My original eMusic account was tied to an old email address I no longer have. When I re-upped last year, I used a current email, so it's a different account. I have playlists with all the downloads for each account (creatively entitled, eMusic OLD and eMusic NEW). Just happened to look at the playlists, and noticed they are almost identical in size. eMusic OLD has 4,038 songs, and eMusic NEW has 4,027 songs, though NEW is about 9 GB larger.
I know, who gives a crap, but I thought it was interesting.
Clearly. Except I foolishly re-upped on a prepaid annual plan which expires in December. Assuming the service is around that long, I'll have a bit more money to spend. I'm surprised I have that many on the new account, because the old one was supplemented with many of those eMusic gift cards they used to sell. But then again, they've been pushing the 50% off boosters for a while now, and I've been a willing accomplice.
They just posted another article on the Reddit forum about how they plan to raise $70M in this token sale. I posted a question in the comments as to just who would have reason to buy a $1M batch of tokens (or any large amount). We'll see if they answer. But TriPlay reportedly payed $26M to buy eMusic in 2015, so why the investment community would want to spend $70M for which they get no equity and instead get a pile of tokens with no guaranteed liquidity and for which the only definite available goods to purchase will be a depleted catalogue of songs to download is beyond my feeble capability to understand. Clearly I am not yet enlightened like the entirety of their marketing department... ;-) #followtheyellowbrickroad
"Our “Dream Team” advisory board continues to grow with the addition of Jeff Van Driel."
Dreaming is an apt verb choice. ;-) I'd love to see some of these "advisors" field real questions and give real answers. It feels more like a "Dream Namedropping" team right now, because it's hard to imagine any of these very credible individuals actually fully onboard with the shtick eMusic is pawning right now. But, hey, a few perks for agreeing to be an "advisor", some resume filler, and away we go...
Its so strange that they think they can raise this monies while their core business is in such a state, losing labels and one of the main distributors while promoting a model based on currencies such as bitcoin is crazy.
If you were an act that had your music on E Music at present and have been paid for months why on earth would you let your product go on a new model which you are only given shares. There is no incentive to work with them. When I worked in the gaming industry this happened to us with a distributor who forgot to pay us, we pulled all our work from them and despite promises for payment never used them again. How they think that labels such as Warp and others will fall for this I do not know.
"How they think that labels such as Warp and others will fall for this I do not know."
Sadly, I'm not even certain they care at this point. I think they may be viewing this giant "magic bean" sale as a way to get a big pile of cash without really being accountable for delivering anything in return. Usually an investor would get stock/equity in exchange for their cash. In this case, it seems they get magic beans, with promises (but not legally binding promises, a key distinction) that Oz will be everything they ever wanted it to be... But it's not clear to me who will want to buy these magic beans in huge quantities. $70M is a lot of for a company to raise selling magic beans when in 2015 the company had a valuation of reportedly $26M (what CrunchBase reports TriPlay paid for eMusic).
Sadly, I will be utterly amazed if eMusic is still here this time next year. If they can't get it to work on the current model, I cannot see how anyone will invest in them to the extent that they want...
Sadly, I will be utterly amazed if eMusic is still here this time next year. If they can't get it to work on the current model, I cannot see how anyone will invest in them to the extent that they want...
Same here. Thing is, I'm about half way through my annual subscription. what happens if they go bust before it ends? any way to salvage my money before the crash?
To be fair, I think the moderator was referring to the "astroturfers" themselves, not the longtime members. I had posted a message (referenced in the link you mention) noting the sudden influx of astroturfers. I think eMusic was trying to clarify that they are not behind the "uninvited guests", because the sudden astroturfing by users who never had previously been in the forum was a bad look for eMusic even if they had nothing to do with it.
Really? I'd like to believe that, but I can't see the narrative behind the people posting the pro-emu-blockchain posts & videos where they're not emu-associated. Like, what would be their motivation? I suppose it could be competing factions within the emusic sphere. Reddit mods vs. emu market team. The mods are saying, hey, we didn't ask the marketing dudes to post that stuff here, but here they are?
No, I think maybe they were pushing back against the push-back. But, sure, I could be wrong. Online interactions are something I still struggle with.
Related but not related, this whole thing now reminds me of my favorite visual on the emu reddit board...
