Actually I have been thinking about it, and that is in our future plans as we upgrade our site. Right now we don't have the set up for it, but it is something we will begin doing in the next several months. I'm debating on FLAC or WAV, but it will probably wind up being FLAC.
But as with everything in our Music Store, we leave that option up to the artist, if they want to provide a lossless version of their music. We try to give them as much control over their music as we can.
But I don't see why they wouldn't.
Which is precisely why our music store doesn't do that. I've been in bands most of my life, and the one thing that really sucks is to see a site that takes money up front from you.
In our setup, we only take a commission on a song when it is sold.
I run my own independent music service. We also use Ogg Vorbis format. The problem that I find is that the general public doesn't necessarily want to support Independent Music, because it isn't what they hear on the radio or on MTV.
I can see the university's standpoint on this though. They are using Mindawn as an alternative downloading solution, and it should be a boon for Mindawn because they have a guaranteed customer base.
Sorry, but I totally have to disagree with you. I have heard some really good Independent Music since this site has been up and running, now granted we are in Nashville and I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I have heard a lot of really good indie music, take Benjamin Olson http://music-store.ind-music.com/store.php?action= store_items&search=Benjamin Olson and Tim Tibbitts http://music-store.ind-music.com/store.php?action= store_items&search=Tim Tibbitts for instance, they are both Singer/Songwriters and I personally think they are good songwriters, now granted that style isn't my preferred choice of music, but I can respect it. Another band on the site is August Christopher http://music-store.ind-music.com/store.php?action= store_items&search=August , they are a Pop Rock band, and they have some really good hooks too. It's really a matter of people thinking outside of the box, and trying to move past the MTV tells me what is cool phase.
Whether we like it or not, the internet is changing the way that music is distributed. Pretty soon, bands are going to wise up and realize that they don't have to sell their soul to "the Industry", just to get their music out.
I don't understand then, what was the point?
The artists starts off at 40% and will eventually acheive a 50% share as they sell more downloads, so yes that particular part is not "equal", but please clarify what you mean....
When I say we don't discriminate based on "what sells", we are saying that we want all kinds of music, not just music that would make it in the Mainstream. We encourage artists of ALL genres and styles to sign up and be part of the community.
I'm not going to debate percentages, because if you want more info, go to the site and read it for yourself. Considering the things that we do for the artists, the percentages are justified.
I
My Online Music http://www.ind-music.com/ store is for all Indie Artists, part time or full time. We don't discriminate based on "what sells". We don't have use DRM, nor do we rip off the artist of everything they make. In fact we even provide open source utilites and programs for both artists and buyers to use. The only recommendation that we make is for them to use WinAmp to listen to their music, since it plays Ogg Vorbis files by default.
When an artist sells a song, they get 40% of the net sale (less paypal fee), and as they sell more downloads, their % increases to an eventual 50/50 split.
I started this in retaliation to the RIAA and the stupid world of corporate music. I want it to be a situation where the artist has more control of their music, and the buyers have more control over what they purchase. Their are no middle men here (other than paypal for transactions), so the artist makes their money, and a lot more of it, when compared to other online services.
The chances of the RIAA paying the Artists royalties on something like this is very minimal. If nothing else, for the fact that the Artists PRO (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP) really have no way of getting the information on how many of their tracks have been downloaded...however, we never see anything about that in the news...only how the RIAA is getting ripped off by consumers...hahaha.
That's why I started my own music store, where music sales go directly to the artist. See my sig for more details.
I know that the Software company that I work at, we are split between XP and 2000. For our products we still use 2000 Pro and 2000 Server on our hardware that we ship to customers. However our workstations have either 2000 or XP on them.
2000 is a good OS (and in some ways better than XP)IMO
No way, why would I want them to buy my competition:)
Besides, the artist doesn't get that much from the sale of their music at CDBaby, as far as a financial return goes.
Just how many more stupid predictions Ballmer can make before the year is up.
But seriously, Microsoft has the Money, the Marketing, and the ABILITY to crush any competition. Remember that money talks. However, I do believe that Google really is on to something here. The only thing about Google is that they haven't been around for over 20 years and have billions on hand in cash. But if they continue to innovate, and do new things to generate revenue then I believe that Ballmer's prediction will be false. Also, since Google uses Linux for over 90% (if not all of their operations) then they aren't NEARLY as in as much software debt as other companies are.
"Bloatscape version 8 has been released". Granted, I use to LOVE netscape, back in the mid 90's because it totally beat the crap out of IE. So it pangs me to say something like this about Netscape. I understand their reasoning for some of the things that they did (such as the two rendering engines), but I don't know..maybe I'm just too much of a Firefox advocate now. However, had it not been for Netscape, Firefox wouldn't be here...so thank you Netscape. On another note though, at least their is ANOTHER alternative to IE...as long as IE's marketshare drops, that is all I care about.
