Talk:Digital music store/Archive 1

Untitled
September 5th - Urge? Still in Beta, but should be included

Isn't Mp3 Sugar an illegal site? Why is it listed as a reputable company?

june 20, 2005 walmart and yahoo are out now didn't see anything about audiolunchbox http://www.mp3tunes.com/

also, I saw a site about how to get your band's music INTO these online stores, but i couldn't find it via google :( (all i remember is they said the artists get 90% of the profits) came across this when looking, but i don't know if it should be included in the article

artist upload music sites http://www.armydiller.com/musichosting.htm http://www.norecordlabel.com/index.html http://www.vocalist.org.uk/artists_upload.html http://www.audiostreet.net/

links to more online music stores http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Shopping_and_Services/Music/Digital_Distribution/ http://ca.dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Shopping_and_Services/Music/Digital_Distribution/ http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Entertainment/Recordings/Audio/Music/Sound_Files/ http://www.ondemanddistribution.com/eng/home/home.asp http://jmdistribution.net/music-downloads.htm

May 25, 2005 Updated information on eMusic and Listen.com (now Rhapsody.com).

Comparison table
I'm planning on compressing the individual stores into a comparison table, as below:

If anyone wishes to finish off the job then go for it, otherwise I'll try and get around to it at some point soon. violet/riga (t) 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

audiolunchbox.com
ogg and/or mp3

Disadvantages: Increased price...?
A disadvantage listed of online music stores is "Increased price"... This doesn't make sense!! An album on the iTunes Music Store costs $9.99, while most albums at an average dept. store or record shop cost more than $12 on average. A lot of people buy from online stores because they're CHEAPER. This is in addition of not having to deal with copying the songs yourself and saving them to your portable media device.66.41.212.243 09:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not always true. There are places where you do find online albums (or even singles) that are more expensive than buying on CD. It can depend on what site you buy from, the format of the audio file, as well as how popular the music may be. Eug.galeotti (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fonogenic.com
MP3s

Compressing into a table.
I am trying to complete what violet started. Will post update. Okay. I've put in a table. Now the idea would be to condense some of the notes and maybe remove extra music store info. However, since this is my first few posts I don't want to delete.

I'll leave it to someone else to see what is redundant now.

Order
the order of services should be, in my opinion, by either alphabetical, or by use and popularity of the site. right now it's all jumbled together. -- preschooler @  heart   my talk  -  contribs  03:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree! Alphabetial is more NPOV and will better stand the test of time.

Mp3Sale legal status
Since the prices and terms of Mp3Sale’s offering seem too good to be true, I did a little research and found that http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/01/yourmoney/mp3.php claims that the site operates using a Russian legal loophole that allows them to sell anyone’s music without paying the artist/record company concerned any royalties. If so, I propose that it be removed from this discussion of online music _stores_, as it is about as much a _store_ as a guy selling copied CD’s out of the trunk of his car. 165.146.164.140 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tables and comparisons
I removed the lists in hope to get this more like an encyclopedia article. As in my edit summary, we could use some history material here. Kevin_b_er 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done for removing that crud. Linkspam like that has no place in Wikipedia.  -- Moondyne 05:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think a comparison table could have some function. It just needs to be concise. Before the layout wasn't very friendly, but surely now the page isn't very useful for directly comparing online music stores? That's what I liked about the previous layout. Surely a compromise can be reached. Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.74.215 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The previous edit summary said it all: Article should describe what an online music store is, not be a comparison system filled with unverifiable material. It also made the article a target for linkspam.  I support its removal.  PS: You should sign your edits by using 3 tildes ~, so other editors can see who you are. -- Moondyne 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree with you, valid reasoning. 217.155.204.122


 * I concur that an encyclopedia isn't the place for a comparison table. Where they are used, editors seem to lack the will to ensure that all of the entries are notable and relevant. They become indiscriminate lists. JonHarder 13:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is everyone agreed that the table is 'un-encyclopedic'? In my opinion it would add valuable perspective if done correctly. ._-zro 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

“Advantages” section biased towards file sharing
I find the following portion grossly biased: For the following reasons:
 * More respectful to copyright law as interpreted by groups like the RIAA.
 * Decreases chances of legal disadvantages.
 * Avoids some social stigmas and moral regrets that some people have.
 * 1) The first bullet point implies that there is some form of interpretation of copyright law under which random file swapping is legal. I have never heard of any such interpretation. A more unbiased wording could IMHO be: “Most stores adher to common interpretations of copyright law.”
 * 2) A minor nitpick: “chances” should be “risks” — most people would prefer avoiding legal hassle.
 * 3) The final point should either be deleted or elaborated: In its current form it is clearly written by a proponent of file sharing seeing the views of his opponent as mere “stigmas” or “regrets”.

