<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: eMusic to offer Sony back catalog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/</link>
	<description>Trying to unite civility and truth in a few long blog posts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:12:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dusty</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1215</link>
		<dc:creator>Dusty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1215</guid>
		<description>I think the move to album-pricing was inevitable: the previous &quot;a track is a track&quot; approach was unfair to musicians who record long tracks and listeners who like albums with many short ones.  But this means that most estimates of the price increase are far too low: Many albums with 5-10 track are now listed as 12 tracks, with key tracks that used to be available independently now only available as part of the package. The price increase per track for my own plan was 67%, but adjusting for the new track accounting means my effective increase is well over 100%.  I am not cancelling yet, but it may be coming soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the move to album-pricing was inevitable: the previous &#8220;a track is a track&#8221; approach was unfair to musicians who record long tracks and listeners who like albums with many short ones.  But this means that most estimates of the price increase are far too low: Many albums with 5-10 track are now listed as 12 tracks, with key tracks that used to be available independently now only available as part of the package. The price increase per track for my own plan was 67%, but adjusting for the new track accounting means my effective increase is well over 100%.  I am not cancelling yet, but it may be coming soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DJ Jackdaw</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1218</link>
		<dc:creator>DJ Jackdaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1218</guid>
		<description>I gotta say that an increase from 22.2¢ per download to damn close to 40¢ per download is a very steep price increase. I understand eMusic has to be a viable business etc. but I&#039;ll bet that at most I&#039;ll want about 3 tracks a year from the newly available labels.

Truth is, for years those labels have ignored my musical interests. Why should I now be expected to pay a whole lot more so that their releases can be available on eMusic? It&#039;s not like you can&#039;t find their releases in many other places, real world and online. Why should I support their desires to fatten their bottom line on recordings that they&#039;ve mostly made their investment back on many times over.

I valued eMusic for the opportunity to check out, at very low cost, a lot of new recordings that generally are hard to find in the physical world. I really don&#039;t give a fuck about being able to download The Clash or Sex Pistols via eMusic. They&#039;re hardly what I&#039;d call cutting edge music any longer. No one who&#039;s opinion I respect would think that they were significant today in any way other than historical. Much as I like the music, they&#039;ve become basically little more than consumerist fodder for those who haven&#039;t kept up with the times.

I think that this new strategy is kissing the asses of the fat shits that are only concerned about money, not music; the same fat shits who damn near wrecked their business through their unfettered greed. It&#039;s a serious stumble for eMusic in my opinion.

Obviously, the value I derived from the low-cost ability  to audition a lot of music has now been chucked out the window. I can only hope that sufficient attention continues to be paid to the wide range of music that does interest me; the music made by musicians for those involved with music, not just product. If the availability or profile of worthwhile music is diminished with this change it will truly be a sad day for eMusic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I gotta say that an increase from 22.2¢ per download to damn close to 40¢ per download is a very steep price increase. I understand eMusic has to be a viable business etc. but I&#8217;ll bet that at most I&#8217;ll want about 3 tracks a year from the newly available labels.</p>
<p>Truth is, for years those labels have ignored my musical interests. Why should I now be expected to pay a whole lot more so that their releases can be available on eMusic? It&#8217;s not like you can&#8217;t find their releases in many other places, real world and online. Why should I support their desires to fatten their bottom line on recordings that they&#8217;ve mostly made their investment back on many times over.</p>
<p>I valued eMusic for the opportunity to check out, at very low cost, a lot of new recordings that generally are hard to find in the physical world. I really don&#8217;t give a fuck about being able to download The Clash or Sex Pistols via eMusic. They&#8217;re hardly what I&#8217;d call cutting edge music any longer. No one who&#8217;s opinion I respect would think that they were significant today in any way other than historical. Much as I like the music, they&#8217;ve become basically little more than consumerist fodder for those who haven&#8217;t kept up with the times.</p>
<p>I think that this new strategy is kissing the asses of the fat shits that are only concerned about money, not music; the same fat shits who damn near wrecked their business through their unfettered greed. It&#8217;s a serious stumble for eMusic in my opinion.</p>
<p>Obviously, the value I derived from the low-cost ability  to audition a lot of music has now been chucked out the window. I can only hope that sufficient attention continues to be paid to the wide range of music that does interest me; the music made by musicians for those involved with music, not just product. If the availability or profile of worthwhile music is diminished with this change it will truly be a sad day for eMusic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1219</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1219</guid>
		<description>Now that e-music is in bed with Sony we’re all (loyal customers) getting squeezed out.

E-Music owes it’s success to tapping into the niche market music scenes, offering music that isn’t necessarily mass market. Not having to cater to this mass market  they were able to grow outside of the costs of having to license the likes of Jonas Brothers, Ashley Tisdale, Taylor Swift ect.

It seems like E-Music is tossing out it’s loyal consumers just so they can get into the game with other downloadable content like i-Tunes and Amazon.

Unfortunately they are straying from the path that made them successful in the first place. Enough so to even think they need to compete against i-Tunes and Amazon instead of realizing eMusic can offer what they can’t.

