In answer to my own question above, for upto a year eMusic will run 'flat currency' alongside Emus, but eventually all purchases will be via the new system. On one level, I see the logic behind their move in that it is much more dynamic in terms of currency variations. Like the rest of UK members I buy a track for 42p credit, whilst Brighternow and other European members buy a track for 49c. It has always been this relationship despite currency variations. Yet alongside that are all the grandfathered plans, and booster sales. So my 42p track costs me nowhere near that. in the States there is a different album pricing system. I do see a logic in trying to move to an equivalence system, but I am not sure that all the other aspects of the new system are needed alongside this... We are buying music fairly cheaply, so maybe this will address some of those issues?
Interesting articles in this week's "The Economist" on cryptocurrency and blockchain. Particularly relevant to eMusic is the one entitled "Initial coin offerings - Fundraising with cryptocurrencies is booming, but is that a good thing?"
A fascinating article - I particularly liked - “They’re like if the Wright brothers sold air miles to finance inventing the aeroplane.” The South Sea Bubble came to my mind or the Dot.Com Bubble. I am certainly not suggesting eMusic is doing this fraudulently, but it may appear that they see it as a panacea for any financial issues they have?
I think they see it as fundraising "means of last resort". TriPlay reportedly paid $26M to purchase eMusic a few years ago, and they surely are worth less today, especially with some (unspecified $ amount) backlog of unpaid royalties to labels and distributors.
So how does a company worth perhaps $20M raise $20-70M when they are already probably heavily diluted in terms of current investor holdings? Well, you can't take a bridge loan (because you are a bad credit risk given the stacks of unpaid bills). You probably can't raise conventional VC money due to the depressed valuation, lack of tangible business progress, etc. And then someone whispers in your ear that companies are raising $70M or more by just selling Ethereum tokens for future goods and services that may or may not ever be delivered. Hmmm... sounds pretty attractive, right? And you say that the investors usually don't even care if you ever deliver on the goods and services you are promising because they just want to "flip" the currency and make a quick buck on speculative trading? Wow, these really ARE magic beans!
It would explain why eMusic is seemingly so all-in on promoting the blockchain story, and so disinterested in fixing problems in their conventional business (or paying the bills). Basically, they seem to have been convinced that if they can just window-dress their operations to make it sound like a plausible blockchain story, they can raise $20-70M with virtually no risk in terms of ever fixing the underlying problems. What would they do with the money? Maybe buyout some unhappy current investors? Maybe pay their past due bills? Maybe pay the contractors that are developing all this blockchain window dressing for them? Who knows? But I certainly don't see anything in their whitepaper that indicates they have a plan as to how to be a viable business post-ICO. It's just lots of vague claims and hype and cumulative statistics over their 20+ years of existence to make them look like a bigger industry player than they are to prospective overseas ICO particpants.
Seriously, I would like to see exactly how eMusic plans on dishing out these supposed future funds from an ICO. I don't recall ever seeing that. Am I forgetting something from the white paper, etc?
Because I'd like to see some sort of pledge from eMusic ownership that no funds generated from the ICO will end up in the pockets of the owners, investors and closely held parties. Basically it goes to the musicians, the labels and used for building the store back up, or, shit, it's nothing more than the exit plan/experiment/resume builder I suspect it is.
Seriously, I would like to see exactly how eMusic plans on dishing out these supposed future funds from an ICO. I don't recall ever seeing that. Am I forgetting something from the white paper, etc?
I wrote in more detail about your question on the subreddit, but here's a summary:
1) Given that, in theory, they are selling tokens to be used to purchase future goods or services and that they claim everything will be a 50/50 split between the platform (eMusic blockchain) and the "artist" (or whoever provides the goods or services), that would mean that they should be setting aside 50% of anything they raise in the ICO to cover future royalty obligations. They never say this in the white paper, though, and, given my observations in my earlier comments, there really is no guarantee or collateral offered to ICO participants with regards to eventual delivery of goods. So will they really set aside 50% to cover future royalties if the tokens purchased are actually used to purchase music? Your guess is as good as mine, but their recent track record should be taken into account.
2) As for the rest, they make some general comments in the white paper about funds raised in the ICO being used to complete the blockchain development, to market the project, to attract artists to the platform, etc. No specifics are given, and no restrictions are stated in terms of use of funds. So, yeah, I'd be wary if I was an artist, and let the buyer beware in terms of token purchases. Personally, if they had any semblance of a credible post-ICO business plan, I'd be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But all of their examples of token discounts (e.g. booster sales), etc. in the white paper look a lot like the current broken model that led them to make a desperation swing for the fences with this ICO. And they keep claiming they plan to somehow save the streaming industry (which, incidentally, really doesn't need help from eMusic), yet they continually refuse to given even a basic example of how they would make any money as an intermediary between artists and streaming platforms like Spotify. They just keep talking of a 50/50 split between artist and platform (which would be Spotify in this particular example). That would leave zero percent for eMusic, unless they plan to become a streaming platform themselves, which they keep claiming they will not.