Yeah, the onion has pretty good stuff too.
I mod the article -5 for being retarded....oh wait, it's too bad we can't mod articles...only each other.
The article is very misleading, in fact I read it 2 days ago at the Register, and I thought it was stupid then. I figured that someone would have picked up on it by now.
Linus does have a right to side with whomever he wants, whether it fits into our ideals of what he should do, I mean he is a human being afterall. A lot of times someones personal feelings can influence their judgement on a situation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong, but more likely because we don't like it, and it's not what WE want them to do.
It's the same with reverse engineering. If someone can take a product, and reverse engineer it and make it work better, then go for it. Product development should be about what works, and how do we make it better.
Just my 2 cents...
Well, the web hasn't been totally utilized as an asset for bands, in fact many underestimate the power of it. For years i had my bands music up on sites like Angelfire back in the mid 90's. Now in the world of broadband, I decided to start my own online Music Store http://ind-music.com/ because I wanted a way in which I could sell my music online, and still be able to make some money. At this point, we have over 20+ bands that have signed up, and we also work to get them gigs here in Nashville as well as feature them in commercials for our site on local radio stations. The artist doesn't get charged for it. The site takes a commission on the song sold, but the numbers work out so that the artist makes more per song sold, than they do on other competing sites. They set the price for their songs and the bands also earn more money as they sell more downloads. Best of all the accounts are free, and when someone purchases a song, it stays in their account for two years. None of this 90 day expiring DRM stuff. Also, the band doesn't have to give away their creative freedom. They can make the music that they want, without fear of being dropped. The bands choose when they want to close their accounts. We really try to do as much for the artist as possible. I am as frustrated with the Recording Industry as the next person. That is why I created my own.
Agreed. There are alternatives out there. It does suck that we have to search for them, but they are there.
Not to spam the forum here, but that was the whole reason for creating my Music Store. I wanted an Alternative, and couldn't find one, so we made it happen. We are trying to help bands, and consumers alike by doing things differently (or trying to anyway). See my sig for more info...
I personally don't want anything to do with DRM. I run an online music store and we don't have DRM on any of the songs, because A)None of the Artists on our site want it, and B)How can a consumer feel that they truly OWN the song if there are limitations on what they can do with it.
The files in our store are in Ogg Vorbis format, but we also provide tools and utilities for consumers to re-encode the music into any format that they want. So there is freedom for the consumer to put it on their iPod, iRiver or whatever digital media player they want to use. We also have an Internet Radio station that plays all of the Artists on our site.
The hardest thing for me to understand is that all of these companies are saying they will lose money if they don't DRM everything, but the same argument (well almost anyway) was used against radio back in the 1920's and the Record Industry tried to shut Radio down as well but they didn't succeed. We can see now that Radio had and has such a huge influence on Music. The internet can be the same way, if we utilize it.
Artists stand a better chance of getting their music out by using P2P and DRM-less music files, if they can share it with people, but we have to shake this mentality of "This is the only way it can be done". That is a load of crap. Music will continue to evolve and the internet is fastest, cheapest way to do it.
The point that I am trying to make is that you don't have to DRM everything because you will "lose money". If you give people some freedom, then you will be surprised at what can happen.
The sad thing about this is that the RIAA has set such a BAD example for the rest of the world. How long are we going to keep tolerating this type of stuff?
This whole thing with the "Industry" and downloading gets tiring. It really is just beating a dead horse. The artist doesn't make much money on internet music sales as it is. I live in Nashville, and have learned from Artists and people in the Industry that internet music download sales for a major label artist net the artist about a nickel per sale, and that is out of.99 cents. Until Artists wake up and realize that they don't have to go the Major Label route anymore, then will the industry change, because they won't have any slaves working for them anymore...just my opinion though.
It is pretty safe to say that any proprietary OS maker can be anti-Linux but why speculate. We know that their is at least 1 and that is Microsoft. The other could be Sun, even though the Java Desktop is based on Linux, but that doesn't really matter much. To some degree with all of the different distros, even they can do enough to hurt Linux' chance of gaining in the market. With Red Hat being one of the most commonly recognized distro's, I can't help but feel that it was a mistake for them to pull the Red Hat Linux line in favor of Fedora. Even MS argued that they weren't a monopoly by brandishing a copy of Red Hat http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.htm l/ during the Anti-Trust trials...
Slashdot Mirror
Can you explain to me where I incorrectly spelled something, and what does that have to do with the subject matter of the original post?
