As reported yesterday one of my favorite sites AllofMp3.com was pressured by the Russian government (rather the U.S. Government) to close its doors.
Well happy day!!! Like a phoenix rising from the dead.
Now there is a new web site that has appeared called Mp3sparks.com, which offers the same low price for downloading mp3s. It just so happens to be owned by the same people who owned AllofMp3.com, and they say that this time they're legal (sure, Ok). This site offers MP3 downloads at around .15 cents a song, beat that itunes!!!
Hit the jump for the new site. [Mp3sparks]
25 comments:
So how much of the $0.15 goes to the artist?
.06. About as much as most artist put into there albums.
And how much goes to the label that markets the artists?
I use to wonder about those same numbers when the record industry use to get away with charging $10-$20 an album for decades. Now that the tables are turned, I should feel sorry for an industry that used to charge a 700% gross for there product? Sorry, you have the wrong guy.
Now Lars can only afford that small island in the Pacific instead of an entire country. South Park had it right.
Then you must not want to listen to new artists.
New artists just need to get there music out there. They don't care how it gets out there, just that it does. The record industry isn't the only way for new artist to have their music discovered. The Internet has made careers more than destroyed them like the record industry would have you believe. Name one new artist or old for that mater, who claims that downloading music cost them their chance.
Before downloading, the record industry said that illegal bootlegging would stop new artist. They fought against the idea of tape players that people enjoyed for so many years. The sites like Mp3sparks are not what makes and breaks new artists. In the billions of dollars that the record industry brings in, they decide if and how much money to push an artist. Don't let them fool you into thinking that they won't push an artist if they feel they can make plenty of money off of them.
And it's funny that downloading has been out for over a decade, and I'm still seeing new artist come out.
No matter how bad they are.
If downloading was as widespread as you want it to be for your argument, the record industry would already be dead. The legal forms of sales are still thriving.
There's no way for you to argue that charging $0.15 is going to keep artists creating and marketing the music I enjoy. You can rationalize all you want, but it's stealing, and I think this site should be shut down.
"Name one new artist or old for that mater, who claims that downloading music cost them their chance."
This might be one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. If they never had their chance, how would I be able to name them?
"There's no way for you to argue that charging $0.15 is going to keep artists creating and marketing the music I enjoy."
And you think the additional $0.84 keeps the artist going? itunes, Napster, and the few other download sites don't keep the artist creating music. Best Buy, Walmart and other major outlets is where the real money is made for the artist. If you're all about supporting the artist as you say you are, that is where you should be purchasing. I'm not telling anyone to steal music, just don't be so naive to think itunes and others like it support the artist like you seem to think.
http://downhillbattle.org/itunes/
"This might be one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. If they never had their chance, how would I be able to name them?"
The point that I was trying to make is that no one other than the record industry makes the claim that new artist don't have a chance because of downloading. And it's easy to make that claim because they don't have to show one artist who didn't have a chance because of it.
What record company has dropped an artist because their music was being downloaded to much? If anything, they would throw more advertising money at the artist to try to promote them. Obviously their music is wanted and the industry wants their cut. New artist want their music to be heard. The record industry wants to control what music is heard. If anything, downloading is a new artist friend.
"The Internet has made careers more than destroyed them like the record industry would have you believe."
I'm gonna throw the ball into your court.
Name one artist that made a #1 hit by selling only via the internet. The labels promote the artists and get them their Lamboz, Benzos, and other bling bling. If it were that easy to get their music "out there," as you say, then the labels would die. It is naïve to think otherwise.
"What record company has dropped an artist because their music was being downloaded to much? If anything, they would throw more advertising money at the artist to try to promote them."
-- Example, please?
Here's one quite the opposite from U2:
"In July a tape containing rough tracks from the upcoming album was stolen during a photo shoot in the south of France. At the time Bono told The Telegraph: "If it is on the Internet this week, we will release it immediately as a legal download on iTunes, and get hard copies into the shops by the end of the month. It would be a real pity. It would screw up years of work and months of planning, not to mention f**king up our holidays. But once it's out, it's out. http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=10099
No plans for extra throwing of promotional money as you claim. If folks like you can steal their songs, they will.
