Well, sometimes I'm accused of being a man of few words ( many of them starting in F), but I want to tell you some exciting news. Lost Gold records, an affiliate of DMusic, has been invited to become one of WalMart's Independent music download sellers. As a matter of fact, we already have most of the Lost Gold catalogue on line and doing business. Select Dmusic artists will be available on Walmart.com within 60 to 90 days.

We have also contracted with a company to provide outstanding small run (10 to 500) CD-R duplication services, so it will be possible for DMusic subscribers to have their music on Walmart and for sale in CD form without substantial outlay.

Good things are worth waiting for. And we have lots more coming down the road. Like Volumes 1 and 2 of the first Dmusic compilation, which are being readied for sale at Walmarts as well as being shipped out to the participants ( we will have them up for sale here too). Like Lester Chambers first Dmusic album "Live at the Kennedy Center."

Stay tuned. We have lots to do (coding, reviewing contracts, uploading graphics, etc), but it sounds like fun.

Leflaw@dmusic.com

'Sweet Dreams', I can get my Patsy Cline music on CD finally.

Yeah, but won't the files fro Wal-Mart have DRM? Or are these going to be actual CDs available from Wal-Mart?

DRM?

will they have

A big congradulations to Lost Gold Records, and to Dmusic!

Worried.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Will these files have DRM or will they be MP3s?

walmart uses WMA at present (encoded by Liquid Audio)

hey it's progress, way to go. at least people will get a taste of the indies now

That's awesome!!!

No reason for DRM..it's only the big four who aren't really interested in having their consumers actually listen to their music. They want you to buy Cd's...if they could get away with selling a blank CD for 18 bucks they would do it tomorrow.

Go Indies! Soon all music will be from Indies.

May the Big 4 rot in hell and they can take their RIAA lackeys with 'em.

wheels of progress.

Yeah, but if Wal-Mart automatically encodes them with DRM enabled, then it will have been a waste for DMusic to sell through them.

Hate to be a wet blanket but haven't I heard George Z, Codewarrior, and even the guy who originally started this site (pardon for not remembering his name) advocate the free sharing of music? Meaning that I should be able to buy the music from Wal-Mart and then share it on E-Donkey or similar.

Also, weren't there some news threads posted on this site where Wal-Mart was slammed??? I believe Codewarrior was very much a part of those discussions.

Does this site still share these views???

Like the logo says , we are an independent music site - not affiliated with the RIAA. My attitude is if a musician or a label or a retailer wants to encrypt or restrict copying, its a free country. If he wants it unrestricted, its a free country. You are free to be a success and free to be a failure. Its the monopolistic control that we oppose.

Walmart is our first retailer. We are also negotiating with Real Networks , Napster and others. Amd we have our own Music store, which is getting a facelift right now. And we are opening up our one-off Cd manufacturing center, where you can get your CD's designed and fabricated on line and mailed to you overnight. Amd we are building out our radio network. More channels on the way soon. And then there's video and TV.

Indpendent music. Good Music. Great Music. Real music. Non-riaa and non- Clear Channel dominated music.

Whether its DRM or non-DRM, let the market decide. It will.

yeah surfside, lots of people here have slammed Walmart. Maybe that's why Shmoo is worried. but at the minimum, the indies are finding another avenue to get to the public and that's good. Maybe not the best way imaginable but at least it's a start. Sometimes you just have to accept that things happen in increments. And if I remember right, the guy who founded this site (Bill Evans) started another site with that thought in mind.

Personally I feel that any sale you can take away from the major labels is a good thing so if the indies can break into the Wal-Mart market and get a piece of that action so much the better.

To me, this is simple. Music is made by people these days on computers. We just cut out a lot of middlemen.

So it's "let the music be free... as long as I don't own it"?

Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Is that why we don't see posts by George Z, Code, or even Bill anymore?

Maybe while your guys are redesigning the website you should try renaming this site? How about Dmusic2? or even Leftist musicians forum.

I think you have lost direction, or even the original mission of this website.

By the way, what is the mission of this site?

if they are selling wav cd's off the rack thats great and congradulations. if they are selling wma files i would have thought you had a clue from what has been said here about format and quality and maybe you should start reading the post's a little more .... people dont want wma make it high bit rate mp3 or ogg or better yet let them chose the format they want ill never buy wma i wont even download it for free and dont know anyone that would

i personally have never been in a walmart but have nothing against them , i might wander into one to check out your music and pick something up if its true wav cd's

That's what I'm talking about. I love Wal Mart stickers. I'm loving this.