People will always be bummed about any subscription change. At least grandfather those of us who helped eMusic get to where it is by honoring the subscriptions we’ve purchased for over 5 years!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that e-music is in bed with Sony we’re all (loyal customers) getting squeezed out.</p>
<p>E-Music owes it’s success to tapping into the niche market music scenes, offering music that isn’t necessarily mass market. Not having to cater to this mass market  they were able to grow outside of the costs of having to license the likes of Jonas Brothers, Ashley Tisdale, Taylor Swift ect.</p>
<p>It seems like E-Music is tossing out it’s loyal consumers just so they can get into the game with other downloadable content like i-Tunes and Amazon.</p>
<p>Unfortunately they are straying from the path that made them successful in the first place. Enough so to even think they need to compete against i-Tunes and Amazon instead of realizing eMusic can offer what they can’t.</p>
<p>People will always be bummed about any subscription change. At least grandfather those of us who helped eMusic get to where it is by honoring the subscriptions we’ve purchased for over 5 years!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: secretary</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1236</link>
		<dc:creator>secretary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1236</guid>
		<description>this is insulting.  i was proud to be a long-time emusic subscriber; now i&#039;m sad to be a former long-time emusic subscriber.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this is insulting.  i was proud to be a long-time emusic subscriber; now i&#8217;m sad to be a former long-time emusic subscriber.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jessica</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1235</link>
		<dc:creator>Jessica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1235</guid>
		<description>The only good news is that multiple track albums will be charged at 12 downloads max.  For classical music fans and fans of big compilations, this is a win.

But a feeble one.  I&#039;ll spend a few months grabbing all those many-track albums, then skip the subscription.  Alas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only good news is that multiple track albums will be charged at 12 downloads max.  For classical music fans and fans of big compilations, this is a win.</p>
<p>But a feeble one.  I&#8217;ll spend a few months grabbing all those many-track albums, then skip the subscription.  Alas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1234</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 06:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1234</guid>
		<description>He wonders if it will change emusic? Sure it will; it will become more of a mall record store and less of a fun place to explore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He wonders if it will change emusic? Sure it will; it will become more of a mall record store and less of a fun place to explore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1233</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:19:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1233</guid>
		<description>Central to eMusic was the concept that with low prices I could try out a lot of new music. And it did have that effect. And, in some cases I went out and bought CDs by artists I never would have heard of otherwise. Doubling prices kills that concept. I know the artists in the Sony back catalogue and, as others have pointed out, don&#039;t need to figure out whether I like them. So this is a bad move in that it I can get now get one of Dave Brubeck&#039;s old Columbia albums on eMusic, but I&#039;ll have half as many downloads and am much less likely to discover young jazz musicians.

Seems to me if eMusic really wants to go down this path, they should explore multiple pricing schemes where some tracks cost more than others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Central to eMusic was the concept that with low prices I could try out a lot of new music. And it did have that effect. And, in some cases I went out and bought CDs by artists I never would have heard of otherwise. Doubling prices kills that concept. I know the artists in the Sony back catalogue and, as others have pointed out, don&#8217;t need to figure out whether I like them. So this is a bad move in that it I can get now get one of Dave Brubeck&#8217;s old Columbia albums on eMusic, but I&#8217;ll have half as many downloads and am much less likely to discover young jazz musicians.</p>
<p>Seems to me if eMusic really wants to go down this path, they should explore multiple pricing schemes where some tracks cost more than others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sal</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1232</link>
		<dc:creator>Sal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 05:06:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1232</guid>
		<description>since i was on a non standard plan grandfathered in from 3 years ago, i went from 65 tracks/month to 24, at about the same price.  i.e. nearly a 150% rate hike, so i can download eminem or whatever.

i am pissed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>since i was on a non standard plan grandfathered in from 3 years ago, i went from 65 tracks/month to 24, at about the same price.  i.e. nearly a 150% rate hike, so i can download eminem or whatever.</p>
<p>i am pissed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: social cache: we deal in uncommon cents. &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ten Years Later eMusic.com Crushes It Brand Values in One Day - The Perils of Not Having a Community Manager</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1231</link>
		<dc:creator>social cache: we deal in uncommon cents. &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ten Years Later eMusic.com Crushes It Brand Values in One Day - The Perils of Not Having a Community Manager</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1231</guid>
		<description>[...] eMusic&#8217;s web site with message and 800+ comments. The Phoenix New Times newspaper - headline Sony Ruins eMusic&#8217;s Indie Credibility, Raises Rates HypeBot - eMusic Readers React to Sony Addition Swindleeeee leaves a post [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] eMusic&#8217;s web site with message and 800+ comments. The Phoenix New Times newspaper &#8211; headline Sony Ruins eMusic&#8217;s Indie Credibility, Raises Rates HypeBot &#8211; eMusic Readers React to Sony Addition Swindleeeee leaves a post [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smooth</title>
		<link>http://blog.hecker.org/2009/06/01/emusic-to-offer-sony-back-catalog/#comment-1230</link>
		<dc:creator>smooth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swindleeeee.com/?p=212#comment-1230</guid>
		<description>The major labels are an evil to the music world and I came here specifically to support independent artists, not them. The competitive edge that got people here to try the indies (low price) is gone with this corporate sell out, and I&#039;m gone too. (Off to check out mag na tune + am ie street + aud io lunch box . com)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The major labels are an evil to the music world and I came here specifically to support independent artists, not them. The competitive edge that got people here to try the indies (low price) is gone with this corporate sell out, and I&#8217;m gone too. (Off to check out mag na tune + am ie street + aud io lunch box . com)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