You seem to talk like you know about the industry, but your rationalizations are weak. If you think bands should just use their own marketing to get you their music, then buy directly from them. But buying from a company that is making money by stealing is just that.
http://mp3sparks.com/
Not working for me. Working for you?
Supporting Microsoft is bad enough, but I don't know how you can support these sleezeballs, Nelson.
"IFPI and other industry groups said ROMS operated without music companies' permission, and the only reason Allofmp3 could sell songs so cheaply was that it paid no royalties. An IFPI report this week identified Russia and China as "major sources of global piracy", with domestic music piracy levels above 50 per cent.
Music industry revenues from recorded music in Russia have collapsed in the past two years, from $322m to $210m (€155m, £104m). Legitimate digital revenues account for just 1 per cent of the Russian market, compared with an 11 per cent global average.
Susan Schwab, the US trade representative, last year singled out Allofmp3 as an example of the piracy problems that delayed efforts to conclude a bilateral Russian-US deal on Russian entry to the WTO.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19591440/
"Name one artist that made a #1 hit by selling only via the internet."
Missing the point Michael. I said new artist trying to get discovered, who may not have that chance with a record company.
"What record company has dropped an artist because their music was being downloaded to much? If anything, they would throw more advertising money at the artist to try to promote them."
-- Example, please?"
'System of a down'started with much of their music being downloaded from the net until a major label picked them up.
""In July a tape containing rough tracks from the upcoming album was stolen during a photo shoot in the south of France."
Not talking about someone stealing a tape and puting it on a bit torrent for everyone to download. I'm talking about New artist getting their music heard. Not Mega artist like U2. I'm pretty sure they don't need much promotion.
"You seem to talk like you know about the industry, but your rationalizations are weak."
I only know what I see, just like you.
"Supporting Microsoft is bad enough, but I don't know how you can support these sleezeballs, Nelson."
Understand that AllofMp3 has not gotten one cent of my money. And itunes has gone far too much of it. Don't paint me the bad guy because I show you how the world works.
I am trying to access it all day and it is not working. Do you know why? I have tried and nothing happends it says not found...any suggestions or help...
It's might have been removed after a day. That was short lived.
It's down for me as well.
Mike, Nelson, You two are gentlemen you both discussed a very hot topic without becoming mean.
Can ANYONE educate me in how to do that?
*l* I dunno, Fred. All we are saying is give peace a chance. Nelson doesn't want artists to make more than $.06 for writing classics like that, but I'll support 'em. And back to the debate:
"'System of a down'started with much of their music being downloaded from the net until a major label picked them up."
This is an example of a group that eventually signed with a major label. Hello? If everything was going so well online, then why sign at all? They need the label! How else will they ever roll on dubs? You demonize the labels and then use an example of a group leaving the warm fuzzy internet to actually make a buck. So you must agree that the groups need labels. But you think they shouldn't get paid:
"I use to wonder about those same numbers when the record industry use to get away with charging $10-$20 an album for decades. Now that the tables are turned..."
Again, you're supporting stealing from the label.
It's not like we're arguing about price fixing on loaves of bread. This is entertainment. If folks didn't pay $10-20 for an album, the price would've gone down. And if it's a crappy album, it ends up in the $1 pile, like an old Bobby Brown CD I once bought.
BTW, you tried to change the subject instead of giving me an example showing how downloading is countered by the label:
"If anything, they would throw more advertising money at the artist to try to promote them."
Your posts about this site are not neutral by any means. You're not just showing me how the world works, you're rooting for the bad guy:
"one of my favorite sites AllofMp3.com"
"This is a sad day for me and anyone who thinks that the RIAA is the devil.
It appears that the download site AllofMp3.com has been shut down for good."
