worry about this unless they've got a bulls-eye on their backs.
"Why does everyone want to pretend they live in a dangerous world where weak security kills?"
Some of us do. When I'm at home, I'm not in danger of bad things(tm) happening like this, but when I'm setting up inter-office communications here at work, I have to concern myself with the fact that there are competitors out there who will try such things. And for those who use SSH and the like for government work, this is a genuine concern.
And in some cases, it's just like closing the blinds to your house. No, there probably isn't anyone outside peering in the window, but there's no need to allow unwanted peeping.
``Requests for special slide rules grew. To respond quickly, I set up a paperwork-free design and production service. Our streamlined procedures took advantage of the fact that officers had a monthly liquor allowance but enlisted men did not. To secure a special slide rule, the requesting officer would pay with two bottles. I would pass these contributions along to the enlisted members of the 949th Topographical Company, who did the drafting, calculations, and reproductions. Somehow our service enjoyed a de facto priority second only to the production of mission maps.''
My God...it's the grandfather of "Free as in Beer!":)
Before/. went kablooey earlier today, someone pointed out that BeOS used MIME for identifying file types.
As for the MIME example you give above, it is as much the job of Windows to add (or ignore) the extension to a MIME'd file as it is for Apple to add the proper extension. In other words, I'd say it's the Windows machine's fault for not recognizing the file for what it was, just as much as it was the Apple's fault for not adding the extension. Interoperability requires both sides.
If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that. But if people pointing out flaws in standards are punished it will be much worse.
You seem to be suggesting that the abolition of all uses of copyright circumvention measures is like the abolition of alcohol. Alcohol is only dangerous when abused, not when used in moderation. By the same token, if I use Elcomsoft's package to regain access to something I legally purchased, that's a far different thing from using it to make copies for everyone and rip off the guy who made it.
So that's a good analogy. Making it illegal doesn't stop people from using it -- it just causes the very minor problems to become major ones.
People who are living out of a cardboard box probably have more important things to worry about than email.
It's not just a question of emailing mom, dad, friends, that sort of thing. It's about economic opportunities--the one thing someone in a box on the street doesn't have. Access to the internet is a means to many ends; in the case of a homeless person, it could be the means to getting back on his or her feet once again.
I don't think that the majority of Houstonians are going to be using these access points. In general, I think that people who can afford their own computer and internet service will be using that, and not the public access point.
It's like cell phones. If you've got one on you, and you've already paid for it, why bother using a public phone, even if the cost per call is cheaper?
"People who verify their residence will get a SimDesk account number to access the software, including word processing, and e-mail."
What precisely does "verify your residence" mean? My guess is that it means you will have to have a house, or an apartment, or some other solid place to live. People who are living out of a cardboard box need not apply. So although this is lowing the bar, certain people will still be denied access.
Despite that, this is a dramatic step in the right direction. Although some say that only a thousand access points is too few, remember that the majority of Houstonians won't be using the public terminals -- they have their own connections -- and they probably don't even go into the neighborhoods where these will be installed.
Anyhow, if people who can't afford the 'net are lined up to use these, that's a good sign to me. What I'd be most afraid of is that these people would simply have no interest in using them, either due to ignorance or because a particular library terminal is part of a gang's turf.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you!
The easiest and fastest way to make money for an artist you like on MP3.com is to buy a DAM CD. Not only does it mean money straight into the artists' pockets, but it boosts the rank of the artists' songs (that are on that CD) in the charts, giving them better visibility, and more downloads, and thus more money.
Other good things to do are:
(1) Stream the music regularly. Set up a station with your favorite songs and listen to it, add the songs to your my.mp3.com account, or just bookmark the page and visit from time to time!
(2) Share the music with your friends, and point them to the site.
(3) Buy a "back the band" spot at the top of the page; this way, you also get to toot your own horn and provide a link for visitors to my page to use.
Thanks for listening!
I just hope they don't see your list and start getting big ideas... ;)
(I'm kidding.)
(Sort of.)
So if I listen your music like nonstop for a month, do you make uber-amounts of cash? I do make real money; if one person listens to each one of my songs once every day, it ends up being worth about $10-$15. The formula for P4P payments is pretty closely guarded, so I don't know if 10 people listening to 10 songs a day is more valuable than 1 person listening to 100; however, 10 people listening to the SAME 10 songs per day is worth more than 1 person listening to 100 if they do it all in the same day, because that will boost those songs in the charts, causing more people to click and listen to them, generating more money overall.
