From today, people in western Europe can download from 200,000 songs by 8,500 artists - without risking the Wrath of Hollywood.

But it's not one of the Big Five or Apple or anyone else in the music business who's the latest to belly up to the 'legal' online music trough.

This time, Miscro@soft, with its Windows Media Player as The Means, and Peter Gabriel, via his OD2, as The Man, is offering downloads for about $1.20 cents each.

"The expanded MSN Music Club service will be launched today in the United Kingdom," says MS in a statement. "Tiscali, which has Tiscali Music Clubs in operation in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium, will launch the new versions of its service in September.

"Both services are based on a simple pay-as-you-go model, enabling music fans to download individual songs starting from just £0.75 (€0.99) per track, or £7.99 (€12.49) per album."

Apple has struggled to launch iTunes in Europe because it's been, "held up by the need to obtain licences from record labels and publishers' central clearing houses in each individual country," says a story in Britain's online Financial Times.

The FT points out that iTunes is seen as a breakthrough product by the music industry, but that Micro$oft is after a much bigger market, with 96% of computers in Europe running the Windows operating system.

But, "Brussels is investigating whether the inclusion of Media Player with the operating system gives Microsoft an unfair competitive advantage," says the story. "A European Commission spokesman said on Wednesday this would remain the focus."

It added that Micro$oft wouldn't comment on when it plans to launch a similar music download service in the US, "but as many as six Apple rivals are expected to launch competing online music stores for PC users in the US by the end of the year".

The only downloading alternative I have tried so far has been Emusic. It is a very good site, with mostly independent labels and artists. For a simple monthly fee, you can download as much as you want. THAT is the kind of site I've been wanting! I've heard that iTunes and the rest BLOW! You pay too much, get too little, and most of them offer poor quality formats. I'm sure Microsofts little foray will blow as well.

$1.20 per song? Hahahahahahahahahahaha! That's pretty funny. Given the choice, the majority of consumers will choose free music downloads every time, and there's nothing the recording industry can do about. They've lost touch with reality. They're finished.

$1.20 a download?! Let's see, for a cd w/ 14 songs on it, that would be $16.80, basically the same price as it would cost to buy the CD in a store but with virtually no cost of distribution (including the record store's cut) or creation costs (CD liner, jewel case, etc.) So basically even after giving Micro$oft their cut, the record companies make even more than if you were to buy the CD in the store.

It's about time the major labels and the RIAA create a real pay model. Let's see, if the artist get's paid aproximately $.50 for a 12 track CD and out of that, the record label also makes $.50, and the distrbution company gets $.50 that comes to a grand total of $.125 per song.

Superninerfan

As they try to get ppl to pay for songs, ppl are only getting more frustrated and more frustrated at the RIAA!
Regardless of how good the service may sound, Free P2P will always win out. The billions they are looking for arn't going to appear

they should just start accepting money from Kazaa is they expect to ever get paid

This is absolute garbage. I know it's hard to accept, that Microsoft offers nothing but garbage, but bear with me here.

$1.20 per song. 15 songs per album.

= $18 an album.

What revolution!
Now we don't have to give the RIAA $18 for overpriced music, we can just give it to microsoft!

What the hell is this crap?
(superninerfan - i started typing this before i read your post. i give you credit for the math calculations =)

So did the riaa report to senator coleman yet? Today is aug. 14th

Give me a break!

F**k this!

Only when they WISE UP and start posting and featuring NON-RIAA songs will they even be worth a look-see!

If YOU buy any RIAA stuff then, in a moral sense, PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE! (Unless you are a Troll who can take the heat!)

Ok, I am done...

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy

Support Local and Independent Music!

