Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

buymusic.com - what y'all think?


Recommended Posts

[url=http://www.buymusic.com]BuyMusic.com[/url] Just saw this site today. Basically they sell licenses to songs from $.79 to $1. How many times you can download it and burn it to a CD is decided by the record label per song. Anyone try it yet? I may give it a shot and buy some singles that I like.

aka riffing

 

Double Post music: Strip Down

 

http://rimspeed.com

http://loadedtheband.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[quote]Originally posted by Botch.: [b]I'm thinking Apple Computer is probably the most ripped-off company in history.[/b][/quote]:rolleyes: Ever heard of MP3.Com?

Jotown:)

 

"It's all good: Except when it's Great"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Botch.: [b]I'm thinking Apple Computer is probably the most ripped-off company in history.[/b][/quote]what he said. It's more than just the concept cause Apple didn't invent that but look at their entire campaign. typical BS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree with the Apple ripoff claims, I think the key failing of Buy music is the variation in copyright based on record label. Anyone wanna explain how the hell you track 100 songs where the amount of times you can copy them varies?? Also I'm not sure the argument of Liquid Audio or MP3.com holds a lot of water. The iTunes Music Store was the first offering bulk music from most record companies. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]NOTE![/b] For those of you who may have music available. I caught this on another forum I'm a member of. "In case you haven't heard. BuyMusic.com is now up and running and your music may be on it without your permission. Here's how: If you have ever signed up with the Orchard before it went 6 feet under, then most likely your music has been made available to BM dot com. This is how they're attracting people to their site for the ".79" downloads; all the cheap ones come from the Orchard catalog. Now since I'm owed money by the Orchard that I will never see, I'm more than a little PISSED about this. It goes beyond the fact that BM dot com has also blatantly ripped off one of my favorite companies. But BM dot com has a nice little copyright infringement clause that you can invoke... So since it is likely they didn't get permission from you, and since you'll likely not see any money from a BM dot com sale, then I suggest you invoke that clause and have your music withdrawn from their site (now I can understand how they can claim to have over 300,000 songs - it's mostly coming from us)."

 

Our Joint

 

"When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Botch.: [b]I'm thinking Apple Computer is probably the most ripped-off company in history.[/b][/quote]:rolleyes: Ever heard of MP3.Com?[/b][/quote]I hope the :rolleyes: was not directed at me. As for MP3.com, aren't most of the major releases there for streaming only? Can't burn CDs with stream only files. And yes, before anyone else comments, I've heard of Kazaa and other peer sharing programs but I do not believe in using them.

aka riffing

 

Double Post music: Strip Down

 

http://rimspeed.com

http://loadedtheband.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Addix Metzatricity: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Botch.: [b]I'm thinking Apple Computer is probably the most ripped-off company in history.[/b][/quote]Um... Apple didn't invent the GUI (Graphical User Interface) either... That was a Xerox invention.[/b][/quote]Was it Zerox? I know I had GEOS on my Commodore in the mid 80s. It was a GUI called Graphic Environment Operating System if I remember right.

 

Our Joint

 