Wal-Mart selling indie and someone from UMG opposes the Induce act.. all on the same day.

I personally hate Wal-Mart, but it's because they stopped being worth a damn after Sam Walton died. Here's to a step in the right direction.

Read the logo.

"Is that why we don't see posts by George Z, Code, or even Bill anymore?"

Because some people advocate sharing music without charge online? I doubt it.

Im still not clear about the format of the cd's they offer "We have also contracted with a company to provide outstanding small run (10 to 500) CD-R duplication services, so it will be possible for DMusic subscribers to have their music on Walmart and for sale in CD form without substantial outlay". Is this true cd (wav) or just wma files burned to disc for those that dont want to download them?

Small run CD-r replication of full cd quality songs is a great way to go and a number of sites already do it on a limited scale. (shortrunmusic.com, dollarcd.com to name a few.) The things we need to watch is that the price is right ($5-10 for a full length CD to the consumer.) And that the artist gets the bulk of the profits (somewhere between 65-80%.)

I worry about the selling of downloads. It is stupid to pay for a lossy formated song, ESPECIALLY when infected with DRM. A full CD quality file of a song should be the format if it were being sold as a download and the cost should only be about a nickel per song. I fear that greed will get in the way and the temptation to charge a buck for a download of a song will kill the hopes for a sucsessful business model of this sort.

The price of computers and other technical wonders has dropped (rightfully so) as time marches on. Why does the RIAA and other would be music mongers think that a song should cost so much? Simple greed and an unwillingness to change with the times. Sure, I can see an actual CD costing $5 as a fair price in this day and age, but a download of a song should be free and considered an advertisement if in a lossy format (mp3/ogg/etc.) and even a true hi quality download should only cost a few cents if the artist wishes to charge for it.
Folks will still download for free even if the "indies" were actually ever allowed in the game.

We don't know all the details of what leflaw and the dmusic/lost gold is up to, I will only say to the faithful to take a "wait and see" attitude. I wish this venture luck so long as it is not an act of "selling out" which I pray it is not.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

And yes, you would be damn right to say I am cynical. We independents have been through too damn much these past couple of years not to be.

One common thread I hear here is how great the indies are, and what crap anything on an RIAA label is. Several threads on this site have announced new indie artists, and how wonderful they are, with links to downloads, etc. I haven't listened to all of these, but lately I've been sampling quite a lot of indie stuff through MP3 blogs.

I'm glad some of you find indie bands so wonderful, because I'm not sure I've come across anything yet that I think is good enough to buy. Some of it is nice enough, and when I say nice, I mean promising or at least inoffensive, but it usually has a sort of half-baked quality to it, IMO. Granted, many major label albums are full of songs that I'd call less than half-baked. But the idea that if you just get indie artists exposed to the public, if indie songs were traded more on p2p, have net radio that plays indie music, then the major music companies will start quivering in their boots, seems questionable to me.

Certainly I support Aimee Mann. I bought two albums on her independent label SuperEgo. But she started on a major label with 'Til Tuesday, and then again as a "solo" act she did two records for Geffen, and a soundtrack for another major label, before going independent. Also, her CDs are not bargain priced, either, which is another thing that's been mentioned in this thread.

The only other indie acts I've purchased are side projects of people from the band Ivy. Of course, Ivy is on an RIAA-affiliated label, Nettwerk America. What connection that has with the Big Five labels, I'm not sure. The band's side projects are on their own indie label Unfiltered Records. At least the list price on their CDs is a few dollars below the major label norm.

But whatever fame these folks have -- in the case of Ivy, not so much I suppose -- they got while being part of RIAA-affiliated labels.

Perhaps my musical tastes are not in sync with what is happening in the indie arena. I'd love to find some indie bands or singer-songwriters who really speak to me. As it stands, I'm a big booster of the concept, but so far haven't found many specific examples of the breed that make me want to buy their albums.

Shmoo, I appreciate your comments, and I support your efforts. I haven't heard your music, but I have sensed whatever you're doing is not in the kind of genre I like, so I honestly haven't sampled your stuff. If you can make a success of it, that would be great validation of the model. If not, at least you never sold your soul to the devil RIAA.

Now that some of this music has a mass retail outlet like Wal-Mart, what is the strategy to get people to seek out the indie material on that site? The indie artists will be there beside the big label artists, right? So they have to compete with the promotion machines driving Avril Lavigne, or the rap artist o' the day, or whomever the big labels want to currently push on the public. How do you overcome that drum beat of promotion?