These two posts sure sound like you're supporting this site.
My arguments are not about new artists not making it due to downloading. It's about stealing. And this site does just that. I don't see how you can support it. I'm for the capitalist Rocky, and you're for the anti-capitalist Drago. USA! USA! USA!
"If everything was going so well online, then why sign at all? They need the label!"
No, but I certainly don't feel bad for them. Not when the RIAA goes after grandmothers and handy caped moms. http://cowbelltech.blogspot.com/2007/06/riaa-takes-on-disabled-woman-gets-sued.html
"BTW, you tried to change the subject instead of giving me an example showing how downloading is countered by the label: "
That was never the argument that I was trying to make. I never said that someone could reach number #1 status by Internet alone.
"Your posts about this site are not neutral by any means."
Never said that they were. I understand that the RIAA is a necessary evil, but an evil none the less.
""one of my favorite sites AllofMp3.com"
"It appears that the download site AllofMp3.com has been shut down for good."
These two posts sure sound like you're supporting this site.
Just because it doesn't bother me that these sites exist, I should feel bad for the RIAA? Come on!
"
My arguments are not about new artists not making it due to downloading. It's about stealing. And this site does just that."
Everything is not always black and white Michael. Why doesn't itunes post how much of that .99 cents goes to the artist that they claim to support? Would it be shocking to find out that it might be the 0.06 that you find so offensive?
"I'm for the capitalist Rocky, and you're for the anti-capitalist Drago."
Cold war is over son.
I'll ask for an example one more time:
"...If anything, they would throw more advertising money at the artist to try to promote them."
-- Example, please?"
Your whole argument is that the RIAA is evil and they deserve sites like this. I wholeheartedly disagree. Stealing is not the way to make it right. This IS a black and white matter. This site, who you support, steals. Period.
"I guess the US Government doesn't care if the artists or the record industry is stealing from the American people."
This argument is crap! Sure, the RIAA goes way too far in trying to curb downloading, but your argument is far too extreme. If you don't buy music, the record industry is not stealing your money. Again, this is entertainment. I don't hear you complaining about the cost of video games. You're bitter that record companies make a killing. Get over it. This is capitalism.
I'll ask for an example one more time:
"...If anything, they would throw more advertising money at the artist to try to promote them."
-- Example, please?"
I gave you an Example!!!
'System of a Down' had a lot of their music out on the Internet for download, this resulted in a major label picking them up and PROMOTED THEM to the masses. Why is that hard to understand?
Speaking of not answering questions.
Why doesn't itunes post how much of that .99 cents goes to the artist that they claim to support? Would it be shocking to find out that it might be the 0.06 that you find so offensive?
This argument is crap! Sure, the RIAA goes way too far in trying to curb downloading, but your argument is far too extreme.
I'm an extreme person Michael.
I don't hear you complaining about the cost of video games.
I don't hear the video games industry go on a search and fleece of the average Joe. I'm sure that they loose a lot of money to piracy, but haven't lost their minds trying to prosecute any and everybody to recover said losses.
You're bitter that record companies make a killing. Get over it. This is capitalism.
No, I'm bitter that the RIAA has lobbied themselves into a position to hold a country (Russia) out of the WTO. If it's truly just entertainment as you say, then why would they hold such power? No matter how hard you try Michael, I don't feel sorry for them.
It's obvious that you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this subject. We can both can say that each others argument is crap, but we know good points were made on both sides. Lets 'Let Love Rule' and 'Give Peace a chance' and hope I don't get sued by the RIAA for referring to those songs.
This is what is sounds like'When threads die'.
You argue for thievery as a means to an end. I do not. It's called integrity.
I also disagree that you made good points.
If you want to let it die, then so be it.
"You argue for thievery as a means to an end. I do not. It's called integrity. "
He who is without sin, cast the first stone!
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings in any part of this. Didn't know you were going to take it so personally.
Not at all. I thought it was just getting interesting.
Post a Comment