Post for Cathy
If anyone that has access to eMusic messageboards wouldn't mind posting this for me, would be appreciated:
Topic: Question for Cathy
Cathy,
Is it possible to do like Amie Street did and not allow re-downloads of Sony (and now UMG) content, but allow redownload of those labels that don't have contracts excluding redownloading?
Has UMG specified they don't want any content redownloaded from eMusic, or have they just indicated they don't want their content redownloaded?
Thanks,
Music Lover (ML)
Topic: Question for Cathy
Cathy,
Is it possible to do like Amie Street did and not allow re-downloads of Sony (and now UMG) content, but allow redownload of those labels that don't have contracts excluding redownloading?
Has UMG specified they don't want any content redownloaded from eMusic, or have they just indicated they don't want their content redownloaded?
Thanks,
Music Lover (ML)
Comments
Thanks! Good eye!
"Album only download for tracks over 10 minutes. My bonus makes up my 'money' amount up to £42-00 per month. All tracks are 42p, so I still get 100 tracks per month. But we have lost the major independents and re-downloading. We are 'promised' the US system of pricing when we have access to majors. Out of interest the £0.42 per track works out at $0.66 per track at today's tourist exchange rate, so quite expensive for those joining now. This compares with typically 79p to 99p per track on itunes or Amazon - usually albums are £6.99 or £7.99 on those 2 sites to download"
Greg
Thanks for keeping the post on the front page. Looks like she isn't answering, though....
It IS a good question and I'd like to know the answer too.
Maybe it puts her in a dilemma as to how it was possible to redownload before UMG and her claiming that all labels are treated equally ?
Theres a "no answer" from Chathy:
If there's any reply you wish to post, just say the word. :-)
Well there's your problem right there
If they say "we didn't know" (about the Fraunhofer VBR encoded-files), they're essentially admitting that they didn't care enough to ask. If they say "we knew, but didn't think the customers would care," they're insulting the customers. They can't say "we asked but they (UMG) lied to us," because then a potential corporate buyer would take offense and no longer be a potential corporate buyer. If they say "we asked, they told us, and we knew customers would be pissed off, but we didn't care," then sure, at least they'd get points for honesty... but they're never going to say something like that on the record.
What other options do they have? I don't see any, but maybe that's only because I can't think like an executive.
Edit this morning: It's working now.
Something along the lines of, ahem.
"Mordac has looked at this issue and found that while Mordac itself is pure as the driven snow, the resulting customer experience is not in keeping with our company standards. We apologize to our customers for any inconvenience caused by this situation , which, of course, was clearly not the fault of Mordac, its staff or executives. That notwithstanding, we are prepared to provide recompense to our valued customers in an appropriate manner. Consequently, we will provide free cookies and milk to each of our customers who shows up on our doorsteps tomorrow morning between the minutes of 7:46 am and 7:52 am. Provided, of course, that said arriving customers are prepared to sign a statement, or have their mothers sign a statement, to the effect that said customer is not lactose intolerant nor do they have any wheat or glutten allergies. Whereas the party of the first part desires....(have the lawyers fill in the rest).
Thanks so much for your offer. Will take you up on it... :-)
(Also want to thank you for your persistence in keeping the post in view, so it would eventually be responded to.)
======
Cathy,
Thanks much for your response.
I appreciate your situation and you have my understanding. It is unfortunate that a small handful of messageboard posters are taking shots at you, the messenger.
It is also unfortunate the eMusic leadership is not properly balancing their vision of the future eMusic with current customer needs and preferences.
Although doing something like Amie Street did (allowing different download rules for different labels) is not necessarily difficult, I am guessing it is not easy with the existing eMusic "code" that is associated to the "My Downloads" section. Guessing that this code is not flexible, extensible or even documented.
I am also guessing that current eMusic leadership really doesn't much care one way or another whether one can redownload and so wouldn't bother to address this whether it was a quick fix or an expensive one.
My main criticism, and none of it is addressed to you, is that eMusic leadership doesn't care enough about honoring their implicit or explicit commitments to their customers. Their vision of where they want eMusic to go is the "end all and be all", and the day-to-day ethics of running a business and treating customers appropriately are necessary evils to them as opposed to the primary reason for existing as a business.
By overlooking customers expectations, desires and needs in order to be able to move as quickly as possible towards a given vision, one not only loses customers, but cheats themselves out of the joy of providing a business that truly makes a better world.
And this was once a joyful place to be a part of.
I felt that much of every dollar I spent was being used for good -- providing additional income to struggling musicians and composers, providing jobs at eMusic for eMusic employees that loved music, and providing a platform at eMusic to promote lesser known artists and make a positive cultural impact. For me personally, I don't have much interest in helping pay the salaries of executives whose main mission is not to further meaningful music and I don't have much interest in providing additional money to the Lady Gagas or UMG executives of the world.