Ok let me wangle an angle here.....I have to get this thought clear! I purchased tons of lp's and then put them on reel to reel. Then I bought cassetts (blanks} recorded with my dual cassett boom box from radio programs and friends. Then I got tired of blowing the dust of my lp's so I sold 4 big boxes of them in a grage {sale for 1 dollar a piece}. I think I made a total of 200 dollars that weekend. So now the CD's hit the market I think in the 80's? Ok as the recording tech progresses now I have access to the internet along with cdr, mp3 and all that good stuff. I look at some of the Lp's i kept.....and my reel to reel music along with my cassetts and old cds and say!!!!How do I get them all on my computer ....in one file {as mp3 files?} Now I accidently happen on this shared site called Kazza and find other people have done the same and we want to swapp!.....See where im going ? If part of the copy right law was broken sooooo many years back and nothing was done then I don't see any difference today!!! and when the rubber meets the road with defense attorneys sinking their teeth into this big pie "someones going to have pie in their face"!

damn they got canada


http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030814.gtcria0814/BNStory/Technology/

isp-privacy,
your right, the riaa is a bit late in their crackdown. people have been trading music for years and years. i think thats its just more abundant, and out in the open that they are now trying to put a stop to it. years ago it would have been people trading mix tapes with friends, but new technology allows for the same thing but a whole lot easier and faster. why cant the riaa realize that they cant stop something like this. its basically part of our culture. maybe tapes will make a big comeback, i still have a tapedeck in my car.

Isn't it appropiate that this site is called Milk Online since Micro$oft has found a partner in crime to "milk" customers of their hard earned cash.

In another thought, I was curious how the damages would stand up to legal scrutiny if the users say that the files shared were recorded off of a radio broadcast. Though that is also a violation of copyright, the damages would be nothing since users did not profit off of their sharing and had already been made public so the lost of sales portion of the DMCA could not be enacted meaning no large amounts of money per file.

Superninerfan

TheSherminator
nothing that i can see as of yet....lets hope he fries the fuckers.

This is for schmoo of electric gypsy.

if you go back to the article about the RIAA's sue 'em all strategy you can read the letter I sent to congress. I highlighted a few points that most of the musicians I have talked to really favor. I'd still like to see an artist petition to go along with this. read the letter and see if you agree.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE RIAA HAS BEEN BUSY FORMING THE "NEW WORLD ORDER"

"*nods* yeah... i dont think every nelly or avril lavigne fan should be sued.... but if they are... im sure a week later theyll have no respect for there government and start listening to punk and throwing bricks through windows"

hahahahahah great quote from alonetogether

Hi,
First I would like to say that I have been reading the articles and comments here since the start of the RIAA mess back in July.

Much like isp-privacy, I purchased a reel to reel in the mid 70's. I bought around 500 albums that were played twice. Once to hear them and once to record them. Still have the reel and the tapes but sold the records as shipping charges were out of this world.

As much as the music industry would like to recharge you everytime you change formats to store your media, they lost that battle while fighting over the cassette rights. They won the right to charge you the consumer extra for each blank recording format you buy and the recorders when you purchase them. So I have paid already their fee. It was not left up to me to decide "if I wanted to pay" only that I would. OK. Don't whine to me you didn't get your share, RIAA. Did the artists? Somehow I am sure you had a loophole to keep the money just like you have for the rest of the money that should have gone to them.

Over the years, I bought time and again the same albums, in record, in 8 track, in cassette, but when cd's came out I quit. I long ago purchased the right to play those songs. (To many times) Prices never went down (they went up!), never got a price break for already having purchased the right to play them, and now they want to sue folks for having them on their computer! The audacity of their greed knows no bounds.

Stealing from both the artist and the consumer has become a way of life for those that circle like vultures around the money path. Folks started getting wise and d/ling their own songs. Suddenly the money farm has become something other than the cash cow. So now instead of updating to more modern methods to fit John Q. Public's perception of lifestyle now they want to change the rules.

No other business have I ever seen ignores the customer as this one has. To add insult to injury, these businesses want to call the customer a thief! It is evident they believe P.T. Barnum's statement to the effect of "There's one born every minute".

When not a dollar crosses their doorstep I shall be happy to see the major 5 labels suck in their belts. It is not the RIAA that I hate. They are just the dog doing their masters bidding. It is the hope of the major 5 that you will hate the RIAA and not them. Where do you think an organization gets its power from? Point it in the right direction.

enough said...

@ seraphielx, Date: August 14, 2003 @ 1:26 PM

”damn they got canada”

Canada?