So, yeah, you get the idea... no semblance of a believable business plan for post-ICO. I suspect they are so focused on just getting through a successful ICO that they are willing to leave the "little details" like how to actually run a sustainable business until after they have the money in their pockets.
That is exactly my view. As Soulcoal says it is a means of last resort. I'm just making sure I have everything I want from the very limited choice available there at the moment
That is exactly my view. As Soulcoal says it is a means of last resort. I'm just making sure I have everything I want from the very limited choice available there at the moment
I agree completely. My prepaid annual sub runs out in December, and I am just trying to get through the next three months and pick up what I can until then. There's still enough stuff in my SFL to spend the monthly credits I'll have, but I won't be buying boosters unless the lost labels magically reappear. Not holding my breath.
Lol @Brighternow I was just skimming through eMusic's Twitter posts yesterday. I was trapped between compulsions to troll them, to call them out, and to editorialize. In the end, I just shook my head and ignored them. But there are some doozies out there.
Speaking of eMusic tweets, this one from earlier today manages to simultaneously be incredibly ironic, completely clueless and utterly lacking in self-awareness... That triple-play is not always easy to pull off (unless you work as a parody writer at The Onion ;-)
I started it but gave up three or four questions in when I was asked (told) to sign up for a social media platform that I had no intention of joining. So I stopped....
The net is that it looks to me like the NAXOS distribution group, which contains a lot of classical and even some jazz labels (Naxos, Chandos, BIS, BR-Klassic, SWR Classics, Intakt, CPO, Halle, etc.) has shut off on eMusic with regards to new releases. The back catalogue, for now, is still present, but this looks a lot like the "non-payment" response we've seen from other distributors shortly before the catalogues get taken down. (One such label in the Naxos distribution group, Halle, has already completely been taken down, back catalogue included).
The net is that it looks to me like the NAXOS distribution group, which contains a lot of classical and even some jazz labels (Naxos, Chandos, BIS, BR-Klassic, SWR Classics, Intakt, CPO, Halle, etc.) has shut off on eMusic with regards to new releases. The back catalogue, for now, is still present, but this looks a lot like the "non-payment" response we've seen from other distributors shortly before the catalogues get taken down. (One such label in the Naxos distribution group, Halle, has already completely been taken down, back catalogue included).
Thanks for the heads up; if I hadn't already put a hold on my account losing nearly all my favourite classical labels would prompt it for sure.
I just spent a few minutes looking into where things stand with this eMusic mess, and it reminded me of these dreams I used to have where I was talking to people who were dead but didn't yet realize it
I just spent a few minutes looking into where things stand with this eMusic mess, and it reminded me of these dreams I used to have where I was talking to people who were dead but didn't yet realize it
Somewhere deep in one of these emusers threads a while back I posted the "Bring Out Your Dead" clip from Monty Python, making much the same point as your dream. :-)
Yes, it is a bit macabre waiting for the end to come, expecting the inevitable. To me, it is all avoidance strategies hoping for the best. Emusic is like a poor parody of itself in terminal decline. I really wish it wasn't and hope I am wrong.
Is this classical label, Archipel-Walhall, a return also? I could swear there was a Furtwangler release, that Don Giovanni, that was in my classical SFL that had been one of the Unavailable but is now back.
Archipel is indeed listed as a Naxos-distributed label, so that probably explains why it is back today, too. Here is the list I was using to determine that Naxos had gone away (and now is back - the "wink wink" comment from one of the moderators at the subreddit seems to indicate that they did something to remedy the situation. Not sure if it was a technical glitch that no one noticed for a month, or if some favors were called in, but the fact that missing albums from the past couple months all appeared again today makes me assume they did something positive).
Aside: Certain labels listed, like Alpha, disappeared (mostly) long ago and don't seem to be back. But the ones that had "shut off" for the past month or two are at least temporarily back, and when I asked if a couple Naxos jazz labels (Intakt, ACT Music) might, therefore, be assumed to start updating with new releases again soon, I got more smiley faces from the moderator. We'll see, and hope...
Has anybody taken the Emusic Token test? I'm afraid my computer will get invaded with tokens if I click on it.
WOOHOO!... Ib you scored 8 out of 10. That means you get some EMU
tokens! 30 of them in fact. To get your token reward, click through
below and sign up using the email address: xxxxx . Note: Tokens
take between a few seconds to a few minutes to appear in your account.
Questions? Join the eMusic Telegram group and ask away
Well, after studying all the graphs and following the arrows to page 36, the part about liabilities and failures of source code and whatnot is holding me back. I didn't notice any expiry date on the "Token Sale" so I guess I've got time for more studying, I did nod off a couple of times and may have missed some key points.
Assuming I'm reading it correctly it looks like another bonus is about to drop - from a Facebook post earlier today:
"Along with entering several new markets, eMusic has decided to implement
a bonus campaign to all who want to take advantage of eMusics low
prices and top it off with a $50 music bonus credit! to all of our
users, veteran and newbies alike. Sign up for your eMusic plan here: https://www.emusic.com/plans Check out eMusics open blockchain project here: https://token.emusic.com/"
I assume 'veterans' won't need to sign-up but will just get the credit.