Diversity is crucial in music. Freedom to evolve is crucial in music. I don't think that most major label executives encourage this, and so not keen on eMusic leaders pandering to their agendas.
Honestly, I have to ask myself, is eMusic being made a pawn in some major label agenda of weakening the marketing and sales channels of the Indie labels? Drive labels like Matador and Merge from eMusic and you now have an eMusic that is more a marketing and sales channel of the major labels than the Indies. If so, I hope the major labels and eMusic get investigated for anti-trust violations.
So now that I don't feel my money spent here is being used for the overall good of music or even the overall good of society, there is no reason to stay. In fact, if I think that my subscription dollars in some way contribute to the general downward spiral of our music culture, then it is imperative that I don't subscribe.
I was a customer here for almost a decade for both my own self-interests and to help (in some small way) to continue musical diversity. Today, no one has to pay for music. There are more ways than I know of (and don't want to know of) of getting all the music one could ever listen to without spending 79 cents, 49 cents or 29 cents or even 1 cent a track. But just because music is available for free, doesn't "free" one from their obligation of sponsoring, supporting and contributing to a rich musical culture. Sites like Amie Street and eMusic that allowed an easy way to support great music, are now gone or changed beyond recognition. But there are still great sites like Magnatune that need our support and so I will continue with such places.
I wish you the best, all the Indie artists on eMusic the best and all past, present and future eMusic customers the best.
ML.
Thanks so much for posting!
LOL! I guess I am a bit full of myself, as that truly brought a smile to my face. Maybe they will make that a sticky or just post on their front page?
Here's where I would tweet if StationWagonsixtiessomething was around to teach me how to do it.
Well said!
Nerrefid on eMu:
"Back when emusic was really cheap and didn't have populist music to push or to fall back on, one could easily get a sense of its potential to open people's ears to the vast wealth of music in the world. Certainly for me, emusic changed my view of music from being a commodity to being a resource. I'm sure that back in the day it did the same for many others. But the price increases have put paid to the opportunities for wide exploration and chance-taking."
Someone should ask him how losing Indie content and getting rubber stamped top 40 which all sounds the same and -- sounds the same as many Indie albums that aren't necessarily so great -- adds diversity.
;-)
I've just bolded your post. It would be a shame if Cathy missed it because of the ramblings of Wandy and his alter ego.
- I hope this is allright with you.
Your profile sez:
UMG could be doing it merely to get some idea of the percentage of MP3's on filesharers and torrent sites that are originally sourced from eMu, and they're probably dumb enough to think that re-downloading paid-for files somehow contributes to the problem. They're already doing digital watermarking of MP3's on iTunes and, to a lesser extent, amazon.com, so I don't see that as much of a stretch, personally.
Anyway, that would also be yet another reason why eMu doesn't want to say anything about it - if they say that's even part of their rationale, they'd essentially be admitting that they're collaborating with UMG to treat their own customers as a potential bunch of "thieves."
Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't.
I don't regret cancelling eMu. While I'll miss access to some stuff I think I want there is so much other stuff I didn't know I wanted out there (magnatune, bandcamp, etc...) that will keep me occupied just fine. I remember the way I even got into indie/alternative music in the first place was when I was in my first or 2nd year of college and realized that the music I listened to at the time consisted almost entirely of classic rock and of 'old' bands who had had key personnel die and would not be releasing anything that I would likely find as compelling as their earlier work (case in point, 'It's Hard' by The Who). I then made a point of cruising the stacks of the local record stores looking for things that were unknown to me but cheap and looked interesting. I got introduced to The Replacements, Hoodoo Gurus, Black Flag, Green On Red, and any number of new-to-me bands back then. I still have all that old vinyl and some day will get around to either getting my turntable hooked up and working with my stereo or getting some of the stuff that never made more than a blip on the scene in general back then converted to digital format so I can revisit some of the still hidden gems contained therein.
Thanks for checking my profile! Also, fine to bold my post there. I also cut and pasted the post here (which I had edited a bit after posting) and sent it in an email to Cathy.
Looking at Wanderer's and Cinthebox replies, it's unfortunate that some people don't get that both businesses and individuals have a responsibility to make a positive contribution to the world and hopefully make it better for their presence. It's not just about getting rich so I can consume as much expensive food and goods as my gut and the environment can handle. What an empty life it is for those that only care about their own self interests at the exclusion of everything else. The ideal balance is to do things that benefit both oneself, their family, their friends and others. To leave any of these out of the equation is not only unecessary but eventually destructive.
Wanderer is clearly a troll, posting to gratify his own ego. Whether or not he is associated to eMusic, I can't say. I do think its unlikely he could be a member for years and never notice the boards, but then once noticing become a compusive poster -- generally only posting to make less of another person or their post. This is a case where he should ask himself do his posts provide any benefit or express anything of interest to anyone but himself.
Unfortunately, some people get more pleasure from pissing on other people then providing valued or constructive interaction.
ML