Cd Repliction will be with Wav or Mp3 files. Wav files must be sent snailmail , mp3's may be uploded.

Walmart is 88 cents a downlaod. Apple is 99 cents and up. Walmart is committed to underpricing Apple.

Hint. Unknown artists singing cover material are already selling on Walmart. People are apparently buying SONGS, more than ACTS, at least according to the first statement. Of course Harry Fox wants 8 cents a downlaod for mechanicals...

Working at Walmart (as I've said before) I really like the idea of indie stuff being made available. I don't shop there much, even with my discount, because.. well.. they didn't/don't carry much that I really want. Maybe this will change my spending habits and I'll put more money into the system.
ttmmm

very very little can induce me to shop at walmart. I don't walk into the place unless I have to. I hate walmart as much as I hate the RIAA

So now, because Dmusic/Lost Gold has signed to sell with Wal-Mart, it's ok if the files are infected with DRM? It's no longer a matter of right and wrong, but of choice? Regardless of who the artist is, whether they be major or independent and regardless of who sells the music, it should NOT be infected with DRM.

This is a step backward. It seems the move is being made towards doing it like the majors do it.

The whole idea of this site is to destroy the RIAA and their outmoded business models and to prevent the locking up of our culture by DRM schemes that change constantly. And now DMusic has signed with Wal-Mart. And now DMusic says it's ok for things to have DRM. Let the market decide? The market will decide they don't care. They've already said they don't care with iTunes and their DRM scheme. They've said they don't care with Wal-Mart and their DRM scheme. And things will repeat when they discover these independent artists, find their songs loaded with restrictive DRM and say they don't care.

The point of all this was to get people to not support those that use DRM. And now we're suppose to? There has to be a better way, other than getting into bed with those that support what we don't.

I see now why Code, George Z. and others have stopped coming here. We've lost our way. Whether not we find our way again remains to be seen.

Walmart is not exclusive. These tracks are not being locked away. If Victoria's secret wants to give away DRM files if you buy a bra, I don't give a shit.

And Dmusic has not "signed" with Walmart. Dmusic acquired a record company that did. Get with it. Stop thinking like a small timer.

Niceguy, you are a non-subscriber and non-musician. Tell us again what our position on these matters should be.

You mention "select" dmusic artists. Maybe I missed something and I apologize if I did, but how exactly are these artists being selected?

Leflaw, I believe in a world were music is sold without DRM and people are given the option of paying the artist directly, whether it be by buying a CD or sending donations.

I've already stated what the position should be. It's the original position of this website. And now the Lost Gold label, as owned by DMusic, has signed to sell their songs on Walmart.com Wal-Mart uses WMA files, which are locked with DRM.

As the owner of Lost Gold, DMusic could require that the label sign only with online distributors that don't use DRM schemes. But since they have not, the point is lost.

I came to this site because I was against the RIAA, their war against filesharing, their embracing of online services that use DRM schemes and their attempt to squash independent artists.

And now? How is Lost Gold's signing with Wal-Mart any different from one of the RIAA labels? The files will be locked with DRM. Just as the RIAA would do.

Clue -

Most musicians are against unrestricted file sharing, whether RIAA sanctioned or not. Musicians want to escape from the RIAA, not from DRM. Thats the prime directive.

The Mp3 revolution was a revolution that enabled musicians to get alternative distribution - alternative to the RIAA. DRM and RIAA are two different issues.
I am not diametrically opposed to DRM - only DRM used to perpetuate the monopoly.

Walmart is not the RIAA. Is it better to keep musicians broke and out of Walmart just because walmart uses WMA?

ps:

Alternative distribution is the key, not DRM or not DRM, IMHO. If Walmart and Apple want DRM, what is your anwer if you are a musician?

Still Yet Another Sell Out ???

Wal-Mart does not sell Stickered Music (i.e., music that has a black & white parental warning label against strong language, subject matter, etc.).

Wal-Mart sells Censored music.

Who would want to sell their music through a major corporation that CENSORS music?

What if one of your artists says F**k, S**t, D**m, or H**l in their lyrics?

Do you approve of and promote censorship?

Like a bumper sticker I saw at an indy record store one time stated:

"Friends do not let friends buy music at Wal-Mart"

Sounds like a deal with the Devil to me.

