I dunno if i see them competing properly with p2p!!

---

Is this a joke!!

Its another Microsoft type cooperation trying to weasel there way in a scene that they don’t belong in! leave it to us real file sharing people that have been doing this since the 80's and aren’t trying to make a profit!!

---

Too little, too late; I don't give a sh--; I have no sympathy; I loathe and refuse to accept their user-restrictions and 'DRM Initiatives'; I haven't heard *squat* from anyone about the quality of the downloaded music files; and I have NO intention of giving them ongoing access to my credit-card to maintain a mandatory monthly subscription just in order to purchase online the few tracks that I *would* like to have!, bla-bla-bla, etc. etc.

(Can you imagine walking into a public record store and have the sales clerk tell you that you have to have a 'subscription' fee charged to your credit-card every month just to be able to be a customer, and buy (outright) any given music cd on the shelf?)

2002 may "be remembered as the year the recording industry showed it can sue and sell at the same time", but I will also remember it as yet another year in a long-line of years that the music companies sat around on their butts avoiding the *real* issues with their heads' stuck up their asses, sobbing into their martinis about the 'death' of the business due to P-to-P, and calling all of us blatant thieves and Pirates.

They make me sick.

Perhaps after they tire of watching their bottom lines steadily erode year after year, they'll do something useful for the consumer and music artists alike. But don't hold your breath waiting. I'm not.

I admit, individual downloading of *any* (NOT a select *few*) favourite track, <provided that track is not _riddled_ with DRM, AND it's audio-quality is half-decent> is a welcome idea, and I would be quite willing to give my credit-card number out, *Maybe* !!!

(There's a lot of "if's" in there, aren't there)? The ability to download personally-selected individual tracks would be a nice alternative to buying the pre-packaged "Greatest Hits" compilations that contain 40% filler and omit 2 or 3 obvious core choices, plus all of the other little "tricks" the music companies have foisted on us over the years.

Nahhhh..... you'll be waiting till 2005 before any of this stuff will be worthwhile.

-- A_Bitchy_Klingon --

heh heh, I like your attitude mr. klingon
its people like us that keep these scavengers from assimilating everyone.


ps. resistance is far from futal.

---

"They Have NO Honor".

:-)

-- mgb --

right on brother!

---

$1 a song, I dont think so

$0.10 probly

PAHTOCK!

---

I'd pay $1 for a song, IF:

a) It was a really *great* song, and perhaps, hard to find anywhere else.

b) It was *freely* playable anywhere, anytime, on any equipment. (Read: NO DRM!)

c) The track was available separately for one-time, outright purchasing. (NO monthly subscription fee required).

d) The track didn't sound like it was recorded in a Campbell's soup tin.

In any case, it would be good, too, if one could listen to (or download) a sample of the track just to make certain that it IS the track he/she was looking for.

The track would have to be burnable to a standard red-book cd if I wanted to do that.

If ALL the criteria above could be met, I bet I would visit the site a LOT, and I bet a lot of other people would too.

(It ain't never gonna happen, tho).

-- Klingy --

"YOU WOULD DISHONOR YOUR FAMIALY, PAHTOCK!"
J/K

ps. Antaginizing a Klingon is NOT a good idea!, hehe

---

Sure! (But only under the above conditions). Think about it:

You buy, say, 12 tracks. 12 tracks = 12 bucks; less than the price of a really good music cd.

You will know in advance *exactly* what you are getting, unlike some "Greatest Hits" albums that substitute some *live* tracks for the ones you thought were the original studio hits (and then you don't find out about it until *after* you break open the seal, and see "live" in tiny letters).

Also, they can't leave one or two *really terrific* necessary tracks OUT of the package like they normally love to do, in order to make you go out and buy something else to complete the set!

You would be able to get long-out-of-print but *superb* albums, <back-catalogue> without having to place an order at the retail counter (if the album is still even obtainable), without waiting for 6 months (!) like I had to wait for Iron Butterfly's "Metamorphosis" album.

Plus, you could download the track(s) right away and not have to drive to the store sometime tomorrow to get it. (It's 4:00 in the AM right now as I type this).

Oh yes, IF I can get what I want in *unrestricted* decent-sounding form and at a reasonable price, I would likely "bite". (And so would you I bet).

But like I say, it ain't likely to happen in either my or your lifetime.

-- Mike --

Ok, Ok you've got a really good point. The artist won't be getting ripped off (leeched from) and the consumer gets a fairly good deal as well. So I give this one to you, our friendly neighbor hood klingon.

Ps. Iron Butterfly, I can dig it

--Tim2K

---

It wouldn't matter if they charged 1 cent a year for the service, you can't access use it outside of the USA - STUPID! Do the record companies not know the internet extends beyond the US boarder? (Probably not)

hehe

---

"Oy!"

-- mgb --

-- Another meaningful post brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood Klingon. --

never goin to happen who is goin to pay for somthing they get for free but if they had a few really rare hard to get on p2p networks songs then maybe ill pay