To be fair, I think the moderator was referring to the "astroturfers" themselves, not the longtime members. I had posted a message (referenced in the link you mention) noting the sudden influx of astroturfers. I think eMusic was trying to clarify that they are not behind the "uninvited guests", because the sudden astroturfing by users who never had previously been in the forum was a bad look for eMusic even if they had nothing to do with it.
I understood it to be against the regulars, who were not following the new 'positive Emusic comments only!' rule. Why would he go against supporting posts posted by other employees/personas of his?
And I believe the next step will be censorship of anyone critical of the new Emusic utopia fantasy world they are trying hard to promote.
I had a private discussion with a moderator, and I can assure you the moderator comment was directed at those who had suddenly appeared just to add gushing comments about every eMusic marketing post. For those not familiar (sorry for the spoiler, @doofy ), "astroturfing" is a play on the notion of a grass roots movement, except the movement is faked to create a sense of artificial excitement. And if you read most of the comments in the recent eMusic-moderator posts (where the posts themselves definitely come from eMusic... the astroturfing is the fake comments of effusive praise and idolatry), you'll see some incredibly poorly disguised examples of "astroturfing". The moderator also assured me eMusic was not behind it (though I could imagine some ambitious PR firm wanting to impress someone at eMusic... ) I'll admit that the rule posting could be misconstrued to be aimed at some of us, but, while we don't always agree with eMusic, I think the discussion is generally pretty civil and sincere (vs. fake praise or fake critique). We're not unwanted visitors, we're unwanted regulars. ;-)
Well, I've learnt a new word today! As a reader of the sub-reddit rather than a contributor, i find this all fascinating. Interesting, they (eMusic) do not want people to be critical of the organisation. Any such organisation must be in a bad way - you can cope with criticism if you are confident of yourself; in fact, such criticism is good for a democratic society as long as it isn't libellous. I've got 10 credits left this month, yet I am struggling to find something that I really want to download. After only two months back it is time to go on hold...
As I said in the Reddit thread, after looking at a couple of the accounts in question, they are almost certainly part of a common crypto scheme where they pump and dump ICOs. Emusic don't want to be part of it, because they don't see themselves as yet another worthless ICO that will exist only to be exploited by people just out to make a quick buck before they crash the market.
As I said in the Reddit thread, after looking at a couple of the accounts in question, they are almost certainly part of a common crypto scheme where they pump and dump ICOs. Emusic don't want to be part of it, because they don't see themselves as yet another worthless ICO that will exist only to be exploited by people just out to make a quick buck before they crash the market.
So as a subscriber, what can I do to not get burned? Starting to regret getting that annual subscription about six months ago...
So as a subscriber, what can I do to not get burned? Starting to regret getting that annual subscription about six months ago...
Well, generally speaking, if you are only purchasing tokens to download music on a monthly basis, and in relatively small amounts, you aren't likely going to get burned. Sure you may at some point (usually 6 mos to a year after ICO when initial investors can exit) see wild fluctuations in token value (first building, building, building, and then.... crash), but the people who usually get burned are those to see a crypto-currency rising, rising, and rising some more and decide to jump in (late) in hopes of catching the wave. That's what the manipulators want - they drive up the price and then dump to create an exit for all that early, discounted crypto-currency they bought (thus the "pump and dump" term). So if you just stick to your monthly/annual credits and a booster now and then, you shouldn't be affected too much. But I would resist the temptation to buy EMU tokens for investment purposes if you suddenly see the value rising after the ICO for no apparent reason. Currency/stock manipulators (crypto or otherwise) love small issues with low volume because it's easier to manipulate. (Remember all those "penny stocks" for which cold calls from "market makers" would tell you to buy some hot new stock from some tiny company you'd never heard of? Same basic principle... pump and dump).
So as a subscriber, what can I do to not get burned? Starting to regret getting that annual subscription about six months ago...
Well, generally speaking, if you are only purchasing tokens to download music on a monthly basis, and in relatively small amounts, you aren't likely going to get burned. Sure you may at some point (usually 6 mos to a year after ICO when initial investors can exit) see wild fluctuations in token value (first building, building, building, and then.... crash), but the people who usually get burned are those to see a crypto-currency rising, rising, and rising some more and decide to jump in (late) in hopes of catching the wave. That's what the manipulators want - they drive up the price and then dump to create an exit for all that early, discounted crypto-currency they bought (thus the "pump and dump" term). So if you just stick to your monthly/annual credits and a booster now and then, you shouldn't be affected too much. But I would resist the temptation to buy EMU tokens for investment purposes if you suddenly see the value rising after the ICO for no apparent reason. Currency/stock manipulators (crypto or otherwise) love small issues with low volume because it's easier to manipulate. (Remember all those "penny stocks" for which cold calls from "market makers" would tell you to buy some hot new stock from some tiny company you'd never heard of? Same basic principle... pump and dump).