- Advertising banner
- DRM infected music for sale
- No George Z or Code

Wow!, This site is changing fast

Who would want to sell their music through a major corporation that censors music? People who want to sell more copies of their CDs, that's who. The music business is still a business, whether the label is independent or RIAA-affiliated. Wal-Mart accounts for an astounding percentage of CDs sold in the US. Some artists may be able to afford to pass up the opportunity to add 10% to their sales on a given album. Not many would choose to do so.

Methinks leflaw protesteth too much though. To approve of the MP3 revolution is to approve of a format that is not locked, and because of open source encoders/decoders, is not owned by anyone. (I think they are working on a way to provide DRM'd MP3, but that is not the norm.) So if you approve of the MP3 revolution as a means to escape the normal barriers to distribution, you have de facto endorsed an unrestricted format. Now you want to change your tune and say you didn't really want "freedom" unless it is "locked up" with DRM?

In the end, it is probably all academic. Because whatever lock they come up with, some geek will find a way to pick it. So why not just keep it unlocked in the first place? If you're a musician, if your fans don't like you enough to support you by buying your product, maybe you need to find a new line of work. Yes, I worry about artists getting compensated. But only the ones I really like. I don't need DRM to compel me to support them.

I think that maybe we should at least give this a chance and see how it works out. After all, it is something the RIAA will become very afraid of.....

I think its good to do this although i dont think its a wise choice because of the wma format but thats just my opinion. I hope things work out for everyone involved although that wont be me. You never know there might be enough people out there that cant hear the differance and will spend dads money like crazy

People are already spending money at Walmart.com. Why should it go to the RIAA?

i refuse to spend my money on censored music at wal-mart or any other retailer. because of their conservative views, they force artist to tame down their music or it refuses to sell. capitalist, yes, but that's why i boycott music at wally world!

im agreeing with you leflaw , for the people that are willing to buy that format i hope you snag them all . my problem is with the format not you selling it . thats your choice i just think that a better choice of format would result in better sales but i realise thats not your option as you have to deal with what your given

Right. I'm telling all up front. I am placing a priority on getting non-RIAA music out there more than protesting against DRM. That doesn't mean I'm for the DMCA, for example. Different issues. Dmusic is not a one-issue site.

any income for the dmusic artist's is a good thing and i applaud you for doing it. im sure if they dont agree with the format they can opt out so good luck to everyone involved and i hope this is just the tip of the iceburg for their opportunities.

I think it is a good idea leflaw.....it IS competition for the RIAA, and that is what we need. It also gets the independent artists name out there. So, if part of the intent of the RIAA is to shut P2P down so as to silence the Independents out there.....well, this will be a whole new ball game for them. They may not be prepared for this and it could cause them to start rethinking their actions. We shall see......

Folks, unless the sky fell or something, indie music is NOT going to be sold and distributed nor placed on the shelves of the stores. (Now, that WOULD be a victory that would make the RIAA shit a brick.) The deal with dmusic to sell songs is to sell wma (thus DRM infected) DOWNLOADS from the wal-mart owned music sites. Please don't get confused.

leflaw, we love you and support you for doing what you can for the independent musicians. I can't tell an artist NOT to use drm as that is a matter of their own choice. I CAN and WILL tell them it is a stupid choice. I know you don't like DRM all that much yourself, but I am going to have to agree to disagree with you that it is in any way a good idea to comply with the wma format just to get the percieved "clout" or "sales" you think possible from wal-mart. I think you are wrong. It is a good deal for wal-mart perhaps, but I think it is very bad for the artists (like Les Chambers) or the Lost Gold catalogue. I don't predict all that many sales if (1) DRM infects the files, and (2) the downloads cost 88 cents a pop. If you could work out a deal with them to sell non-DRM'ed files for 5 cents a song I would be much more in favor of this action.

But again, I can't and won't tell you how to market/distribute your product... I will tell you that it is not wise to go this route and that by allowing your music to be marketed and distributed according to the industry's "rules" you are only feeding the beast.

My oppinion on the CD-r short run thing is a different matter altogether and I applaud it thus far even though I don't know all the details. Electric Gypsy may lend our music to THAT option if all is on the up and up when we get our album finished. (I know, we have not been asked,) but you can forget the wal-mart/DRM plan for OUR music. Electric Gypsy has principles and we wouldn't do that to our fans or ourselves. DRM and 88 cents a pop is just way over the top too greedy and unrealistic. The average consumer knows it too. Giving wal-mart access to Lost Gold and the rest is just giving in ...and I am afraid you are gonna get screwed.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Oh yeah, please remember you said the following...