“Internet file-sharing has doubled in volume in the last year to over one billion files at any one time. The resulting retail sales losses have exceeded $250-million in Canada alone in the last three years."

But they only have about 25 million people. So they each are supposed to buy 1 cd per person? Is this a new Law? Do retirees, babies, their parents know about this? How do they decide who gets stuck with Rap, C&W, Gospel Rock? How do they manage this? Quotas?

“The Canadian recording industry, however, has persuaded the Canadian government to institute a levy on all recordable media commonly used to record downloaded music files. Over the past few years, the industry has collected in excess of $70-miullion (Cdn.).”

But? If it’s a “billion files a year” (“in the last year”) then the files are cheaper ($70 million per 1 billion files) or in simpler terms: $70,000,000/1,000,000,000 = SEVEN CENTS EACH.

OK so it’s Canadian money. Makes it about FIVE CENTS per file (US$)

"Remember that you need music and music needs you."

Yeah sure and: ‘just try a needle up your arm once eh’.

YOU @^%&’s!

Learn to speak Canadian, lesson #1: eh =?

lol

And

@ Wet1 Date: August 14, 2003 @ 2:13 PM

“enough said...”
No! Well said, but never enough.

justed

My question is if what Hilary Rosen said is true then we are not infringing on their copyright. Here is what she said.

Hilary Rosen claims KaZaA is ruining, not expanding, the recording industry by allowing inferior copies of music to be downloaded with its software. "If you're using KaAaA today, you're getting, in my view, a crappy quality song -- not what the artist did in the studio, not what they wanted you to hear, not their finest work," she said.

Am I wrong

I forgot this part

If a mp3 is a inferior copy them would this be another way to fight back. This would mean you are not getting the true copy. Am I wrong.

One final bit here...

I refuse to update to Media 9 player from Micro$oft with its phone home feature for wma's.

If you are planning to go buy a cd, check the link below first. If you are sharing files, check the link below first also. The RIAA is not a happy camper over this site and folks need to know what not to buy.

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

gilbd:

I doubt that argument would win in court but it might be worth pursuing. If making analog copies for personal use is allowed (tape recordings, videocassetes) then why not digital copies (MP3s)? Some have argued that an analog copy is an imperfect reproduction but that is also true of MP3s, as you say. However, I'm guessing that even "imperfect" copies of copyrighted material would still be considered copyright infringement.

Thanks IFeelFree.
didn't know really how to take the part where she said

not what the artist did in the studio

If you want an example of a good spin click on tech, after usworld tody comes up and read sinrods comments!
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2003-08-13-sinrod_x.htm

ok I read nimrod's article from the useless news today (see above post). there's still just a few small problems.

1. I still don't care

2. the riaa is as evil and bad for business as any third world dictatorship

3. the boy named sue is still a fairy

4. howard berman should be castrated and fed to wild pigs (though that's still to good for him)

5. and hillary rosen still has a big arse.

if I left anything out it's only because I've been to busy vomiting. microshit now wants to get into the "milk me for music money business" ? Let's see if they survive this latest worm bull shit before they try to break into other things they know nothing about.

Flaunting? Hes not speaking for me!

I hope microsoft goes down with the riaa because they have been creating s**t lately that cant even protect itself against viruses

Schmoo: "If YOU buy any RIAA stuff then, in a moral sense, PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE! (Unless you are a Troll who can take the heat!)"

Since when does this site belong to Schmoo? Dude, I respect your opinion only sofar as you respect mine and everyone elses.

....and NO, I do not support the RIAA in any way, shape or form.

If you can't deal with someone who has a differing opinion without resorting to childish intolerance than maybe you should consider whether you feel your own convictions can stand up.

I thought this was a forum for friendly discussion and debate. If we don't consider all sides to an argument then we risk becoming just as narrow-sighted as the RIAA. It's very childish to simply stamp your feet and shout, "If you don't believe in what I believe in, then just go away."

Don't misunderstand me Schmoo, I don't think that you should go away, either. I also don't mean to flame you, but intolerance and attempts at exclusion just rub me the wrong way.