So according to that, it might pay to buy a few tokens in the pre-sale, wait for two weeks or so for them to go up and sell them off before the crash occurs.
Sad that this is what's become of Emusic. We've all seen the Reddit forum, but I don't know how many of you have joined the Telegram channel they opened, since it's open only to non-US users. It feels like a frat party there - every second word is 'bro' or an emoji and when someone does try to ask a serious question, they quickly try to derail it, all while repeatedly advertising the new upcoming token system and hailing it as the next big thing. At times, it feels more like a cult.
Reminds me of going to a funfair, winning on the slots, spending £20 and ending up with a cuddly toy worth £5, hate it when someone calls me bro, that is not a way to talk to customers
Re: time frame and how transition will be handled - I would refer to the white paper, which has a broad timeline and some details of how the token scheme will work (though not in great detail - I assume that will come when they are ready to launch).
Re: Telegram - as you note, those of us in the US can't use it, but from the sounds of things, we're not missing much. It also could be a lot of the "pump and dump" crowd of small investors that like to build up and promote any and all ICOs. We got a taste of that on the reddit board before they were chased off. And, of course, the saddest irony here is that we're discussing this instead of great new releases, because until they pay the bills and restore their catalogue, there just isn't a whole lot else to discuss re: actual eMusic music.
I'm seriously considering putting my account on hold - but I can no longer see which page I go to (I thought it would be under account obviously). Can anyone guide a poor wayfairing stranger?
Do I have to hit canel plan to see a put on hold option as a last resort to get you to stay? I don't want to just hit cancel blindly given my lovely Grandfathered plan. (When I think of all the £39.99s they've had out of me I should be given a gazzillion bitcoins - not that I'd want them.)
I'm seriously considering putting my account on hold - but I can no longer see which page I go to (I thought it would be under account obviously). Can anyone guide a poor wayfairing stranger?
Do I have to hit canel plan to see a put on hold option as a last resort to get you to stay? I don't want to just hit cancel blindly given my lovely Grandfathered plan. (When I think of all the £39.99s they've had out of me I should be given a gazzillion bitcoins - not that I'd want them.)
Email support@emusic.com and ask them to put your account on hold. Last January, I did this to ask them to put it on hold for 90 days, which I believe is the maximum period a hold can be. Somewhere in the terms it outlines what the hold period possibilities are.
Thanks @burntwoodfactors that info used to be available on the page - how very unfriendly of them to make things more difficult. I plan on waiting 3 weeks and going on hold just before refresh - I guess I need to factor in a few days for their probable lack of response.
Well, a new boundary has been crossed. I had the following post removed by the eMusic reddit moderator because it was deemed too negative. The post was in response to a link posted by eMusic themselves to a tweet where David Crosby complained about his payout from Spotify (which he claimed to be less than $5 per million plays, but was really $4300 per million plays after fixing his math error as many Twitter commenters had already noted) So, since I can't post there, I'll post it here instead:
(See the emusicofficial reddit forum for the eMusic post regarding a David Crosby tweet complaining about Spotify pay rates).
Looks
like David was not a math major. ;-) (As the comments for that tweet
point out, his math is off by a factor of 1000. Not that getting
$4300 for a million song plays is anything to write home about, but it's
a lot more than the $5 he claims).
Still, there is broader point here, and that is that the eMusic
blockchain does NOTHING to solve David's (math-corrected) Spotify
problem, does it @sameezy? Remember, that $4300 for a million plays is
what is paid out to the rights owner, be it a self-releasing artist or a
label. And that $4300 comes from a pool of 70% of revenue set aside
by Spotify to pay rights owners.
So, how will this work on the eMusic blockchain, @sameezy? Let's
make a few simplifying assumptions for the example: Assume David's
music is self-released (e.g. there is no label or publisher taking a
cut), and let's assume he wrote the songs and lyrics himself, so there
are no songwriting royalties to be split with others.