"I agree with Pine Mikey. Mp3 is here to stay. If companies want to use 15 types of DRM and still pay the artists, that's their decision. But all tracks will be available in mP3 format somewhere."

"Walmart is not the RIAA."

Yep.

"Is it better to keep musicians broke and out of Walmart just because walmart uses WMA?"

Nope.

Exciting news. Congrats!

"Like Lester Chambers first Dmusic album "Live at the Kennedy Center."

With special guest leflaw. : )

mroop, the 88 or 99 cent with drm model is NOT GONNA WORK. It is NOT smart to play by THIER rules of online distribution. People do NOT fill up thier ipods and whatnot with itunes and the like. They download for FREE ("legit" or not) or rip from their own CD collections.

If 5 cents, and no DRM, then MAYBE a song sold from a reliable download site would stand a chance of earning a little money for the artist/copyright holder from the (rightfully) jaded consumer. Also, this would fall more in line with "fair market value."

Playing by THEIR rules ONLY FEEDS THE BEAST and is ILL-ADVISED!

(How clear do I have to make it?)

Shmoo

...and you know damn well wal-mart is not gonna actively promote the indies, they are mearly gonna say "we have thousands more downloads available after this deal than before" and thus try to make their online music download service look more attractive.

But fear not my faithful friends, it is gonna take longer than we like, but eventually this buck-a-pop DRM model is gonna fail on it's own unless they lower prices and drop the copy restrictions.

leflaw, you guys really should try (or have tried) to negotiate for a non DRM and 5 cent model with them first. Of course the RIAA would NEVER allow it to happen (If by miracle, wal-mart ever showed a willingness to do it, the RIAA would simply threaten to pull all their tunes from them.) The RIAA HATES indie competition. They might allow indies on the so called "legit" sites it if we played by THIER rules (...which you did ...thus thinking you gained a victory) but NEVER would they allow indies if you demanded DRM free and reasonable prices. DO NOT THINK FOR A SECOND THAT THE RIAA DOES NOT HAVE A MAJOR SAY IN WHAT WAL-MART AND THE OTHER ONLINE STORES DOWNLOAD POLICIES ARE. Ever hear of price fixing?

JMHO (but you KNOW I am right)

Something worth repeating from the article below this one...

"Caoli also says, "while that may satisfy your average 13-year-old who can't do without a copy of Outkast's 'Hey Ya' to go along with the hundreds of times they hear it on the radio, this does little in the way of appeasing anyone hoping to introduce themselves to new music."
The main problem with the current main music subscription services is that not only are the files contaminated with DRM, but really are not aiding in promotion of new music."

How is anyone going to make money on 5 cents a song? A million downloads = 50,000 dollars. After the distributor and the record company get paid and then the band pays their manager and recording costs and promotion costs and everything else, each band member would be lucky to end up with 1000 dollars in their pocket. And that is with a million downloads. Having a million downloads and still be delivering pizzas at night doesn't sound too attractive to me.

mroop, get your head out of the dying past. The artist rightfully should get between 50-80 percent of that nickel. If the artist was stupid enough to have all the promoters and managers (thus a label) then they are still screwed no mater what. Even major label artists are lucky if they ever see a dime per song on an actual CD/album. (And the labels charge $10-20 per)

It costs virtually NOTHING to put a song online. A CD should cost about $5 and still make a profit, (I am not talking about a nickel per song on a CD) simply because the cost of manufacture/distribution of a CD is a real cost that needs recouped. A download of a song is DIFFERENT than a physical product.

THINK man, THINK! Have you learned NOTHING from all your time here?

Greed and artificial inflation of prices are the ONLY reasons so called "legit" music costs so much. I call for FAIR MARKET VALUE.

If we indies play by THIER RULES (out of greed or simply from a desire to get in the game) we only help perpetuate those unfair artificially high prices. I am all for making a FAIR buck off of music when you make music, I am NOT for cheating the customer/fan.

The RIAA price is too damn high by a mile (and includes DRM crap restrictions)

AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT MROOP!

5 bucks a cd? Yeesh. Even Dischord charges 10 bucks a cd.

http://www.dischord.com/main.shtml

Do you know the history of Dischord and Ian MacKaye? If you are content to work a day job and do music on the side that is your choice. But I think if an artist wants to make a living at their art then they have the right to do so without being accused of cheating their customers. I don't think anyone would say that about Dischord.