It seems to me that the final point takes the place of an — in my opinion — more important issue; namely that of compensation. Outside file sharing circles, compensation of the work of the artists is seen as an important issue. When an artist creates an original work, the artist, it is believed, has a right to request compensation for the use of said work. The artist can also choose in which form the work should be released, and whether it should be released at all.

If you disagree with the fact that the artist is entitled to compensation, you are free not to use the fruit of his work. If you believe record companies get a disproportionately large share of the compensation, you are free not to buy their products. If you believe music should be free or Free, you are free to only use such music. Doing anything else is, again in my opinion, disrespectful to the original artists and whoever may have helped. Art has never been free, and never will be.

I apologise if this is the wrong place for this discussion, and I'm afraid this post turned into more of a rant than I wanted it to be. However, I hope to have argued that the advantages listed here may not be the actual advantages as seen by the backers of online music stores. Shouldn't it be possible to have an alternate entries which better reflect “our” point of view?

--DanChr 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with points 2 and 3 but disagree with point 1. It needs to be reworded, but downloading songs for personal use on P2P in countries such as Canada isn't illegal so that advantage is void. Frankly, I'm tempted to just delete the entire thing. It's overly general and unsourced. The entire thing would be better as a paragraph discussing the effects of online music stores vs. filesharing. Chevinki 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disadvantages section is too
Under "disadvantages" of online music stores, some turkey wrote: Turkey, raising a newborn infant costs infinitely many times more than murdering it, but that doesn't make it right. Buying ~anything~ ~anywhere~ costs infinitely many times more than stealing it. So capitalism itself is disadvantageous, according to the logic of you and your nihilist "file swapping advocate" buddies. -ArtistSupporter
 * "Some file swapping advocates claim that, because file sharing costs nothing, any pay service essentially costs infinitely many times more than file swapping."


 * You make a reasonable point, but your name is misleading. I think you should have called yourself "BigRecordLabelSupporter". ugen64 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Current market
What does "recently" mean? And I thought most online music stores now do not use DRM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.atkins (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages
The statement that Online Music stores can not run on linux computers is false. There are music stores designed with linux in mind. The statement would be true if you were referring to a particular online music store such as iTunes or Zune Marketplace or Real, but there are stores that can run on linux such as eMusic, Mindawn, etc. I've attempted to make a change to reflect that, but it was reverted. Please correct this false statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.43.131.114 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC). " As another point, this statement should also be refined because it gives the impression of iTunes being favorable over others because it doesn't use WMA: "Most stores, besides Apple's iTunes, offer music in WMA 192 CBR (constant bit rate) with DRM". This statement is not correct as eMusic (#2 music store behind iTunes) uses MP3 as their format of choice without DRM. It is important to remember that iTunes also uses DRM for the music purchased from their store. I just felt that this statement sounded biased.

I also tried to combine and clean up information contained in the article, as per the Wikipedia clean up notice, but an editor reverted it back to it's previous state.

2/1/14 "Much controversy surrounds this issue, so many or perhaps all of these points are disputed." is technically true,as MANY of the points ARE disputed making it true. However,I think the second part of the "or" is simply false,as one of the items listed is that legal music services such as iTunes follow copyright laws. While it is true that you can find violations,the intended meaning of that statement is that they generally follow the laws. Additionally Steve Jobs claim regarding the opportunity cost of downloading files,is simply a fact.Steve Jobs said it,and its documented. In the context of the article,one might argue that the point that is disputed is the content of his quote. However that point is given as the quote,rather than the point being made ,then supported by the quote. Once again,its possible there might be someone who would argue that Jobs never actually said that,but its hardly enough to make it controversial.

The quote itself also is a problem. I think what was really intended was to say something like "The opportunity cost of file sharing by some estimates may be more than the value of the music downloaded. Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs claimed in his introduction of the iTunes Store that downloading from file-sharers is theoretically working for less than minimum wage - "By spending an hour of your time to save less than four dollars, he calculated, 'you're working for less than minimum wage!'" This states that the disadvantage is the cost,and supports it with the quote. The way its actually written is not just incorrect,but ambiguous. It implies that the disadvantage is either the fact that Steve Jobs SAID that it was not an economically sound decision to download music,or perhaps that the disadvantage was that his quote was "Notable". Both possibilities are nonsensical.