Actually I have been thinking about it, and that is in our future plans as we upgrade our site. Right now we don't have the set up for it, but it is something we will begin doing in the next several months. I'm debating on FLAC or WAV, but it will probably wind up being FLAC. But as with everything in our Music Store, we leave that option up to the artist, if they want to provide a lossless version of their music. We try to give them as much control over their music as we can. But I don't see why they wouldn't.
Which is precisely why our music store doesn't do that. I've been in bands most of my life, and the one thing that really sucks is to see a site that takes money up front from you.
In our setup, we only take a commission on a song when it is sold.
I run my own independent music service. We also use Ogg Vorbis format. The problem that I find is that the general public doesn't necessarily want to support Independent Music, because it isn't what they hear on the radio or on MTV.
I can see the university's standpoint on this though. They are using Mindawn as an alternative downloading solution, and it should be a boon for Mindawn because they have a guaranteed customer base.
I'm replying to my own post...stupid login form...see my sig, since you can't see it with the previous post.
Sorry, but I totally have to disagree with you. I have heard some really good Independent Music since this site has been up and running, now granted we are in Nashville and I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but I have heard a lot of really good indie music, take Benjamin Olson http://music-store.ind-music.com/store.php?action= store_items&search=Benjamin Olson= store_items&search=Tim Tibbitts= store_items&search=August
and Tim Tibbitts http://music-store.ind-music.com/store.php?action
for instance, they are both Singer/Songwriters and I personally think they are good songwriters, now granted that style isn't my preferred choice of music, but I can respect it. Another band on the site is August Christopher http://music-store.ind-music.com/store.php?action
, they are a Pop Rock band, and they have some really good hooks too. It's really a matter of people thinking outside of the box, and trying to move past the MTV tells me what is cool phase.
Whether we like it or not, the internet is changing the way that music is distributed. Pretty soon, bands are going to wise up and realize that they don't have to sell their soul to "the Industry", just to get their music out.
I don't understand then, what was the point? The artists starts off at 40% and will eventually acheive a 50% share as they sell more downloads, so yes that particular part is not "equal", but please clarify what you mean....
When I say we don't discriminate based on "what sells", we are saying that we want all kinds of music, not just music that would make it in the Mainstream. We encourage artists of ALL genres and styles to sign up and be part of the community. I'm not going to debate percentages, because if you want more info, go to the site and read it for yourself. Considering the things that we do for the artists, the percentages are justified. I
My Online Music http://www.ind-music.com/ store is for all Indie Artists, part time or full time. We don't discriminate based on "what sells". We don't have use DRM, nor do we rip off the artist of everything they make. In fact we even provide open source utilites and programs for both artists and buyers to use. The only recommendation that we make is for them to use WinAmp to listen to their music, since it plays Ogg Vorbis files by default.
When an artist sells a song, they get 40% of the net sale (less paypal fee), and as they sell more downloads, their % increases to an eventual 50/50 split.
I started this in retaliation to the RIAA and the stupid world of corporate music. I want it to be a situation where the artist has more control of their music, and the buyers have more control over what they purchase. Their are no middle men here (other than paypal for transactions), so the artist makes their money, and a lot more of it, when compared to other online services.
The chances of the RIAA paying the Artists royalties on something like this is very minimal. If nothing else, for the fact that the Artists PRO (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP) really have no way of getting the information on how many of their tracks have been downloaded...however, we never see anything about that in the news...only how the RIAA is getting ripped off by consumers...hahaha.
That's why I started my own music store, where music sales go directly to the artist. See my sig for more details.
All I will say, is see my sig
I know that the Software company that I work at, we are split between XP and 2000. For our products we still use 2000 Pro and 2000 Server on our hardware that we ship to customers. However our workstations have either 2000 or XP on them.
2000 is a good OS (and in some ways better than XP)IMO
No way, why would I want them to buy my competition :)
Besides, the artist doesn't get that much from the sale of their music at CDBaby, as far as a financial return goes.
Since they haven't made any inroads in the music industry...maybe they should take a look at my sig...
Where did the DVD iso images go to? I submitted this story about 3 hours ago, but apparently my version wasn't good enough.
Just how many more stupid predictions Ballmer can make before the year is up. But seriously, Microsoft has the Money, the Marketing, and the ABILITY to crush any competition. Remember that money talks. However, I do believe that Google really is on to something here. The only thing about Google is that they haven't been around for over 20 years and have billions on hand in cash. But if they continue to innovate, and do new things to generate revenue then I believe that Ballmer's prediction will be false. Also, since Google uses Linux for over 90% (if not all of their operations) then they aren't NEARLY as in as much software debt as other companies are.