10 bucks is better than 20 I agree, most indie bands with a full blown glass mastered CD charge between 10 and 15 bucks. But that has just been habit and playing by the percieved but again, unfairly high "market value." The cost of producing a CD has dropped in the past few years dramatically (Thank GOD) and there is no need to keep the prices at that level anymore. 5 years ago, it would cost an average of $3-5 ea. to make 1000 CD's. Today, that cost is about half (or less) (check out diskmakers.com just for an example of costs. They were MUCH higher just 5 years ago, believe me, I have been researching it for years and years, I know!) Computers and other gadgets have dropped in price of manufacture and thus in consumer price as well.

A CD should NOT cost as much as you seem to think.

And neither should a download.

You can't base your selling price of a cd on just the cost of manufacturing the cd. Maybe you can because you do all your fulfillment directly yourself. But what about a band that is on the road most of the year? They need a record company. Or if they start their own company they have to pay their employees to run the company. And pay rent and phone bills and if they are selling through stores they need distributors who also have to get paid and on and on and on. When you are doing more than packing a few cd's that you sell on your web site then there are cost involved that have to be covered. There is so much more than just the cost of manufacturing the cd and you are accounting for none of those costs.

Yes, I AM accounting for all those costs.
Fair market value for a CD should be about 5 bucks, and NOT 15 to 20. Indie or Major Label (especially major label.)
And, if there are any artists who make a living off of CD sales alone they are very few and far between. (Even most major name artists.) The real $$$ for being even a sucsessful musician has NEVER been from album sales. It comes from touring, merchandising, airplay royalties, etc. BTW, a popular artist stands to make a LOT more from a compulsary licensing model than they could ever hope for via album sales.

Simple economics of the situation.

Brians's Law:
Having a social conscience is nice, but the bottom line is..we're in business to make money.
I mean that. There are I'll agree different interpretations of the phrase"make money", but independent has made some strikingingly eloquent arguments.
Walmart does NOT sell stickered Cds, instead they sell FILTERED Cds. Words blanked out with a second of dead air, or worse the entire line just taken out. Try to find a copy of ANYTHING by House of Pain.. won't happen. Metallica? They had over half a million cds returned when St. Anger hit, because kids (people, excuse me) bought it and didn't realise it was going to be edited.A friend of mine bought 8mile from there, and went out immediately and bought another copy from a local chain music store. She found the difference astounding (at least to her).
I think leflaw makes excellent points about the RIAA and DRM being different issues. He's right, if Apple, MS or anyone else wants to distribute stuff with DRM in it, then thats their right (and problem down the line). I figure if the artist is making a decent cut of the money coming in, they might realise they could make MORE if they demanded nonDRM distribution. Then it's up to the artists to make the moves.
The RIAA is about making more money for themselves, NOT the artists. They are about restricting airplay to a few select bands that THEY think (or researched or paid for or whatever) should be out there. They are NOT about letting independent musicians and labels distribute w/o getting a cut.
DRM is about keeping the music under thumb. It's about making sure that the music *I* buy can only be played on stuff that *THEY* say it can be played on.
I'm still here, even tho I have to admit I'm a bit shaky on this particular topic. I"m going to wait it out, since Dmusic has made many strides in the 3 years I've been coming here, and I'm hoping will continue to make more. I'd rather be cautious and right than go headlong into something and be wrong.
Remember folks, WE don't own or run Dmusic. Leflaw and a few others do. WE weren't asked about this decision, and the decision to post this topic here (knowing full well it might get inflamatory responses) I'd hope was made with a lot of thought.
Let's see how it plays out.
ttmmm

Schmoo, the CD's will also be on the racks, although it may take a bit more time. And also, my style is not to sit there and beg Walmart for charity. I bought into a company that already had the access. Life is too short to be subtle. Now that Bronfman bought Warner Bros and BMG merged with Sony, maybe I'll buy EMI ;

Ps: 5 cents a song is impossible, with mechanical rates at 8 cents. Do a cover tune and lose three cents? nah.