"When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. They have one of my songs up on their web site, and I have never given them permission to use it. I wrote the following to them: "You are using a song, "Jayapura" by Eleven Shadows (Subnation, Vol.2: An American Darkwave), that you have no authorization to use. We have not signed a contract. Please stop selling my song without permission immediately."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buymusic.com sucks. You're asking alot of consumers to keep track of how many times a song can be burned or moved around. If your HD goes belly up what happens? The Non Uniform DRM policy is very poor. The fact that you must use Internet Exploder is not good(I use Firebird). As for Apple being copied some of you need to work on your readng comprension. BM.com has pretty much parodied Apples iTunes Music Store adds in a mocking fashion. Mp3.com and liquid Audio have nothing to do with this. Xerox Parc did have the first origns of the GUI but used a 3 button mouse and did not have pull down menus. Apple didn't invent the wheel here but they perfected it and delivered Proof of concept. Franky bm.com flat out sucks and I won't spend .79 ever. I'll wait for iTunes Music Store or possibly Napster. But then again I'm not keen on WM files. AAC offers everything WM does and it's not under the control of a Monopolistic Vendor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple deserves big credit for getting the record companies together and dragging them into the 21st century, and by doing everything in a more convenient and elegant way than the alternatives. Having said that, the concept was obvious. Several years ago, I wrote something for either EQ, or Pro Sound News, or a forum, or somewhere about how the Internet was perfect for replacing the single, with individual tunes sold with somewhat compromised fidelity so there would still be an incdentive to buy CDs. No, Apple didn't rip me off. I'm sure thousands of people were thinking the same thing at the same time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is quoted from Macworlds weekly news summary: by Lisa Schmeiser, Senior Associate Editor, Macworld (lschmeiser@macworld.com) iTunes Store No Longer Stands Alone? Actually, it still does in a way, as a Mac-friendly service: Buy.com launched a non-subscription, downloadable music service last week for PC users surfing with Internet Explorer and using Windows Media Player 9 software. Buy.com CEO Scott Blum said, "It's very similar to what Steve [Jobs] did on the Apple side, what we're doing on the PC side." What BuyMusic is doing is offering individual tracks (anywhere from $.79 to $1.29) and albums (starting at $7.95) from the 300,000-song inventory. Another difference: not all the songs you buy from Buy.com can be transferred between different devices, as opposed to Apple's model, which lets users transfer any song purchased from the iTunes store between up to three different devices. Moreover, according to TechTV, "Apple's popular iPod, which works with Windows PCs, isn't welcome at the BuyMusic store. Other devices that normally let users transfer songs also aren't allowed to store BuyMusic songs." The third big difference between the iTunes music store and the BuyMusic store: digital rights. While the iTunes store structured the same deal with all five major music labels, BuyMusic did not do likewise; as a result, users have different rights depending on the label, and they find out what those rights are after they've downloaded the song. Users may also want to check out the site's terms of use, which read, "All downloaded music, images, video, artwork, text, software and other copyrightable materials ("Content") are sublicensed to End Users and not sold, notwithstanding use of the terms 'sell,' 'purchase,' 'order,' or 'buy' on the Site or this Agreement." Much of the media coverage played up the announcement of the new service as the latest round in the OS wars. As the Associated Press reported, "BuyMusic founder Scott Blum called Apple CEO Steve Jobs 'a visionary, but he's on the wrong platform.' While Apple users constitute about 3 percent of the personal computer market, BuyMusic is targeting the 97 percent of people with PCs." Apple is still planning on opening up the iTunes store to Windows users later this year, so it will go head-to-head with BuyMusic on the Windows platform. As Baltimore Sun columnist David Zeiler points out, "Once the service is available for Windows, the bulk of Music Store sales won't depend on Macs at all."

Chris R. Gibson

aka Loopy C

Micworks

Ken Tamplin Mastering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Rim: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Botch.: [b]I'm thinking Apple Computer is probably the most ripped-off company in history.[/b][/quote]:rolleyes: Ever heard of MP3.Com?[/b][/quote]I hope the :rolleyes: was not directed at me. [/b][/quote]No dis intended. I just thought that Botchs' assertion that anyone who does online music retailing is ripping off Apple is akin to Al Gore getting credit for inventing the internet. No dis to anyone, just clarifying.

Jotown:)

 