- MusicWantsToBeFree

I just sent the lawyer who wrote the USA Today article an email explaining my position on file sharing. Hopefully, he'll see the issue from another point of view. Ah, he'll probably just sue me. That's what lawyers do.

IFEELFREE I joined you! i also sent one. He has a lot of credentials just maybe he can see some views from the other side of the courtroom....you know where all the lowlifes sit!

I have not read anything in this post yet... Just turned on the tv and logged on as quick as I could... CODEWARRIOR, (you did'nt do it did ya?)
lol... sorry, bad joke. SERIOUSLY, this DOES look to me like an American person who did it... probably related to the new MS worm, also probably not...
But WHOEVER did it needs to realize something... there are little old ladies on ventilators in hospitals and stuff! Disruption of normal times is an A-OK thing in my book, UNTILL you hurt somebody!!! I know we here at boycott RIAA are fucking MAD and we have a LOT of sympathetic hacker types too... I just hope like hell it wasn't one of our "sympathizers" (GOD, that would kill our freedom movement dead... I hope it WAS an Al-Queda or Terrorist Crazy!)

Someone smarter than me blame it on the RIAA before they blame it on us!

Support Local and Independent Music!
Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy

Just a couple of notes...

EMusic is owned by Vivendi. The only way you get your music posted there is to have an active mp3.com account last time I checked. This means that as the same time the RIAA is pissing and moaning about downloads, indies have to pay to have their music available for downloading.

This brings me back to my 8-month old question -- why is it criminal activity to listen to major artists music, but paid promotion for the indies?

I'm sad to see Peter Gabriel fall victim to Microsuck. An mp3 file is not worth a quarter, much less $1.30. A Windows Media File is completely and total worthless.

"As we celebrate mediocrity,
All the boys upstairs want to see,
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free."
Tom Petty -- The Last DJ

Date: August 14, 2003 @ 2:34 PM

My question is if what Hilary Rosen said is true then we are not infringing on their copyright. Here is what she said.
I know this was from a post back but I was just cracking up when I saw this quote and I was so suprised nobody jumped on it. This was posted by gilbd and his response was that since mp3s aren't true copies.....

Hilary Rosen claims KaZaA is ruining, not expanding, the recording industry by allowing inferior copies of music to be downloaded with its software. "If you're using KaAaA today, you're getting, in my view, a crappy quality song -- not what the artist did in the studio, not what they wanted you to hear, not their finest work," she said.


Date: August 14, 2003 @ 2:34 PM

My question is if what Hilary Rosen said is true then we are not infringing on their copyright. Here is what she said.

Hilary Rosen claims KaZaA is ruining, not expanding,

*It would expand it if you lived with the times. It would expand if you would stop cracking down on downloaders...

the recording industry by allowing inferior copies of music to be downloaded with its software.

*(BWAHAHAHAHA!!! This is where I crack up) Inferior copies of music...yup that is what kind of crap is on the airwaves today


"If you're using KaAaA today, you're getting, in my view, a crappy quality song

*BWAHAHAHAH!!!!! Yeah if you are using KazAa today you are getting really crappy RIAA music!

-- not what the artist did in the studio, not what they wanted you to hear,

*Not what they did in the studio? Not what they wanted you to hear? Then how come they are artists-- oh Im sorry, that is a bad word to you guys

not their finest work," she said.

*BWAHAHAHAH!! NOT Their Finest work ever.

Just a small question, to which maybe I can get a reply. If music is like software in the effect of the consumer does not own the actual data/music but just a limited usage license for personal use only, as opposed to radio stations which purchase a "Broadcast" license. Then why would I have to buy a CD that I already have a cassette or even vinyl of. Point being, if I purchased a "limited listening/usage license" when I originally bought my cassette/album/maybe even 8track) media whcih contained the data/music on it, then why should I be forced to purchase a new "limited usage" license of the same music that I already have the license to listen to just on defferent media. Shouldn't I be able to just purchase the CD ($1.00) itself and go to the record company that I originally gave my money for the "limited usage" license and have them replace my data. After all if I bought the license to listen to the music 20 years ago don't I still have the right to listen to it, even if I cannot find an 8 track player to listen to it on. I'm just a little confused about the whole "You can't share because you don't own" thing. Am I wrong in assuming that when you buy a CD now that it comes with a "time limited" license to listen to the music?