True. The main reason is that until the past few months I didn't do any self-promotion at all; and even now, I don't do very much. The reason is because I have a day job, and I'm pretty happy doing what I do for a living (coding!). But my friend who DOES want to do music for a living does a much better job, and (as you say) makes like a bandit.
"You said it, pal; That's precisely why they get so worried about places like that."
Well, rather than worry, they should be supporting it. That's why I'm there in the first place -- I'm supporting the site that's supporting me. Since they are pretty much the home for all of my music on the web, I should be trying to help their artists out too, no?
"They should go ahead and sue people making mp3 rippers too. (doesn't matter they have a legitimate use, people could have distributed mp3s with those utilities!)"
:)
Hush! Watch what you say! We don't want to give them any ideas!
"If these artists found their work being passed around Napster, they should be happy, not angry. I bet more people have now heard their names and maybe even some bought an album or went to a live show."
Well, back when Napster was under major attack, it was pretty widely spread (at least here, if not in the major media) that Napster use correlated with people who bought more CD's, not fewer.
But you've got a better point that finding your music on Napster is a good thing. I'd be thrilled if I found my music on Napster. In general, you have to be doing really well to find people trading your music on Napster. I have a friend who makes $50-$100 per day on just one of his MP3.com pages (the one for his band, as opposed to his solo work), and even then he's only got a couple of songs I've seen on Napster. But those couple are an indication of his success, and don't represent real money he's lost.
I look forward to the day I find my music's popular enough that people will want to trade it on Napster.
...especially when you compare the percentage of money and rights they give to their artists to what the RIAA typically gives its artists.
;)
And for a lot of us, it's a great way to supplement our income from gigs and real album sales.
The $19.95 "Premium Artist" service done right is actually ludicrously easy to break even with. I have yet to have a month where I even came close to going negative, and my only form of advertising is a link at the bottom of my slashdot sig!
Also, just because you put songs up on MP3.com doesn't mean you have to put ALL of them up there. In fact, not doing so is a great way to draw listeners into buying your CD's and attending your gigs.
So I don't think MP3.com is ripping me or anyone else off. I think the people who complain about such things are the people who tend to complain about everything -- the ultra-paranoid who think EVERYONE is out to rip them off.
Or agents of the RIAA. (hehehe...just kidding)
I think he (and this suit) are referring to the My.MP3 fiasco of a couple of years ago, where MP3.com put a large number of songs up that hadn't been submitted by the artists -- songs by signed artists such as Metallica, Madonna, etc.
In general, I've found that the independent musicians who put their songs on MP3.com don't have their songs Napstered (at least, back when Napster did that sort of thing); those who do are usually making so much money (thousands per month) from MP3.com that they don't really care.
I really don't like this trend of everyone and their dog suing MP3.com. I, and many of my friends, depend on MP3.com as a means of distribution for our music. I've also found it a wonderful place to find new music. I don't even go into record stores any more, simply because I appreciate being able to listen to the music I want to buy before I buy it. Even if people just click and download songs to try them out, we get paid.
I'm not going to be rich because of it, but for at least one friend of mine's band (The Brobdingnagian Bards: http://mp3.com/thebards), it's a really good step on the way to being able to make music for a living.
For all its flaws, it's a great service both to music fans and to musicians. I hope that a few bad apples won't ruin it for the rest of us.
Don't forget that more than passwords are vulnerable. I use ssh to prevent eavesdropping, but apparently, ssh needs to do some keystroke timing hiding to improve security for the entire interactive session. (I'll let the expert paranoids figure out the best way to do that).
;)
Listen to music while you compute, and type along with the beat!
Worst case scenario, they know what kind of music you like.
Ahhhh...I see. I remember a couple of friends of mine a while back trying to do something with alpha blending. They wanted to make a transparent overlay on top of the Windows desktop. They used TNT2's and one of the 3D API's to turn the Windows desktop into a texture on a flat rectangle that would then have varying degrees of transparency. They then made the picture they wanted into a another texture, and could get the two to fade back and forth by varying the alpha levels on each.
The real magic in their code was how they convinced Windows to make the desktop into an interactive texture displayed on the screen.
It was a neat hack, but lacked anything resembling portability. I think it really only worked on one or two of the machines they tried it on.