"Bloatscape version 8 has been released". Granted, I use to LOVE netscape, back in the mid 90's because it totally beat the crap out of IE. So it pangs me to say something like this about Netscape. I understand their reasoning for some of the things that they did (such as the two rendering engines), but I don't know..maybe I'm just too much of a Firefox advocate now. However, had it not been for Netscape, Firefox wouldn't be here...so thank you Netscape. On another note though, at least their is ANOTHER alternative to IE...as long as IE's marketshare drops, that is all I care about.
One developer says to the other "what are you talking about...the code works perfectly fine on my system..."
Yeah, the onion has pretty good stuff too. I mod the article -5 for being retarded....oh wait, it's too bad we can't mod articles...only each other. The article is very misleading, in fact I read it 2 days ago at the Register, and I thought it was stupid then. I figured that someone would have picked up on it by now. Linus does have a right to side with whomever he wants, whether it fits into our ideals of what he should do, I mean he is a human being afterall. A lot of times someones personal feelings can influence their judgement on a situation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong, but more likely because we don't like it, and it's not what WE want them to do. It's the same with reverse engineering. If someone can take a product, and reverse engineer it and make it work better, then go for it. Product development should be about what works, and how do we make it better. Just my 2 cents...
Well, the web hasn't been totally utilized as an asset for bands, in fact many underestimate the power of it. For years i had my bands music up on sites like Angelfire back in the mid 90's. Now in the world of broadband, I decided to start my own online Music Store http://ind-music.com/ because I wanted a way in which I could sell my music online, and still be able to make some money. At this point, we have over 20+ bands that have signed up, and we also work to get them gigs here in Nashville as well as feature them in commercials for our site on local radio stations. The artist doesn't get charged for it. The site takes a commission on the song sold, but the numbers work out so that the artist makes more per song sold, than they do on other competing sites. They set the price for their songs and the bands also earn more money as they sell more downloads. Best of all the accounts are free, and when someone purchases a song, it stays in their account for two years. None of this 90 day expiring DRM stuff. Also, the band doesn't have to give away their creative freedom. They can make the music that they want, without fear of being dropped. The bands choose when they want to close their accounts. We really try to do as much for the artist as possible. I am as frustrated with the Recording Industry as the next person. That is why I created my own.
Agreed. There are alternatives out there. It does suck that we have to search for them, but they are there. Not to spam the forum here, but that was the whole reason for creating my Music Store. I wanted an Alternative, and couldn't find one, so we made it happen. We are trying to help bands, and consumers alike by doing things differently (or trying to anyway). See my sig for more info...
I personally don't want anything to do with DRM. I run an online music store and we don't have DRM on any of the songs, because A)None of the Artists on our site want it, and B)How can a consumer feel that they truly OWN the song if there are limitations on what they can do with it. The files in our store are in Ogg Vorbis format, but we also provide tools and utilities for consumers to re-encode the music into any format that they want. So there is freedom for the consumer to put it on their iPod, iRiver or whatever digital media player they want to use. We also have an Internet Radio station that plays all of the Artists on our site. The hardest thing for me to understand is that all of these companies are saying they will lose money if they don't DRM everything, but the same argument (well almost anyway) was used against radio back in the 1920's and the Record Industry tried to shut Radio down as well but they didn't succeed. We can see now that Radio had and has such a huge influence on Music. The internet can be the same way, if we utilize it. Artists stand a better chance of getting their music out by using P2P and DRM-less music files, if they can share it with people, but we have to shake this mentality of "This is the only way it can be done". That is a load of crap. Music will continue to evolve and the internet is fastest, cheapest way to do it. The point that I am trying to make is that you don't have to DRM everything because you will "lose money". If you give people some freedom, then you will be surprised at what can happen.
The sad thing about this is that the RIAA has set such a BAD example for the rest of the world. How long are we going to keep tolerating this type of stuff?
This whole thing with the "Industry" and downloading gets tiring. It really is just beating a dead horse. The artist doesn't make much money on internet music sales as it is. I live in Nashville, and have learned from Artists and people in the Industry that internet music download sales for a major label artist net the artist about a nickel per sale, and that is out of .99 cents. Until Artists wake up and realize that they don't have to go the Major Label route anymore, then will the industry change, because they won't have any slaves working for them anymore...just my opinion though.
It is pretty safe to say that any proprietary OS maker can be anti-Linux but why speculate. We know that their is at least 1 and that is Microsoft. The other could be Sun, even though the Java Desktop is based on Linux, but that doesn't really matter much. To some degree with all of the different distros, even they can do enough to hurt Linux' chance of gaining in the market. With Red Hat being one of the most commonly recognized distro's, I can't help but feel that it was a mistake for them to pull the Red Hat Linux line in favor of Fedora. Even MS argued that they weren't a monopoly by brandishing a copy of Red Hat http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/timeline.htm l/ during the Anti-Trust trials...