According to David's tweet, as a self-releasing indie artist he would
get paid about $4300 for 1M song plays on Spotify (after correcting his
math mistake). Now let's say he becomes the first "big name" artist
to sign up with eMusic's blockchain, but still wants his music on
Spotify. How does that work? eMusic is not the streaming platform,
so I assume eMusic does not take 50% of David's money. Does eMusic get
anything at all, from David or Spotify or both?
Does eMusic negotiate with Spotify to lower the payout to only 50%
(instead of the 70% Spotify sets aside for royalties now)? The white
paper and marketing articles imply that eMusic is lobbying to have the
platform (Spotify in this case) keep MORE of the revenue in exchange for
better promoting the artist to get more plays. But, in this
scenario, David would only see $3100 ($4300 x 50 / 70) per million
plays because now Spotify is only setting aside 50% instead of 70%. Is
this going to please David, or lead to more Twitter rants with math
errors, except this time aimed at the eMusic blockchain? (I can
almost see his tweet now: "I was already getting robbed by Spotify, who
paid me only $4300 per million song plays. So I got talked into
signing up for this eMusic blockchain and now I only get paid $3100 per
million song plays!")
eMusic is claiming that David will make more because he will get more
plays (under the theory that Spotify will promote his music more since
they make better margin). But will David Crosby, the independent
artist, understand that subtle point? Will it be possible to prove
that he got at least 40% more streams than he would have otherwise?
Because he would need 40% more streams (e.g. 70/50 = 1.40) just to
break even with what he gets today without the blockchain, as he would
have to offset the reduced royalty per stream (50/70). This seems like
an INCREDIBLY tough sell for eMusic to make to artists. Not only is it
a lot of math to comprehend (and David was already struggling with
basic multiplication), but there is no way to do an "A/B" comparison of
what they would have made in the pre-blockchain scenario, since there is
no way to really "prove" how many extra plays they may have received.
To the artist, it looks like they took a 28% pay cut per stream
(20/70) by joining the eMusic blockchain, and they were already unhappy
with what Spotify was paying them before eMusic got involved. (And
remember, in the scenario I have illustrated thus far, eMusic has made
exactly zero. This means they either aren't going to last long, or they
charge some type of transaction fee, or monthly listing fee, or
whatever, which basically just replaces an old middleman with a new
one).
So, in all sincerity, can you shed some light on this, @sameezy?
You posted the link presumably to illustrate that artists are unhappy
with Spotify payouts. Now can you explain how the eMusic blockchain is
going to fix this problem? Are my examples reasonably close to what is
planned? (They align with my understanding of how eMusic has been
promoting the B2B aspects of their platform in the white paper, light
paper, etc). If not, what is a different scenario that would lead
David to be happier?
Comments
"Our “Dream Team” advisory board continues to grow with the addition of Jeff Van Driel."
If you were an act that had your music on E Music at present and have been paid for months why on earth would you let your product go on a new model which you are only given shares. There is no incentive to work with them. When I worked in the gaming industry this happened to us with a distributor who forgot to pay us, we pulled all our work from them and despite promises for payment never used them again. How they think that labels such as Warp and others will fall for this I do not know.
Sadly, I'm not even certain they care at this point. I think they may be viewing this giant "magic bean" sale as a way to get a big pile of cash without really being accountable for delivering anything in return. Usually an investor would get stock/equity in exchange for their cash. In this case, it seems they get magic beans, with promises (but not legally binding promises, a key distinction) that Oz will be everything they ever wanted it to be... But it's not clear to me who will want to buy these magic beans in huge quantities. $70M is a lot of for a company to raise selling magic beans when in 2015 the company had a valuation of reportedly $26M (what CrunchBase reports TriPlay paid for eMusic).
Same here. Thing is, I'm about half way through my annual subscription. what happens if they go bust before it ends? any way to salvage my money before the crash?
I understood it to be against the regulars, who were not following the new 'positive Emusic comments only!' rule. Why would he go against supporting posts posted by other employees/personas of his?
And I believe the next step will be censorship of anyone critical of the new Emusic utopia fantasy world they are trying hard to promote.
So as a subscriber, what can I do to not get burned? Starting to regret getting that annual subscription about six months ago...
