Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Tommy missed the perfect example...

   

   Harry Payne, Jul 25th, 2003 @ 4:13am

   
   

   ...now, snaps of naked Tommy and Pamela from that infamous video would serve as a perfect example of what happens when your "valuable intellectual property" gets pirated.
   Can't see that on the billboards though.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   No Subject Given

   

   thecaptain, Jul 25th, 2003 @ 7:42am

   
   

   Yeah like I'm ever going to be influenced by what Tommy or Pamela says.
   
   These people are so far away from reality that they don't even have a passing acquaintance with it.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Shrug.

   

   Adam Haberlach, Jul 25th, 2003 @ 10:19am

   
   

   At least they are trying. You complain that $1.29/track is too much, but it seems that you will not be satisfied until all music is absolutely free. That's not a market. While you, as a consumer, help to set the price, you cannot demand that it meet your needs so long as there are other pressures involved.
   
   It still sounds like this is progress: it is per-song, you can burn CDs, and they are at least acknowledging the existence of digital players.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Shrug.

   

   Mike (profile), Jul 25th, 2003 @ 10:43am

   
   

   My argument is not that all songs must be absolutely free. My argument is that they're not going to convince many consumers to stick around very long if they have restrictive and misleading policies in place. I'm looking at it from a business perspective, and these companies are misleading and angering potential customers when they have other alternatives. That's just not good business.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Shrug.

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 25th, 2003 @ 11:54am

   
   

   Any network like this is by definition competing with the open networks. In order to convince people to pay for something that they can get for free, the network has to offer something that the open networks don't at a price that the consumer will be willing to pay. They can set their price as high as they want, but if large numbers of people don't think it's worth the money, the company will fail.
   
   There are really only three main areas where a proprietary network could beat the open network: reliability, size of catalog, and guaranteed file quality. If any of those things is lacking, their value proposition decreases proportionally. A restrictive file format also lessens the value proposition because it makes the for-pay file less desirable than its free counterpart.
   
   The market will set the price eventually, but I'm betting $1.29 is too much. In fact, I suspect $0.79 is too much for a service with this many flaws.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Shrug.

   

   Mark F, Jul 25th, 2003 @ 2:19pm

   
   

   Comments by the site's founder in various article indicate they he wants the same type of deal as iTunes has but he could not get the music companies to agree to it. I doubt any business plan starts with, "make it the same cost as our competitor but more annoying to use."
   
   Hopeful the music companies will come around.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 27th, 2003 @ 7:07pm

   
   

   First: I don't use credit cards. Not even debit cards. ...and until there is a good anonymous, easy to use, cash to credit and back again system usable with the Internet, I won't ever.
   
   Second: Why in bloody hell would I pay $1 a song, when I can rent and rip for almost the exact same price.
   
   Third: The cat is already out of the bag. The RIAA will fail with their scare tactics and there will still be file traiding 1 year from now, 5 years from now and 10 years from now....

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

   

   1337kr3w, Aug 4th, 2003 @ 3:02am

   
   

   i will never feel sorry for guys who complain the ylost half there profit,,so the yhad to settle for 3 million dollars ONLY,,boo god damn hoo. There producy is that much because there "PEOPLE" told them to make it that much,,now we all know its 10 cents a cd-,,and they have music "PROFESSIONAL" software that could alot of what the machines do.i SHARE with a smile.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

   

   1337kr3w, Aug 4th, 2003 @ 3:05am

   
   

   i will never feel sorry for the pimps and hoes,lol, who complain they lost half there profit,,so they had to settle for 3 million dollars ONLY,,boo god damn hoo. There product is that much because there "PEOPLE" told them to charge that much,if they werent trying to get rich in one yaer,i might feel different, you know if they actually worked year round for twenty years,now we all know its 10 cents a cd-,,and they have music "PROFESSIONAL" software that could alot of what the machines do.i SHARE with a smile,and ecnourage more people who do!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

    

    Jamm, Jul 11th, 2004 @ 9:56pm

    
    

    I completly agree, File sharing will always be available, most people prefer ' free ' music ! The RIAA, with a little help from Metallica, thought file sharing would fade, after the whole Napster shutdown. It didnt work, It just gave others more insentive to create a new file sharing programs. Free vs Pay ? Free will always win here.
    Why even consider the cash to credit system ? those who choose to pay $$ to download ? Just get some good free ones, from a choice, popular sharing tool. theres many available. Download, Burn , Delete, and call it , a great mix !
    

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment