[Ti] [OT] Applemusic.com - is the price right?

[b]

Don paused, thought it over, and spoke thusly:

>Who knows in the "big picture" but I for one would like to be able 
>to purchase select
>songs from an artist's catalog without having to buy an entire CD... 
>or a number of
>CDs.



>If the time comes when artists have most/all of their music 
>available online, one
>cut at a time, they might see more exposure as a result of people 
>trying their stuff
>and in the end, sell more music... maybe. I'm sure the record 
>company execs are
>crunching these numbers.

The record execs HAVE crunched those numbers and that is precisely 
why they have exemptions from the 7-year Contract maximums in 
California, and see to it that every damned nickel of their 
'investment', from recording, promo, tour support, etc, comes out of 
the fraction of the 'copyright' [I.E. Publishing 'rights']that the 
"Artist" doesn't give up [in order to be 'signed'], in the first 
place.

The "Artists", as you put it, HAVE ZERO say in how, where, and for 
how much their work is distributed. Copyright was originally designed 
to insure that ALL works would enter the public domain ion a 
reasonable amount of time.  But Sony, Warner, Bertelsmann, MCA, 
Disney, HBO, you name it... all have a far different understanding of 
what is 'reasonable'

The whole argument over DRM and the DMCA is not about the 'poor' 
artist having his/her fair share, it IS about making sure that the 
artists that exist, and are yet to 'arrive', enter a closed shop, 
where access to the 'public' is restricted under penalty of law, and 
where the only so-called 'rights' will reside in the Companies 
[including MS, Apple, Roxio, all film studios, Recording Cos., etc] 
ability to use formerly illegal means to restrict independents from 
taking advantage of the Net as a means of distribution. It will be a 
case of : Use a 'trusted' chip-based box to buy these, and only 
these, products.Period.

The code jockeys, and even the computer manufacturers, have made the 
'means of production' available to a great number of people, so now 
the only chance they have to restrict expression, obstruct the 
ability to enter markets, and prohibit  the freedom to come and go 
without artificially-'legalized' 'contracts...is to inhibit the means 
of distribution. The companies, especially in music [where i worked, 
'Hello, Burbank'] have always been 'scared' of their clients and 
rosters of artists, and, like all criminals everywhere, are living in 
a 'world of perceived enemies', and feeling 'threatened' by anyone 
who would dare to return the benefits of the fruits of Labor, to 
those doing the actual labor, itself.

Every time I see bruce springsteen, a multimillionaire, shooting his 
mouth off about 'peer-to-peer 'piracy', I remember his giving the 
"All right bootleggers, Roll them tapes" speech when he was having 
contract trouble atr Columbia, and it was in HIS INTEREST to have his 
music reach people. I keep his catalogue [sampled from WAVs at 
256kbs, VBR, 44.1 kHz, on tap, just to upload it to the Usenet, when 
it suits me.

>
>Now a question for you techies: Am I correct in assuming that the 
>audio quality of
>downloaded music is lower than that found on a commercial CD?

As a rule, yes. If you download mp3s, you are 100% at the mercy of 
the bit-rate that was selected when the mp3 was sampled from tape, or 
digital storage, in the first place. Your best bet is to go to that 
old relic called a Public Library, rent the CDs, sample them at the 
highest bit-rate and return them. Support you local library, AOL-TW 
and the others do not need your money

>
>Thanks,
>
>Don

Happy sampling,
~flipper