Got my email that eMusic was going to carry Sony artists and that all eMusic customers would get to pay the not insubstantial upcharge for it.
I think this is ultimately a misstep by eMusic, which for a number of reasons is a wonderful service. But hey, it's their business and I do hope they continue providing opportunities for emerging and indie artists to be heard.
Ever hear "there's a sucker born every minute?" There are those people who might pay. There are also those who like the game and find the feature handy enough in-game to pay the premium. It could in fact save gamers money and time, since it could save them from resorting to a teamspeak server (and perhaps risking suspension for contacting other members outside the game).
Most of all, if the cost of offering the service is basically nil, in my opinion it would be dumb for these games NOT to take a flyer on offering this as a premium add-on.
I believe they do offer their services. Here's one of the more famous mastering outfits as an example. However, I'm not sure people go to Bob Ludwig thinking "cost effective."
I 90% agree with you. The barrier to entry into the "music market" is much lower than 20 years ago. However, I'm still blown away by how much skilled professionals can improve a recording at the production and mastering stages. That is definitely still an art!
These songwriters and music industry "supporters" do have an alternative business model. They do not make money from art, they seek to protect and increase their largesse by government intervention. It's not the creation of wealth they are after, it is redistribution to they want for their own gain.
I am not anti-copyright, but I do think that it has been taken by some far beyond what is necessary to protect songwriters and is used instead to fill the coffers of some in the "music industry."
I worked as a sr. manager and exec. at a place that had a couple major intrusions. The big problem is that the top end business guys see security as a soft cost and they prefer to roll the dice rather than spend the money on security and proper processes. It's the ISO's who get canned as the scapegoats anyway.
Only when the business guys will feel the pain (i.e., serious bottom line or personal liability), will this get any better. Lawsuits are not putting enough pressure on companies to do better, given the difficulty in proving that someone's fraud is related to a particular intrusion.
I worked as a sr. manager and exec. at a place that had a couple major intrusions. The big problem is that the top end business guys see security as a soft cost and they prefer to the dice rather than spend the money on security and proper processes. It's the ISO's who get canned as the scapegoats anyway.
Only when the business guys will feel the pain (i.e., serious bottom line or personal liability), will this get any better. Lawsuits are not putting enough pressure on companies to do better, given the difficulty in proving that someone's fraud is related to a particular intrusion.
Right now our only safety is in numbers.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Man from Atlanta.
Goodbye eMusic?
Got my email that eMusic was going to carry Sony artists and that all eMusic customers would get to pay the not insubstantial upcharge for it.
I think this is ultimately a misstep by eMusic, which for a number of reasons is a wonderful service. But hey, it's their business and I do hope they continue providing opportunities for emerging and indie artists to be heard.
Re: Not to mention...
Ever hear "there's a sucker born every minute?" There are those people who might pay. There are also those who like the game and find the feature handy enough in-game to pay the premium. It could in fact save gamers money and time, since it could save them from resorting to a teamspeak server (and perhaps risking suspension for contacting other members outside the game).
Most of all, if the cost of offering the service is basically nil, in my opinion it would be dumb for these games NOT to take a flyer on offering this as a premium add-on.
Re: Re: Re: I was in a band...
I believe they do offer their services. Here's one of the more famous mastering outfits as an example. However, I'm not sure people go to Bob Ludwig thinking "cost effective."
http://www.gatewaymastering.com/
Re: I was in a band...
I 90% agree with you. The barrier to entry into the "music market" is much lower than 20 years ago. However, I'm still blown away by how much skilled professionals can improve a recording at the production and mastering stages. That is definitely still an art!
Re:
These songwriters and music industry "supporters" do have an alternative business model. They do not make money from art, they seek to protect and increase their largesse by government intervention. It's not the creation of wealth they are after, it is redistribution to they want for their own gain.
I am not anti-copyright, but I do think that it has been taken by some far beyond what is necessary to protect songwriters and is used instead to fill the coffers of some in the "music industry."
Re: Rats, here I go again...
where I can hear great new progressive rock groups and buy their music on CD:
Amazon of all places. DRM-free too, if I am not mistaken.
Or perhaps CDBaby, who uses longer free samples and even carried a South African indie band I used to work with.
Good luck!
Re: Re: Contest?
I worked as a sr. manager and exec. at a place that had a couple major intrusions. The big problem is that the top end business guys see security as a soft cost and they prefer to roll the dice rather than spend the money on security and proper processes. It's the ISO's who get canned as the scapegoats anyway.
Only when the business guys will feel the pain (i.e., serious bottom line or personal liability), will this get any better. Lawsuits are not putting enough pressure on companies to do better, given the difficulty in proving that someone's fraud is related to a particular intrusion.
Right now our only safety is in numbers.
Re: Contest?
I worked as a sr. manager and exec. at a place that had a couple major intrusions. The big problem is that the top end business guys see security as a soft cost and they prefer to the dice rather than spend the money on security and proper processes. It's the ISO's who get canned as the scapegoats anyway.
Only when the business guys will feel the pain (i.e., serious bottom line or personal liability), will this get any better. Lawsuits are not putting enough pressure on companies to do better, given the difficulty in proving that someone's fraud is related to a particular intrusion.
Right now our only safety is in numbers.