Well, IMO.. most consumers do not undestand all this, I myself have fallen into the same trap as the rest of you, having to update as something becomes obsolete... which is terrible... but we have let them do it for so long that now they think they deserve it ... and we, the consumers, who now look up and go WTF?? and are realizing what is going on ... are basically just stampin our feet and whining .. because as I said above .. we have let these trolls do this for too long ... WE gave them their power .... and it is going to be very hard to take it away now ... and what is sad is that because MOST people have no clue about it .. they will continue to get away with it .. We need soem really big Acts to stand up and get the word out .. so that the public is made AWARE of what is happening ... until that happens... it is going to stay just like it is ... unfortunately .. -sigh

And as far as Microsoft goes .. they are as bad as the big 5 .. they have monopolized the computer market and made it so that consumers do not know that they have a choice .... so we are in the same place here except it is worse because Windows media comes on pretty much every computer consumers buy .. and they will do this thing because it is easy ... soooooo

There has been a lot of misinformation in the media regarding the "mp3 revolution". Worries that Celine Dione will go broke run rampant across the land. Fears that Britney Spears and the "Backstreet Boys" will only make half a bazillion dollars this year make up the headlines of newspapers and magazines everywhere you look.

this guy has some good ideas about mp3s - http://www.deadtroll.com/text/rant.wesmp3.html

I would feel better about saying this if so many other people didn't get a cut, but the artist did work hard to create, practice, and perform the music we listen to.
Screw the RIAA, I say we download the music and send the artist a check for what we think the music is worth to us.
Then they can give a cut to the people that helped them out.

Another thing, If the RIAA wants their crap protected so badly, why don't they donate the 50million bucks to the government so they aren't stealing even more from the innocent taxpayer!!!

I have a question: Do we WANT all commercial online music services to fail?

True, they all suck right now, but with all the competition it's a good bet that some will rise to the top by getting better. What if a good service actually emerges -- one that has a great selection of non-crippled music at reasonable prices? It could happen. And it would be a good thing, in my opinion.

It would seem,given the current trends, that, an online distribution model makes more sense economically, especially if broadband continues to become more accessible to the masses.
Granted, many say that the MP3 format is not as good as CD quality (I can't really hear the diff), but perhaps that should be taken into account in pricing. For most music purchasers, it would be counterproductive to try to make all online music services to fail, however; given the actions of the RIAA, I think most want to make sure that the RIAA has nothing to do with the one that succeeds. Also, there needs to be a very comprehensive legal agreement for the downloader from any future online service as to the rights he or she has. Can they burn the MP3 to a disc, can they make a backup copy of that disc, can they play it in the car, and on an on.
It seems to me, given the siphoning off of money from CD sales to so many middlemen and middlewomen associated with labels, and promotion costs, etc., for those artists who could do most of their preproduction work in digital , and keeping it digital, they would have a financial interest in developing an online distribution/sales network for themselves, so that the artist would be getting a bigger share of the money for the music. To someone relatively unsophisticated as I, this would seem to be the logical next step.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Have a great day
Having to be dead serious from now on...
~code