Sad that this is what's become of Emusic. We've all seen the Reddit forum, but I don't know how many of you have joined the Telegram channel they opened, since it's open only to non-US users. It feels like a frat party there - every second word is 'bro' or an emoji and when someone does try to ask a serious question, they quickly try to derail it, all while repeatedly advertising the new upcoming token system and hailing it as the next big thing.
At times, it feels more like a cult.
Re: Telegram - as you note, those of us in the US can't use it, but from the sounds of things, we're not missing much. It also could be a lot of the "pump and dump" crowd of small investors that like to build up and promote any and all ICOs. We got a taste of that on the reddit board before they were chased off. And, of course, the saddest irony here is that we're discussing this instead of great new releases, because until they pay the bills and restore their catalogue, there just isn't a whole lot else to discuss re: actual eMusic music.
(See the emusicofficial reddit forum for the eMusic post regarding a David Crosby tweet complaining about Spotify pay rates).
Looks like David was not a math major. ;-) (As the comments for that tweet point out, his math is off by a factor of 1000. Not that getting $4300 for a million song plays is anything to write home about, but it's a lot more than the $5 he claims).
Still, there is broader point here, and that is that the eMusic blockchain does NOTHING to solve David's (math-corrected) Spotify problem, does it @sameezy? Remember, that $4300 for a million plays is what is paid out to the rights owner, be it a self-releasing artist or a label. And that $4300 comes from a pool of 70% of revenue set aside by Spotify to pay rights owners.
So, how will this work on the eMusic blockchain, @sameezy? Let's make a few simplifying assumptions for the example: Assume David's music is self-released (e.g. there is no label or publisher taking a cut), and let's assume he wrote the songs and lyrics himself, so there are no songwriting royalties to be split with others.
According to David's tweet, as a self-releasing indie artist he would get paid about $4300 for 1M song plays on Spotify (after correcting his math mistake). Now let's say he becomes the first "big name" artist to sign up with eMusic's blockchain, but still wants his music on Spotify. How does that work? eMusic is not the streaming platform, so I assume eMusic does not take 50% of David's money. Does eMusic get anything at all, from David or Spotify or both?
Does eMusic negotiate with Spotify to lower the payout to only 50% (instead of the 70% Spotify sets aside for royalties now)? The white paper and marketing articles imply that eMusic is lobbying to have the platform (Spotify in this case) keep MORE of the revenue in exchange for better promoting the artist to get more plays. But, in this scenario, David would only see $3100 ($4300 x 50 / 70) per million plays because now Spotify is only setting aside 50% instead of 70%. Is this going to please David, or lead to more Twitter rants with math errors, except this time aimed at the eMusic blockchain? (I can almost see his tweet now: "I was already getting robbed by Spotify, who paid me only $4300 per million song plays. So I got talked into signing up for this eMusic blockchain and now I only get paid $3100 per million song plays!")
eMusic is claiming that David will make more because he will get more plays (under the theory that Spotify will promote his music more since they make better margin). But will David Crosby, the independent artist, understand that subtle point? Will it be possible to prove that he got at least 40% more streams than he would have otherwise? Because he would need 40% more streams (e.g. 70/50 = 1.40) just to break even with what he gets today without the blockchain, as he would have to offset the reduced royalty per stream (50/70). This seems like an INCREDIBLY tough sell for eMusic to make to artists. Not only is it a lot of math to comprehend (and David was already struggling with basic multiplication), but there is no way to do an "A/B" comparison of what they would have made in the pre-blockchain scenario, since there is no way to really "prove" how many extra plays they may have received.
To the artist, it looks like they took a 28% pay cut per stream (20/70) by joining the eMusic blockchain, and they were already unhappy with what Spotify was paying them before eMusic got involved. (And remember, in the scenario I have illustrated thus far, eMusic has made exactly zero. This means they either aren't going to last long, or they charge some type of transaction fee, or monthly listing fee, or whatever, which basically just replaces an old middleman with a new one).
So, in all sincerity, can you shed some light on this, @sameezy? You posted the link presumably to illustrate that artists are unhappy with Spotify payouts. Now can you explain how the eMusic blockchain is going to fix this problem? Are my examples reasonably close to what is planned? (They align with my understanding of how eMusic has been promoting the B2B aspects of their platform in the white paper, light paper, etc). If not, what is a different scenario that would lead David to be happier?