On a less positive note a few more labels lost in the UK that I've noticed recently:
Chrysalis [thankfully, I managed to get the Ultravox stuff I wanted in time]
ZTT
Woe to the Septic Heart! [that's the new Shackleton release gone then...]
Intone [Richard H. Kirk & Cabaret Voltaire releases]
Assuming I'm reading it correctly it looks like another bonus is about to drop - from a Facebook post earlier today:
"Along with entering several new markets, eMusic has decided to implement
a bonus campaign to all who want to take advantage of eMusics low
prices and top it off with a $50 music bonus credit! to all of our
users, veteran and newbies alike. Sign up for your eMusic plan here: https://www.emusic.com/plans Check out eMusics open blockchain project here: https://token.emusic.com/"
I assume 'veterans' won't need to sign-up but will just get the credit.
Maybe this has to do with the very annoying pop-up that has showed up for the past couple of months every time I log in:
I've been assuming that it was an attempt to trick me into picking a new plan and thereby give up my very lucrative grandfather plan.
$19.99 for $30 credit per month and a $50 signing is tempting. Basically $80 free credit. My current grandfathered plan gives me $6 free a month, so at that rate it takes 13 months (ish) to even out.
But the special rate expires in three months. What's the over/under on eMusic lasting another three months?
Comments
You may need to sign in to The Economist for free articles to get access.
So how does a company worth perhaps $20M raise $20-70M when they are already probably heavily diluted in terms of current investor holdings? Well, you can't take a bridge loan (because you are a bad credit risk given the stacks of unpaid bills). You probably can't raise conventional VC money due to the depressed valuation, lack of tangible business progress, etc. And then someone whispers in your ear that companies are raising $70M or more by just selling Ethereum tokens for future goods and services that may or may not ever be delivered. Hmmm... sounds pretty attractive, right? And you say that the investors usually don't even care if you ever deliver on the goods and services you are promising because they just want to "flip" the currency and make a quick buck on speculative trading? Wow, these really ARE magic beans!
It would explain why eMusic is seemingly so all-in on promoting the blockchain story, and so disinterested in fixing problems in their conventional business (or paying the bills). Basically, they seem to have been convinced that if they can just window-dress their operations to make it sound like a plausible blockchain story, they can raise $20-70M with virtually no risk in terms of ever fixing the underlying problems. What would they do with the money? Maybe buyout some unhappy current investors? Maybe pay their past due bills? Maybe pay the contractors that are developing all this blockchain window dressing for them? Who knows? But I certainly don't see anything in their whitepaper that indicates they have a plan as to how to be a viable business post-ICO. It's just lots of vague claims and hype and cumulative statistics over their 20+ years of existence to make them look like a bigger industry player than they are to prospective overseas ICO particpants.
1) Given that, in theory, they are selling tokens to be used to purchase future goods or services and that they claim everything will be a 50/50 split between the platform (eMusic blockchain) and the "artist" (or whoever provides the goods or services), that would mean that they should be setting aside 50% of anything they raise in the ICO to cover future royalty obligations. They never say this in the white paper, though, and, given my observations in my earlier comments, there really is no guarantee or collateral offered to ICO participants with regards to eventual delivery of goods. So will they really set aside 50% to cover future royalties if the tokens purchased are actually used to purchase music? Your guess is as good as mine, but their recent track record should be taken into account.
2) As for the rest, they make some general comments in the white paper about funds raised in the ICO being used to complete the blockchain development, to market the project, to attract artists to the platform, etc. No specifics are given, and no restrictions are stated in terms of use of funds. So, yeah, I'd be wary if I was an artist, and let the buyer beware in terms of token purchases. Personally, if they had any semblance of a credible post-ICO business plan, I'd be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But all of their examples of token discounts (e.g. booster sales), etc. in the white paper look a lot like the current broken model that led them to make a desperation swing for the fences with this ICO. And they keep claiming they plan to somehow save the streaming industry (which, incidentally, really doesn't need help from eMusic), yet they continually refuse to given even a basic example of how they would make any money as an intermediary between artists and streaming platforms like Spotify. They just keep talking of a 50/50 split between artist and platform (which would be Spotify in this particular example). That would leave zero percent for eMusic, unless they plan to become a streaming platform themselves, which they keep claiming they will not.
That is exactly my view. As Soulcoal says it is a means of last resort. I'm just making sure I have everything I want from the very limited choice available there at the moment
I'm afraid my computer will get invaded with tokens if I click on it.
https://old.reddit.com/r/eMusicofficial/comments/9eux76/more_bad_news_on_the_catalogue_front_naxos/
https://www.emusic.com/label/19051/Archipel---Walhall?genreId=700e61469b84a66ddb24304a85b0c181&subGenreId=a13b2af5869496a11bbf849532a955c2&genre=Classical&subGenre=Opera&sortField=POPULARITY&descending&pageNumber=1
Check out eMusics open blockchain project here: https://token.emusic.com/"