As a musician I can tell you there is a definite difference between your standard 128kbps MP3 and your 44.1kHz 16-bit stereo wave file (audio track). Most of the time when I would use Kazaa I'd be trying to get songs I already have on CD for the sake of making quick compilation discs instead of having to pull all of the CDs out, rip the songs I want and burn them (or swap discs on a track-by-track basis with my burner) and most of the stuff I'd find on Kazaa was even worse quality than 128kbps (like 96 or 64). I really fail to see how they can consider an MP3 with a low bitrate like that a copy worth paying royalties for, I mean if they actually played that kind of stuff on the radio, the FM broadcast would sound much better. If you can't hear the encoding on an MP3, try listening to the high end frequencies (like hi-hats) and it becomes obvious that there's a definite sound quality difference. If most people can't hear it, more power to them, but I can hear it and it's one of the reasons that I don't think MP3's are worth paying for in the first place.
As such, I will never pay for an MP3. They don't sound like total ass but lemme tell you folks, there's a reason they do 24-bit mixing in studios, and there's a reason that CDs come with uncompressed wave files.
It seems really ignorant of a lot of corporations right now jumping on the 'online music' bandwagon that people will suddenly not want the artwork, track listing, lyrics or anything else a physical copy of an album entails. I'm certainly not saying that paying the RIAA a dime is on my agenda, but I just don't see physical media, no matter how cheap the media is (like these flimsy CDs you buy now that scratch as soon as you take them out of the case, or vinyl, or the cassette) going away any time soon. On top of that, the artwork, layout and all that is an integral part of releasing an album (especially a 'themed' album, athough the only theme you'll find with RIAA music is 'crap music').
Maybe they'll replace the CD with something like a 512MB SD card (or something similar, just much lower in price) with uncompressed wave files on it, this way it's portable, and it's readable, you can pull the files from it, etc. Hey, you could even do like we used to do back in the 80's with cassettes, where if you bought one on the chance that the band was good and they weren't, you just recorded over it. Can't do that with CDs or vinyl.

I have posted this on some boards
These may be some of the ones we should be wrighting to

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), Chairman
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Ranking Minority Member

Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Senator George Voinovich (R-OH)
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Senator John Sununu (R-NH)
Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)

Hope this will make it easier. Just go to Congress.org and write to them. Please we need them to know how we feel.

jsc252 -- I'm glad your revived the Wicked Witch's quote, which is exactly the opposite of what she told Congress during the Napster hearings.

During that falsehood fest, she hammered to the government that an mp3 is a perfect copy of a CD.

I agree with thamuz 100% and have been saying that for months. To use an analogy that I just used on another thread, it's like the difference between orange juice and orange concentrate.

It does not matter whether or not the consumer can tell the difference (although your hearing is really not that sharp if you can't tell the difference between CD quality and an mp3). What does matter is that it IS different.

As for CodeWarriorLite's question about whether we want all the online music sites to fail, the answer is that it depends on their motive.

Once again, this is all about control. Radio is free to listen to because the consumer has no control over what is played, other than the almost historical request lines which allowed you to ask for a song. But it was still always up to the radio station or the disc jockey to decide. That's why you had to pay to play a song through a jukebox.

Today, we have the webcasting and file sharing. The industry wants to keep these things in line with their power trip. Webcasting, by definition, means that the consumer has no control of what music is played. As a result, the webcasters have to pay the royalty to offer music from the major labels.

If the consumer wants to choose, then we're back to the pay-per-play jukebox scenario.

The big difference is that in the jukebox days, they never tried to charge the complete cost of the song (there were these things called "singles" back then where you could buy one song) for one play, which is exactly what the RIAA is trying to do now.

The RIAA does not want this interactivity, so is actually trying to make accessing what you want to hear expensive enough to either discourage the activity or get you to give up altogether.

It does them no good whatsoever if people want to listen to old Jimi Hendrix music, for example, because they're not spending their promotional money on Hendrix any longer. They want you to buy what they are trying to sell today, not what they were selling 25 years ago.

It's all about control. They need to totally dominate the market in order to make the big bucks. With the Internet, they simply have no control over the public. The legal terrorism is to re-establish the control they have lost.

Ain't gonna happen. No way. No how.

If I want to buy a recording, it sure as hell won't be an mp3. I like the option of deleting songs that turn out to suck. I wouldn't buy a CD unless I really liked the group, singer, whatever. Of course, that's hard to know in advance because the selection of cd's you can preview is slim or none, and standing in a record store with headphones is far from relaxing. I've been turned on to many singers I've never heard of before through P2P, and am more likely to buy their CD's in a store (for an affordable price, of course)...the RIAA seems to know nothing of how the consumer's mind really works...dumbasses.

Is CodeWarrior still embarrased for what he said about Asians? Please don't be, come back, we enjoy your comments. I least I do.