Better Artist Pages

I personally wouldn't buy anything WMA because I have nothing that supports it other than the computer, but if it gets the word out hey more power. 5 cents a song will put these artist in the poor house faster than anything as well as a 1.00 a song because most aren't going to buy it. Eventually this model will fail.
But to put the music out there into a mainstream outlet is worth the inconvenience of DRM by a long shot. If nothing else it will make aware these artists are out there and if they don't want the WMA secured file they will find the Artist's website or Artist site and get it that way, I know I do that as a CONSUMER.
I would have already done several cds myself if there was an alternate outlet to it, 1. I don't like selling things, 2.I can't bring myself to learn to do mixing I would have to pay someone, 3. for 5 cents a song I would not get out of bed to to pick up my guitar much less go over to whomever's mixing station.
I like the model that Leviathan Records used with a few of their out of print releases...basically go to a store front, place an order and download a little program insert a cd and leave for a few minutes and you have a burnt cd with cover art to print out. My only gripe with this mode was that the original files used were mp3 128kbs instead use something of better quality. (I disected it to check)
Quite honestly improve the site to have better artist pages! The ones here quite frankly stink. The original mp3.com's search engine literally sold me tons of discs..because I wanted something similar to this well known independant or mainstream artist and it gave me a list to check out and I DID! Even though many of the artists on Dmusic offer listens and downloads for free, I have listened to very few of them (My Estimate 10 listens since the time I came to this site). Because the simple fact I check out this list of cryptic band/artists names with songs I have no clue what it sounds like so I don't bother.

I love this site's weird formatting of text

mroop, you're so yesterdaysville, man.

Here's how 5 cent downloads work. A Russian site sells downloads for pennies per track. A person buys those to sample the album. If the album is good, person buys the CD.

Realistically, the artist will be paid nothing if people download from Russian sites. If it was an American site, and the artist could get at least half of that 5 cents, so much the better.

An MP3 is preview-quality at best. It is like an ad for the CD. I have a list of CDs as long as an orangutan's arm that I bought since the beginning of the Napster era, as a result of previewing, then purchasing.

Frankly, I think this model would inhibit a lot of bad CDs from being released. If they knew people were routinely going to hear them before they bought them, they'd make darn sure people were impressed.

Albums are Yesterdaysville.

Albums are what I keep my family pictures in. Also good for dead insect collections.

"A person buys those to sample the album. If the album is good, person buys the CD."

You buy into this theory because you are an old fogey and you want the store bought item. An mp3 properly encoded will sound just as good as a cd to 99% of the population, who are listening to music on boomboxes and rack units and computers speakers and other crappy reproduction systems in the first place. You want the store bought cd. But most people don't feel that way anymore. They get a high quality mp3 burned to a cd and that is all they need. To say that an MP3 is preview quality is best is just not true. I,m a member of an audiophile board with people who argue about compression and maximization all day long and they say a properly encoded MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from a cd, especially on consumer grade equipment.

Actually there is also a growing number of people that aren't interested in owning music at all...like my brother he's content listening to music on the radio or flapping 10 mp3's on a cdr for the drive to vacation whereas after vacation he throws the cdr in the trash and when it comes time to go on another trip he does that again. At one time he did have around 30 cds and he sold them to the local pawn shop saying they were in his way.

Kind of like the book Animal Farm. Feels like it here.

This site was just Boycott-Riaa, now it's just boycott and buy Dmusic. Just another advertising vehicle for Dmusic.

Maybe you should consider giving the site back to Bill Evans? At least we knew where he stood.

Not a challenge, just a question, Does Dmusic support the suing of individuals who share (using p2p) copyrighted music?

Maybe we should not comingle musicians and fans. Is that what you mean?
You think that boycott-riaa means never having to pay for music. Where did it say that? Should all indie music be free? Bill Evans couldn't play an instrument, remember that.

Dmusic stands for independence from the cartel for musicians. Boycott stands for independence from the cartel for fans.

Dmusic opposes mass orchestrated cartel organized civil and criminal preosecutions.

Dmusic opposes suits against comsumers.

Dmusic opposes administrative supoenas issued by court clerks seeking identity of file traders.

Dmusic opposes mandatory broadcast flags.

Dmusic opposes the INDUCE act.

DMusic opposes attempts to create a "digital compulsary license".

Dmusic is for a 128 kbit/44 mhz "demilitarized zone" for non-DRM mp3 files.

Dmusic is for open source.

Dmusic is for a musical middle class.

Now, just what do you stand for, and what are your credentials to criticize? Or are you merely a negative whiner?

At least Schmoo sees the folly in signing with Wal-Mart.

As I mentioned before, I envision a world where you download a song, for free and unrestricted, and are given the option of paying for the music should you like it, but no one would hold a gun to your head and force you.

It's called Freedom of Choice. Leflaw says that Wal-Mart, and musicians have this freedom in deciding whether or not to infect their files with DRM. But do we have this freedom? No, in order to hear the song, we must pay to download it and then can only listen to it on our computer or other authorized device. A thirty second streamed midportion of a song doesn't cut it when you're deciding what to spend your money on.