"It's all good: Except when it's Great"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by nursers: [b] Also I'm not sure the argument of Liquid Audio or MP3.com holds a lot of water. [/b][/quote]Holds plenty of water,they were the first to offer a per song download at .99 cents per.They didn't quite have quite the roster Apple coralled,but then,neither Apple nor Buy Music have complete catalogs either.The battle for licsensing is just now beggining for on-line sales.Since Microsoft and plenty of others are going to offer the same service for PC before Apple does,it appears Mr. Jobs was sitting on a gold mine the he and his shareholders couldv'e jumped on,especially when these publishing companies take a quick look at the current market share.No one ripped off Apple,theyr'e doing it to themselves.
"A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll wait for iTunes to come to Europe. I like the interface, the ease of selection and the fact that they allow me (within reason) to do just what the hell I want with my purchases. Steve Jobs didn't invent the idea but his company have a knack of taking very complex technology and streamlining it into a well-designed, efficient end user experience. Everything from the Apple web site to their computer cases to their OS seems to be designed from an aesthetic POV as well as a functional one. The Buymusic site looks cheap in comparison.
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Alndlng King: [b] [quote]Originally posted by nursers: [b] Also I'm not sure the argument of Liquid Audio or MP3.com holds a lot of water. [/b][/quote]Holds plenty of water,they were the first to offer a per song download at .99 cents per.They didn't quite have quite the roster Apple coralled,but then,neither Apple nor Buy Music have complete catalogs either.The battle for licsensing is just now beggining for on-line sales.Since Microsoft and plenty of others are going to offer the same service for PC before Apple does,it appears Mr. Jobs was sitting on a gold mine the he and his shareholders couldv'e jumped on,especially when these publishing companies take a quick look at the current market share.No one ripped off Apple,theyr'e doing it to themselves.[/b][/quote]Still don't buy the argument :) How many other services allow you to browse and purchase music within the application that plays the music?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buymusic.com sounds like bullshit. Why is everyone trying to sell one song for a $1.00. That's way overpriced. Mark my words, did you mark them yet? As soon as someone, or some company figures out how to get the ENTIRE catalog of all recorded music present, and past, ONLINE for 25 cents a song. THE SALES WILL GO THROUGH THE ROOF! And....... The Big 5 record companies will make more money than they ever have, and you won't hear anything more about this bullshit about file sharing. You can't sell songs online for the same price people buy the songs on a CD for. They're just testing the market to see if people are stupid enough to do that. Probably, one of the major impediments to online sales is the fact that the artists producing the music might be able to track sales better, and THEREFORE demand their fair share of the pie. [i]on another note[/i] Who the fuck are these companies that have been sucking the life out of the people who have made them rich? Maybe it's time for them to go away, and for the people like you and me who produce the music that people listen to, to take our fate into our own hands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Philter: [b]I can't believe that you don't even find out HOW you're allowed to use the file... until you download it! That's crazy. How can you pay for that?[/b][/quote]I guess it's changed because when I looked at it, it did tell you before buying it if you can burn CDs and/or upload it to another device and how many times it can be done.

aka riffing

 

Double Post music: Strip Down

 

http://rimspeed.com

http://loadedtheband.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]Buymusic.com sounds like bullshit. Why is everyone trying to sell one song for a $1.00. That's way overpriced. Mark my words, did you mark them yet? [/b][/quote]I disagree about $1 being too expensive. I'll gladly pay $1 for a song I like if I feel the whole CD would not be worth buying. Haven't we all bought albums for one song we like to find out it was the only good song on it? And CD singles go for $3-4 last time I checked. I like the idea but I don't like how BM went about it with selling some songs without proper permission. Also, you still have the problem of accounting. How can an artist know for sure that an online sales site is reporting accurate sales figures for their songs? The answer may be for artists to sell direct to the end user but that is not possible for those signed with a major label. I wonder how the major labels would feel about putting the shoe on the other foot, i.e., what if it is the artist's responsibility to report to the label the sales figures so the label's cut can be calculated. Yeah, that'll happen.

aka riffing

 

Double Post music: Strip Down

 

http://rimspeed.com

http://loadedtheband.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rim: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]
quote:
Originally posted by Botch.: I'm thinking Apple Computer is probably the most ripped-off company in history.[/b][/quote]:rolleyes: Ever heard of MP3.Com?[/b][/quote]I hope the :rolleyes: was not directed at me. [/b][/quote]No dis intended. I just thought that Botchs' assertion that anyone who does online music retailing is ripping off Apple is akin to Al Gore getting credit for inventing the internet. No dis to anyone, just clarifying.
OK. :)

aka riffing

 

Double Post music: Strip Down

 

http://rimspeed.com

http://loadedtheband.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
  • Create New...