Oh, well...now that system-wide transparency is becoming available as part of the API, maybe something like this can be done more easily?
When I connect to a remote box from Windows, I use the free ttssh extension to the freeware terminal program Tera Term. When it asks you for a password, it captures everything in a dialog box, and sends the password as one chunk.
:D
For those using a command-line version, who are really paranoid, you can just vary the rhythm of your strokes (type along with your music!). Or use RSA authentication.
But in general, I don't think anyone needs to worry about this unless they've got a bulls-eye on their backs.
"Why does everyone want to pretend they live in a dangerous world where weak security kills?"
Some of us do. When I'm at home, I'm not in danger of bad things(tm) happening like this, but when I'm setting up inter-office communications here at work, I have to concern myself with the fact that there are competitors out there who will try such things. And for those who use SSH and the like for government work, this is a genuine concern.
And in some cases, it's just like closing the blinds to your house. No, there probably isn't anyone outside peering in the window, but there's no need to allow unwanted peeping.
What do you mean, brought on by OS X? Windows has had anti-aliased fonts for at least a couple of years now.
Well, the X-box is going to change things certainly...it'll be the first time your game console will be able to double as a coffee table...
"No, hackers break into computer systems."
Uhm...no.
I am a hacker, but I do not break into computer systems, or do anything illegal of any kind for that matter. Perhaps you were thinking of "crackers?"
And I especially note this one:
:)
``Requests for special slide rules grew. To respond quickly, I set up a paperwork-free design and production service. Our streamlined procedures took advantage of the fact that officers had a monthly liquor allowance but enlisted men did not. To secure a special slide rule, the requesting officer would pay with two bottles. I would pass these contributions along to the enlisted members of the 949th Topographical Company, who did the drafting, calculations, and reproductions. Somehow our service enjoyed a de facto priority second only to the production of mission maps.''
My God...it's the grandfather of "Free as in Beer!"
Before /. went kablooey earlier today, someone pointed out that BeOS used MIME for identifying file types.
As for the MIME example you give above, it is as much the job of Windows to add (or ignore) the extension to a MIME'd file as it is for Apple to add the proper extension. In other words, I'd say it's the Windows machine's fault for not recognizing the file for what it was, just as much as it was the Apple's fault for not adding the extension. Interoperability requires both sides.
If music, videos, games are pirated all the time, at some time there will be no more music, videos or games. We all know that. But if people pointing out flaws in standards are punished it will be much worse.
You seem to be suggesting that the abolition of all uses of copyright circumvention measures is like the abolition of alcohol. Alcohol is only dangerous when abused, not when used in moderation. By the same token, if I use Elcomsoft's package to regain access to something I legally purchased, that's a far different thing from using it to make copies for everyone and rip off the guy who made it.
So that's a good analogy. Making it illegal doesn't stop people from using it -- it just causes the very minor problems to become major ones.
Because he answered my question. :D
People who are living out of a cardboard box probably have more important things to worry about than email.
It's not just a question of emailing mom, dad, friends, that sort of thing. It's about economic opportunities--the one thing someone in a box on the street doesn't have. Access to the internet is a means to many ends; in the case of a homeless person, it could be the means to getting back on his or her feet once again.
I don't think that the majority of Houstonians are going to be using these access points. In general, I think that people who can afford their own computer and internet service will be using that, and not the public access point.
It's like cell phones. If you've got one on you, and you've already paid for it, why bother using a public phone, even if the cost per call is cheaper?
Where can I get a computer for free? Please, sign me up!
I noticed a small bit when RTFA:
"People who verify their residence will get a SimDesk account number to access the software, including word processing, and e-mail."
What precisely does "verify your residence" mean? My guess is that it means you will have to have a house, or an apartment, or some other solid place to live. People who are living out of a cardboard box need not apply. So although this is lowing the bar, certain people will still be denied access.
Despite that, this is a dramatic step in the right direction. Although some say that only a thousand access points is too few, remember that the majority of Houstonians won't be using the public terminals -- they have their own connections -- and they probably don't even go into the neighborhoods where these will be installed.
Anyhow, if people who can't afford the 'net are lined up to use these, that's a good sign to me. What I'd be most afraid of is that these people would simply have no interest in using them, either due to ignorance or because a particular library terminal is part of a gang's turf.