What we need is a file format that allows payment directly to the artists, whether it be through donations, or a flat fee. The artist would decide, but there would be no demand for payment.

Ask somebody at Futureofmusic.org what they think of the "pay of you want to" or the "tip-jar" approach. Most musicians have rejected it.

What you need is free internet interactive radio.

5 cents a song is impossible, with mechanical rates at 8 cents. Do a cover tune and lose three cents? nah.

mechanical rates of 8 cents were only intended for (and should only apply to CDs and not downloads.) The mechanical rate should be perhaps about a penny on a download. Or, perhaps, the mechanical should be a percentage instead of a set amount of cents. There are a LOT of things that need changed in the music world.

Definitely. But we have to live in the world, and 8 cents a copy sold has been the law on mechanicals since 1909 ( well, it started at 2 cents). So far its been applied to download sales by the copyright office. If we don't pay it, we may be liable. I 'd consider litigating it, but It's not my biggest priority, because the bulk of the money goes to songwriters.

sigh

Ok, let's call a fair price for a non-drm download of a song 15 cents then... since we must pay a "mechanical royalty" to the songwriter/publisher. (or rather, to Harry Fox who is the primary agency in the middle whom then turns around and pays the copyright holder.)

The problem is there are too many who want a piece of the pie ...leaving the artist/songwriter nothing but crumbs.

We want to change the world, not merely learn to live on the crumbs.

"'A person buys those to sample the album. If the album is good, person buys the CD.'

You buy into this theory because you are an old fogey and you want the store bought item."

Actually, I buy into this theory because of the very careful study which showed that when downloads increase, CD sales do not drop. That means there are at least as many "old fogeys" (or maybe they are just the people with better ears) who need to have the higher quality of the CD plus like the liner notes as there are people for whom a crappy MP3 is just fine and dandy. And I think in the future, hopefully even consumer-level audio will increase in quality, and even more people will hear the difference and it will start to annoy them.

I'm not going to argue about the audibility of compression. It is a moot point. Most MP3s are not properly encoded, therefore to say that when they are properly encoded they are as good as CD is mostly useless information. WMA is not that good, period.

I downloaded a sample MP3 from a record company website the other day and it was encoded with Xing(old) codec. And another one was encoded with Blade. These sound absolutely atrocious to me, I don't know about you. But this is the kind of stuff making the rounds on p2p.

"Dmusic is for a 128 kbit/44 mhz "demilitarized zone" for non-DRM mp3 files."

What does this mean, exactly? I assume it means you think no one should be sued for copyright infringement for trading preview-quality MP3s. Do I assume correctly?

So, if you are deaf, and 128kbps is good enough for you, it DOES mean never having to pay for music.

There's a thing about "pay if you want to", you know. It means you're not forced to pay to listen to an artist you think is particularly horrible.

We all know that people will pay for something they greatly enjoy. I'm one of those people. However, people hate paying for something and finding out it's atrocious. Now, you may say "Well, tough luck, you bought it so deal with it." Yeah, I worked customer service and had a manager say that to a customer who'd purchased a CD and found out it was the most horrid thing they'd ever heard. Now, if they'd been able to download it, for free, then they would have seen how horrible it was. Then, if they'd liked it, they could have paid the artist directly.

What do I stand for? I stand for a world where you're allowed to do the things you love, provided they don't physically harm others, and not have to worry about being sued. I stand for artists being paid directly for their work, as others are paid for their work. I stand for a world were information, music and movies are allowed to transfer between people free of DRM infection. As for credentials? I speak for the people. Yes, there are many who speak for the people and that is just well and good since we're all entitled to an opinion. But when you run a site where the large majority of people are against something and then you go out and do that thing anyway, then you are not speaking for the people.

I just don't understand why dmusic doesn't just sell the downloads itself. It owns the rights to the Lost Gold and could allow the dmusic artists to participate if they wanted to. Why let walmart.com have anything to do with it?
Just to get the Lost Gold and a few others like Les Chambers on the actual store shelves? (You know damn well that even if wal-mart gave leflaw that promise, the rest of dmusic would not be allowed) Was THAT the bait?

I mean, cmon, dmusic is already an extensive and powerfull website on its own, why farm out? dmusic admin SHOULD take a DIY attitude in these matters.

and with reasons I have been trying to explain throughout, I still stand by my one word comment I made the first time I responded to this thread above...

"worried"

Shmoo