What they have blithely not mentioned is that the very act of going to on-line distribution is one main cause of the layoffs. Very few middlemen are needed to distribute electronically.

Another minor point they fail to admit is that the sweetheart deals for sales to the chains are basically what killed the mom and pop stores across the nation. The sales picture changed to where the chains were the major outlets of music across the nation. No mom and pop could compete at equal prices. In doing so the shelf space allowed for cds and music dropped. Less offerings equal less sales. No one in their right mind is going back for 10 copyies of the same album.

Another little factor not acknowledged is that with the electronic distribution is that the middle man cost is eliminated. So is album cover art. No where does the customer see any reflection of the savings in the cost of the work.

When you add that DRM has eliminated first sale doctrine and fair use at the same time, you get a product more resembling renting than buying. No where is this reflected in the cost of the product.

For a couple of years now, the cartels have been trying to convince the public that on line sales is going strong and everyone is doing it and you should too. I am sure that is their hearts desire that it take off. However, digital downloading is long on promise and short on delievery. Plagued by everything from format incompatibility to poor quality, they have yet to make it worth the buck. In my mind it isn’t worth the buck at any quality, nor in any format with the DRM included. Since DRM acts to limit your use of the song, to increase the repeat sale; (to replace the very slow need of replacing a cd with a rather fast way of making sure it is once again subject to being lost through various means) it is no bargain at any price. Much less selling it at 128 bit rate and claiming near cd quality.

I am sure that the cartels would like Apple to open its compatibility to where everyone could compete with Apple with its own patents. Apple would be stupid to do so. Customers are stupid to deal with only ACC formats too.

So tell me; What is attractive with digital downloans as they exist today? Honestly, I can’t think of one single reason to pay and a whole bunch of reasons not to deal with them. Indies are far more reasonable and customer friendly and the cartels don’t get it or won’t get it.

I hate to be accused of being a schill for someone, but you ought to check out emusic.com. It’s mostly indie artists, but the files are vbr mp3s at rates I’ve seen peak over 200kbps. The sound quality is consistently high, and obviously there’s no DRM.

: ) … but I think you’ll find purists will still maintain you have to have a REAL CD/DVD, or one of those big, shiny, round black things, for quality hi-fi.

But the labels could, if they wanted to, use existing technology to produce really good downloads. They could then sell them at really good prices and make really good money in the process.

But why bother when you can have so much fun trying to sue your customers into buying junk, at the same time keeping all those starving lawyers in gainful employment. Right?

heh

Cheers!

Who is stating this opinion? This may be true for crummy files they sell at iTunes and Napster etc… and the typical 128kb MP3s that many people seem to be stuck on. It does not have to be that way. I gave an MP3 I encoded to an audiophile buddy of mine to directly A/B with his original CD. It was made with the LAME MP3 encoder using the “alt preset standard” setting. He said he could pick out VERY minor differences only during the most complicated sections of the piece but could not honestly say the MP3 sounded worse than the CD on his big expensive home system. IMHO properly made MP3s and GOOD SOUND CARDS very nearly equal CD audio quality.

In defense of the article’s point you cannot “legitimately” buy files encoded in this manner. For that matter you cannot purchase cartel music in the MP3 format at all. It’s DRM-ed iTunes or .wma files, period.

That’s the Goebbels Drip Drip Effect [http://p2pnet.net/story/1153].

It’s a little different to the Way-Way Factor, but there are points of definite similarity, particularly with respect to the unctuous, self-serving statements which have a look of honest fidelity about them. Then you tap them and they ring about as true as a cracked bell.

Cheers

Big Music currently has one goal: to modify behavior. They can achieve this by two means: spreading fear and peer pressure. In order to spread fear, they sue the “average Joe” knowing full well that the “average Joe” could never go up against Big Music and that any lawyer will advise Joe to settle immediately.

In order to facilitate peer pressure, they will advertise using models (not an “average joe” type individual, who, as evidenced by the targets of the lawsuits, is both Big Music’s customer and anti-consumer) and they will lie by exaggerating the effects of the lawsuits. The strongest facilitator of peer pressure is cheating (AKA payola) since they are fully aware that many listeners will not seek out the music they’ve managed to keep financially buried.

“But, we know all of this so what’s your point?”

By using these tactics, Big Music is digging its own grave. It is presenting a veil of effectiveness, which is, essentially, comforting to current file sharers. “My daily torrent site/P2P client has not been shut down, and, since they’ve been so effective, I guess I’m okay!” The tactics are also forcing our computer generation to be more careful: DC++ currently allows encryption. P2P clients and torrent sites are no longer flagrantly advertised across the net. Many, if not all, are located in markets where Big Music does not particularly value consumers. Many file sharers have learned to avoid Sharman Networks and have opted for lesser advertised networks. This shift and forced carefulness has confronted consumers with lesser known and sue-worthy musicians.

Those file sharers who are not “careful” and continue to download and share across the big networks continue to download and share across the big networks. Perhaps they are as comforted by the effective ineffectiveness of the current Big Music campaign as are the “off-the-radar” sharers.

Perhaps the difference lies in how each group values music. File sharers value the distinctive art of music and the entertainment it brings them. Big Music values music as much as it can suck the profit from a melody.

At some level, all consumers know this and I feel that, at some level, we, as file sharers, resent it. If it wants to be successful against the digital plunderers and thieves, Big Music will need to change its image and its strategies. A plunderer and thief cannot characterize all “average Joes” as plunderers and thieves and expect them to sympathize with “cry me a river” news releases.

“Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth …”

Dr Joseph Goebbels,
Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich.