Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Shawn Fanning's Snocap melting?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the let's-all-remember-back-in-the-day dept.

Music 93

newtley writes "Rumors are swirling about the pending demise of Napster creator Shawn Fanning's Snocap, says former MP3.com CEO Michael Robertson. 'Articles mention a sale, but more likely it will be a shuttering and quiet bankruptcy,' he believes. 'Snocap represents a commonplace occurrence in the music business — an unprofitable retailer which withers and eventually dies.'"

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21707720)

Step 1. go to http://www.vumit.com/cgi-bin/main.pl?action=signup [vumit.com] Step 2. Choose a nickname, hit Sbumit Step 3. Give the link you get in return to friends/family Step 4. See yourself climb on the list of top 10 vumiters Step 5. ?????????? Step 6. Profit

Wha wha what? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21707756)

Unprofitable business goes out of business, news at 11.

Re:Wha wha what? (2, Funny)

snoggeramus (945056) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708314)

Actually, they should do this more often. I'd never heard of them before this happened.

Re:Wha wha what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21708578)

i felt so liberated as a musician when i first signed up to snocap.. turns out it was wishful thinking.

regards
label-slave-bitch
-SJ53

Do it right (-1, Offtopic)

pkadd (1203286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707758)

The least you can do is format it properly:

Step 1. go to http://www.vumit.com/cgi-bin/main.pl?action=signup [vumit.com]
Step 2. Choose a nickname, hit Sbumit
Step 3. Give the link you get in return to friends/family
Step 4. See yourself climb on the list of top 10 vumiters
Step 5. ??????????
Step 6. Profit

Must be global warming's fault! (4, Funny)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707766)

Further evidence of global warming, obviously....

Re:Must be global warming's fault! (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707810)

Wouldn't the increase in piracy correlate to a reduction of global warming?

Re:Must be global warming's fault! (2, Informative)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707938)

Thats what happens when the number of pirates go down (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)

Shawn Fanning, pioneer (4, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707768)

Without Napster arriving on the scene more than 10 years ago and opening our eyes to the power of p2p, I wonder what sort of world we'd be living in today. Would the record companies have been smarter in their online moves? Would we have a system of DRM that wasn't obnoxious? Would we even have a clear idea of what sorts of rights we'd want with regards to ephemeral data like music and movies? Shawn Fanning brought all these concepts to a head and we've been changed because of it.

The only SnoCap that is any good is Pyramid's version, but I don't think we can easily share that online. It's really something better to be shared peer to peer.

Re:Shawn Fanning, pioneer (1, Insightful)

pkadd (1203286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707920)

Agreed. Without napster 10 years ago, we'd still have to buy overpriced albums, when all you really is to hear a few songs to figure out whether it's worth buying at all. I, as most people here i bet, download music in the old way of pirating, but good music always ends up being bought. If it wasn't for napster leading the way for p2p downloads, thus allowing me to easier find new music to listen to, my CD collection would have been tinyer than my penis..

Re:Shawn Fanning, pioneer (4, Insightful)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708230)

Without Napster arriving on the scene more than 10 years ago and opening our eyes to the power of p2p, I wonder what sort of world we'd be living in today...

One word. Usenet.

Re:Shawn Fanning, pioneer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21709038)

One word. Usenet.
6 Syllables. Accessibility.

Re:Shawn Fanning, pioneer (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709270)

Bittorrent.

Re:Shawn Fanning, pioneer (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21716700)

And Scour Exchange, and disguised mp3s hosted on Geocities and Tripod sites.

But the important thing about Napster wasn't the technology, it was bringing everything together into something that anybody could use and taking it to the mass market.

What made it successful was the fact that lots of people were using it, and as a result there was lots of music to chose from.

Re:Shawn Fanning, pioneer (2, Insightful)

neapolitan (1100101) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708462)

I remember when Napster emerged everybody said how Shawn Fanning was a genius, and that this was a game-changing product, even though the application itself was not original (numerous p2p clients at the time, and this was bogged by use of a central indexing server, and music-specific.) The whole thing IIRC was in a visual-basic type language.

I am sad that his business ventures are going south, but it is a competitive industry, and frankly, not too hard to see the huge risk in this. They were not first on the line to the (legit) online music industry, nor did they get enough partnerships. Ability to code up a small VB / AJAX website does not make you a genius.

Re:Shawn Fanning, pioneer (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708664)

I suspect we wouldn't have a music industry that's in such a blind panic it's gotten to the point of subpoenaing every ISP for lists of suspected pirates, who it's engaging in the fairly expensive and reputation-damaging practice of subsequently suing.

As for whether they'd be selling music over the Internet, and/or using DRM, I have no idea, but I don't see why they wouldn't be selling music. The fears of rampant piracy were heightened in large part because of Napster and its successors' success. Given every other industry has tried to make the Internet work, I would imagine the music industry would have been a little quicker, if a little more incompetent (given they wouldn't have needed the persuasion of Steve Jobs), in their efforts.

China man (1, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707788)

I hate to be Mr. Offended-too-easily. But I was slightly shocked to see the article describe the business model as "pair of sandals to every China man" - a racist epithet that would get you punched in the mouth in the wrong company! The article puts the term in quotes, but a Google search of the term just points back to the article in question. What gives? It's hard to believe a gentleman-CEO on a semi-respectable website would throw racist terminology around.

Re:China man (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707806)

That phrase doesn't strike me as being particularly racist.

Re:China man (2, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21710388)

Oscar: Both my parents were born in Mexico, and they moved to the United States a year before I was born, so I grew up in the United States... my parents were Mexican.
Michael Scott: Wow, that is a great story. That's the American dream right there, right? Um, let me ask you, is there a term besides 'Mexican' that you prefer? Something less offensive?

Re:China man (1)

Cosmic AC (1094985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707874)

I'd say you are "Mr. Offended-too-easily". I really don't think they meant to be racist.

Re:China man (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21707882)

Nah, you want racist, how about "a pair of nigger lips for every chink"?

Re:China man (1)

Ubi_NL (313657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707890)

Get off your high horse. If you genuinely get shocked by such a line you must have a terrible time watching the news. The term points to the relative large number of chinese people that we all know there are. And we all need and use footwear, there's nothing racist about that either. It'd be racist saying you will sell a shotgun to every american, or a bomb detonator to every iraqi, as in those cases you are implying something negative to a specific subset of people. That is not the case here.

Re:China man (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707958)

Everyone is offended by other thing. I don't know why it's racist to say that you will sell shotgun to every american or for some other nation. Are americans not responsible enough to have a shotgun? My post is not intended to offend anyone, but I'm merely saying that you may be offended by things which do not offend me.

Re:China man (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708818)

Of all the negative things to tie with Americans you chose shotgun? Sorry but that appears to be more of a comment that applies largely to rednecks only. Why not say sell a pizza or steak to every American since that is something that can associate with everyone.

Re:China man (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709568)

Then why not say "a pair of sandals to every Chinese man"? Or "to everyone in China"?

Chinaman is not a particularly respectful way to address someone.

Re:China man (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21769506)

if you want racist comments watch 90's movies! They didn't hold back much! But what was considered ok back then is now "not PC." But that doesn't mean that isn't a good thing.

they said the other day that 225 million people no longer live in their native countries! With most countries being transient countries that don't have any particular group of people staying in their country, and then the other countries that are the destinations. In a world like today, saying any shit like that is bad and uncalled for/unnecessary because it may not affect you now, being on the caller side, but someday you or yours may be on the callee side and it could hurt their feelings.

never hurts to look at it from more than 1 side.

Re:China man (1)

Ubi_NL (313657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21770852)

You lot should stop whining about your precious feelings that might be hurt and at the same time drop cluster bombs on innocents just because they are not evangelical christians. Erm.. I mean they have oil and won't give it to you freely.. Oh no, I mean 'liberated'. Thats the PC word now right? .

Geez, mister political correct (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707898)

Get your knickers out of a twist you pansie. It just means that you can still make a lot of money from something small, if you just sell enough of it.

1 billion sales with a tiny profit still amounts to a hell of a lot of money, China is well known for having the world largest population. Why do you think the US is bending over backwards for this communist country while Cuba (population 2 people and a dog) is on every banlist they can think up?

As for sandals, that is about as racist as saying the dutch wear wooden shoes or the americans cowboy hats.

It is simple, if you mamange to make a single dollar cent of every chinese person in the world, you are still filthy rich.

I doubt the chinese are offended by it, it is not like the US related saying "nobody has every grown poor by underestimating the intelligence of the american customer".

Re:Geez, mister political correct (2, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707970)

The Napster model is failing.

iTunes is a billion of cheap sales.

Napster is you pay us money or we cut off your music supply. It's subscription radio. Satellite radio is trying that and is barely surviving. One company had to buy the other in order to have enough customers to survive.

Subscription video/tv yea that works. subscription music will never work as people don't listen to music that way. At least Satellite subscription offered something unique.

Re:Geez, mister political correct (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709574)

Since we're already here, I hope mods will forgive the OT. The problem with calling people out on their unconscious racism is that they often react defensively (and sometimes violently). You, SmallFurryCreature, imply there's something wrong with kamanpuaa--"Get your knickers out of a twist you pansie", blatant ad hominem attack--for even speculating on the possibility. And you're modded up for it. I'm wiling to bet you are not Chinese, SmallFurryCreature. I'm also willing to bet many Chinese would be somewhat offended both by the insinuation that a company could get rich by selling a "pair of sandals to every China man" and by your disproportionate anger towr4d kamanpuaa's very reasonable question. As an Asian, I am not surprised by racist/racial remarks by a Euro-American CEO and I am annoyed by your attack against the *possibility* such a remark might be motivated and licensed by racial ignorance.

Re:Geez, mister political correct (1)

jimhill (7277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709962)

"The problem with calling people out on their unconscious racism is that they often react defensively (and sometimes violently) [...] I am annoyed by your attack against the *possibility* such a remark might be motivated and licensed by racial ignorance."

The reason people react defensively when called out on their "unconscious racism" is because the term is meaningless but still offensive. To be a racist or a sexist or some other -ist requires an actively discriminatory state of mind in which the thinker attributes inferiority to someone else for some reason or another. Is "Chinaman" offensive? Sure, to a lot of people, and some of those who use the word know that and are indeed racist. Others, though, use it because it's an old-timey word like "Hottentot" or "Watusi" and they are ignorant of its impact.

And therein lies the rub. If you call someone who is ignorant ignorant, he might get a bit miffed but will likely respond well to further explanation as to why words like "Chinaman" aren't kosher. Er, cricket. Um, acceptable. If you call the same person a racist, even an "unconscious racist", he's going to get angry and he's going to stop listening to you because you have leveled a false charge at him.

If I might paraphrase an applicable line, never attribute to an -ism what can better be attributed to ignorance.

Thank you for your time, and we now return you to your regularly-scheduled discussion of the earth-shaking relevance of a tech company going under.

Re:Geez, mister political correct (1)

kevinbr (689680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21723334)

"Is "Chinaman" offensive? Sure, to a lot of people"

I am an Irishman. Should I be offended?

Some people are offended by the sun shining.

So any Chinese who are offended, raise your hands.

But wait! I just remembered. Free speech always offends SOMEONE.

Re:Geez, mister political correct (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21714996)

I had no idea Chinese people would be offended by the insinuation that they wear sandals. As far as I can tell most people wear sandals. As for the term "Chinaman", it is a bit archaic but little different from "Englishman" or "Frenchman". Maybe people should focus on substantive issues instead of whether or not they're offended by people not using the most recently preferred version of what your ethnic group likes to be called, or by insinuating that people in a given country might be open to the idea of buying sandals.

Incidentally, we prefer to be called "White" or "European-American." "Euro-American", "Caucasian", "white" with a lowercase 'w', etc. are all offensive to us. So are "weiss", "blanco", "gringo", or the word for "white" in any non-English language. "Pink" is right out. Consider yourself warned.

Re:China man (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707952)

What's wrong with "Chinaman"? Are you similarly offended by "Dutchman" and "Welshman"? Get over it.

Re:China man (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708032)

I think the problem is the stereotype of "selling sandals" to every Chinaman, which would presumably refer to the nineteenth century stereotype of the Chinese coolie with flat straw hat, pigtail and sandals.

It's a bit old-fashioned and certainly doesn't reflect modern China in any way, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to find it really offensive.

Re:China man (2, Insightful)

Raideen (975130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708692)

"Chineseman" would be more akin to "Dutchman" or "Welshman". I think that part of the problem is the misappropriation of the term and the history of its use. I would be "a Chinaman" (or simply, "Chinaman" if referring to me directly) to many people who actually use that term, although I'm not Chinese. Have you called total strangers "Dutchman" or "Welshman"? Is there a history of usage of those terms that was derogatory? Have you ever used those terms to refer to all people of a certain skin color? Sure, there are worse terms, but I guess that most people who are saying that it's not racist at all haven't been alive long enough to have actually heard it used that way and have never been referred to as "Chinaman".

Re:China man (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21715812)

I've been called a dutchman plenty of times, which is no surprise because I am one, and I don't think it is insulting (other than in the context of being associated with our horrible politics towards foreigners that want to live here there is nothing particularly disgraceful about being dutch).

Since Chinese people refer to *ALL* foreigners on a regular basis as 'kwailo' (or however you spell it) I hardly think they would object to being called 'chinaman', after all, that is just a descriptive.

The politically correct 'I WANT TO CONTROL THE WORDS YOU USE' crowd really should learn to lighten up a bit and not take themselves so seriously. If a chinaman comes forward and complains with a motivation as to why he/she feels insulted by this term then that would be early enough to adapt, until that time I don't think they need everybody and their brother to speak for them.

Re:China man (1)

Raideen (975130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21718786)

I've been called a dutchman plenty of times

I didn't ask about being called "a Dutchman". Has a stranger said "Dutchman" as if it were your name? In addition to that, you glossed over my other questions, including whether or not the term "Dutchman" has a history of derogatory usage. There's nothing derogatory about being from China, but being called "Chinaman" (especially when it's not "a Chinaman") is derogatory (at least in the U.S.). The origin of the word may have been benign, but that doesn't mean that the continued usage is. I'm sure that you can think of some words that started as benign but that even you'd agree are now racist terms. I don't find "Chinaman" to be offensive on the behalf of the Chinese, nor do I find the term particularly offensive if meant simply as a person from China (or Chinese descent). However, as I said, I'd be "Chinaman" to people many who actually use that term. It shows a level of ignorance, which is why I find it offensive. It's the tie-in with "chink", "gook", "slant", and a plethora of others that I have a problem with, but I guess that's OK because I just want to control the words you use.

Re:China man (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21719192)

Chink, gook and slant, I can clearly see why they would be offensive, they have a derogatory 'feel' to them, to me chinaman is just an indication of origin/location and gender, no more than that. A way to indicate a particular person in a group of people when you know their origins but not their names for instance. Would 'person from china' be more acceptable ? Chinese man ? (which probably would be the one I would choose if I didn't have this discussion in the first place)

And yes, people that did not know my name but that had figured out where I came from have called me dutchman, and I had absolutely no problem with that, since after all, I'm dutch and male.

Also, and maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes from I'm not from or in the US and I'm not aware of what is derogatory there, but the English language is spoken in more places than America and most derogatory terms are a 'contract' between the offender and the offendee, in other words, to the rest of the world your argument may not make sense, they may not even realize that an insult was meant or received. A bit like voodoo, you have to believe in it for it to hurt. This leads to all kinds of strife, hence my 'lighten up'.

Negro = person with black skin to some, but derogatory to others, in Spanish it still simply means black, this could potentially get native spanish speakers into a lot of trouble depending on the location...

Before you go and label something derogatory you should demarcate the context, since what is derogatory and what is not varies quite a bit according to culture and location.

Re:China man (1)

Raideen (975130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21720656)

And yes, people that did not know my name but that had figured out where I came from have called me dutchman, and I had absolutely no problem with that, since after all, I'm dutch and male.

Unless you know of a derogatory form of "Dutchman", it's not the same. I have no problem with being called Japanese, Asian, American, or any of the "politically correct" combinations (like Asian-American). ("Japanman" would be irksome, but not offensive.) However, none of those have derogatory connotations in the U.S. that I'm aware of.

Before you go and label something derogatory you should demarcate the context, since what is derogatory and what is not varies quite a bit according to culture and location.

I agree that it's (mostly) about how it's intended, along with its context. In this case, the context was a statement made by an American who was educated in the U.S. and continues to live in the U.S. I can't say that he meant it to be derogatory (most likely he didn't) but it was still a poor choice of words, considering the source. I'm not up-in-arms about his particular use of the term. However saying that a term is inherently non-offensive (which isn't a statement made by you, but seemingly the position taken by the original poster to whom I originally responded) is just as wrong as saying that it's offensive in all usage (which certainly isn't my position).

Re:China man (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21724376)

I never understood what he said to be taken literal, more like he used some archaic saying. Along the lines of 'all the kings horses and all the kings men' (no offsene to kings or horses I hope ;) ).

Re:China man (1)

nannynannybooboo (1150677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709134)

oblig- Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature

Re:China man (1)

Metathran0 (1052636) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709902)

Just because a word, phrase, or symbol doesn't seem offensive to you, does not mean that the history behind the term doesn't MAKE it offensive.

For examples you might actually understand, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastica [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger [wikipedia.org] .

Of course, if you think that African Americans and the Jewish have nothing to be offended about, then may I suggest going somewhere where you could tell them that to their face.

Re:China man (1)

Khun Yee (222773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707962)

I bet many people don't even know "Chinaman" is a racist term for many Chinese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman [wikipedia.org]

Re:China man (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21708124)

I bet many people don't even know "Chinaman" is a racist term for many Chinese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman [wikipedia.org]
The chinks think that "Chinaman" is offensive? Is it okay to call them "Chinese" or is that also offensive? These orientals need to relax a bit.

Re:China man (1)

bvimo (780026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708650)

And Chinawoman, is that also racist?

Re:China man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21709016)

Yeah, just like many Chinese don't seem to know that "laowai" is an offensive term for westerners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laowai [wikipedia.org]

Re:China man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21709752)

Neither will most westerners

Re:China man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21709838)

Oh, you figure it out pretty quick if you spend some time in China and experience the contemptuousness with which they treat foreigners there, particularly British and Americans. Whenever they see a forienger they'll start talking right in earshot of you (in Chinese) about "laowai" (usually about how stupid/evil they are - although lately I've noticed that they like to talk a lot about how we're here to take all their women, which I think is kind of odd...) God help you if you're black - I know the Wikipedia article says otherwise, but it's still perfectly acceptable and common to call dark-skinned people heiguizi, or "black devil" and they're generally treated very rudely. As far as how foreigners are treated, China is way worse than even Japan on this subject.

Re:China man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21710120)

You don't have to tell me that Asians, blacks, greens, blues or reds are capable of intolerance toward others.

My point was that the majority of westerners have never had that word directed at them. If they have, they likely also understand the significance of the word "chinaman" to someone who's grandfather died building the railroad us laowais are still using to ship our goods around.

Re:China man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21710788)

My point was that the majority of westerners have never had that word directed at them.

"laowai" is a derogatory term that specifically applies to western foreigners in China. It doesn't apply elsewhere, and if you're a westerner who lives in China, then it's likely that you *have* had that word directed at you.

Re:China man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21712072)

Fair enough.

So "iaowai" carries the same resonance with the average Caucasian living in Hong Kong as "chinaman" carries with the average Asian living in San Francisco.

As Lenny Bruce said, maybe we should use these words all the time in every day conversation to rob them of their power. Unfortunately, enough people use these words with the intention of dehumanizing people from different cultures that the opposite is usually the result.

I prefer to be respectful of other people's feelings, and not rationalize anti-social behavior by saying "if you think that's bad, you should hear what they call us."

I didn't know that ... (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21707998)

Until I googled it I didn't even know it was controversial .... it's archaic, but it isn't inherently racist unless you make an effort to know what language the PC corps of America has deemed unacceptable regardless of intent and use it despite that knowledge. I personally didn't know, I expect he didn't either.

Re:I didn't know that ... (1)

Watts Martin (3616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21710234)

It's archaic, but it isn't inherently racist unless you make an effort to know what language the PC corps of America has deemed unacceptable regardless of intent and use it despite that knowledge. I personally didn't know, I expect he didn't either.
In other words, you're asserting that words are only offensive because Those Damn Liberals are in your face about it. Whether the people you're referring to with a given term find the term derogatory or demeaning has nothing to do with it. So, really, "nigger" would be okay in all contexts if only the PC corps of America hadn't deemed it unacceptable. Before those damn academics and hippies came along, nobody could possibly have been offended by such a word.

Do you see a logic flaw here? Just a small one?

"Political correctness" may have once been a useful construct, but it only seems to be used these days by people who don't want to face the possibility that the offended party might deserve input into deciding when they're offended. "Chinaman" has a long history of being used in a patronizing way. Did you personally not know that? That's okay. Now you do.

Yes, it is possible to be too easily offended, but isn't excusing everything by saying "oh, if you're offended by that you're just too politically correct" going to be, in the long run, worse? Call me crazy, but I'd rather see people err on the side of civility.

Re:China man (1)

gowakuwa (1199733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708054)

How about "42 pieces of sushi over every naked Japanese woman"? Would that one be racist? That one would melt some Snocaps for sure.

Re:China man (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708206)

I hate to be Mr. Offended-too-easily. But I was slightly shocked to see the article describe the business model as "pair of sandals to every China man" - a racist epithet that would get you punched in the mouth in the wrong company! The article puts the term in quotes, but a Google search of the term just points back to the article in question. What gives? It's hard to believe a gentleman-CEO on a semi-respectable website would throw racist terminology around.

Unfortunately there are only two forms of bigotry that are still socially acceptable in the mainstream US.

Homophobia of any level ("I just don't feel comfortable letting my children be around them" to "They have a mental disorder and need to be treated") and light racism against Asians.

I may have to add a third to the ol' list. -- it seems to be A-OK to hate Arabic people now. We'll have to work on that.

I remember reading a rather stunning article a while back (would have had to have been 5+ years to be honest) when there was some random manufactured scandal about the Clintons taking money from a Chinese company, or somesuch. Well, a well known magazine at the time decided to run a cover with the Clintons and 1 or 2 other people all in "Chinese-face" -- their faces done up in a over the top parody of Asian facial structure stereotypes (exaggerated slanted eyes, sunken cheeks, etc).

And no one even took a second thought about how, this, you know, could be considered offensive. I myself didn't even catch on until someone asked me point blank if it would be ok if they had Hillary and Bill up in Blackface [wikipedia.org] as a way of mocking them visiting Harlem.

"What? Of course not, that'd be disgusting!"

"Why?"

"Because that'd be completely insensitive to ... OH. Oh."

So yeah. It sucks, but what can you do? Although, I have to wonder, would you be as upset if they had said the business model was "a refrigerator to every Eskimo?"

Re:China man (1)

neapolitan (1100101) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708414)

>I remember reading a rather stunning article a while back (would have had to have been 5+ years to be honest)
>when there was some random manufactured scandal about the Clintons taking money from a Chinese company, or
>somesuch. Well, a well known magazine at the time decided to run a cover with the Clintons and 1 or 2 other
>people all in "Chinese-face" -- their faces done up in a over the top parody of Asian facial structure stereotypes
>(exaggerated slanted eyes, sunken cheeks, etc)... And no one even took a second thought about how, this, you know, could be considered offensive.

Please -- if you are going to make outlandish claims like this at least research the facts a bit. "Random manufactured scandal?"

Anyhow, the article / cartoon in question was from "The National Review" in 1997, and they got a HUGE amount of backlash from this cartoon. I was in college at the time and there were NUMEROUS protests about this at the time. I would hope the shock was not limited to Harvard, and from talking to my friends at the time, it was not. here is a link. [thecrimson.com] With a webserach, I'm sure you could find the original cartoon. As I recall, there were many protests at other colleges too, and it received quite a bit of coverage in the mainstream media.

Your post is simply too exaggerated and sensationalist... I agree there are pockets of America that remain very intolerant, but this is not speaking for all, or I would claim, not even the majority!

Re:China man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21708800)

"...a racist epithet that would get you punched in the mouth in the wrong company!"


Don't you mean karate chopped?

Re:China man (1)

Drive42 (444835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709254)

Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

Punched in the mouth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21709322)

Racism sucks but violence is 100 times worse. You're a piece of shit.

Re:China man (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709896)

The article puts the term in quotes, but a Google search of the term just points back to the article in question.
Do you think that might be a clue? Go and google on any real 'racist epithet' and you'll find thousands of hits - but the one you are worked up about? One hit to the article and one hit to slashdot. If absolutely no one else has used the phrase, then it hardly qualifies as an epithet - a descriptive word or phrase that has become a fixed formula. [wikipedia.org]

Here's a stereotype for you - I would have expected anyone with a hawaiian username, especially one as obscure as the wild boar Kamapua`a, to be a lot more thick-skinned.

Re:China man (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 6 years ago | (#21710282)

It's hard to believe a gentleman-CEO on a semi-respectable website would throw racist terminology around.

If you were a Black person in the United States, you would not find it hard to believe. You should also not be surprised that nobody on Slashdot sees the problem, and you got modded down for even bringing it up.

Huh? The Chinese are a new race? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21714660)

And here I thought the Negros, honkys, slant eyes and the redmen were the only ones. Whod a thunk it?

"Snocap melting?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21707802)

I blame the GWs: George W. Bush and Global Warming.

What kind of bankruptcy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21707804)

"Shuttering"? What the hell?

Re:What kind of bankruptcy? (1)

Beastmouth (1144447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21712574)

Closing the shutters on the windows, obv

Snocap made the 2007 Digital Media Losers list (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21707964)

Last week Snocap got pegged as among the year's top 11 losers: 6. Snocap Laid of 60% of workforce after losing CD Baby as a customer. CD Baby founder Derek Sivers offered illuminating insight to the eight-month partnership when he pointed to a paltry earning of $1,080 during the period. Snocap is now trying to re-define the direction of the company. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/7002/2007-losers.html [mp3newswire.net]

Re: Snocap made the 2007 Digital Media Losers list (1)

evansvillelinux (621123) | more than 6 years ago | (#21716844)

Last week Snocap got pegged as among the year's top 11 losers: 6. Snocap Laid of 60% of workforce after losing CD Baby as a customer. CD Baby founder Derek Sivers offered illuminating insight to the eight-month partnership when he pointed to a paltry earning of $1,080 during the period.
I am on an indie musician mailing list that Derek either founded or co-founded. Derek is good people and he waited an awful long time to try and make the CD Baby/SNOCAP thing a success. I also have a SNOCAP account but I don't have any of my music ready for distribution. I've talked with enough successful indie musicians who also have SNOCAP accounts to know that SNOCAP is a massive failure. They all sell (thanks to CD Baby) successfully on iTunes, Rhaposdy, etc. and never have sales on SNOCAP. Of all the musicians I know, only one has had a single sale on SNOCAP. Not a good ROI for the $30 annual fee SNOCAP chages after the first year. I think it has to do with the fans trusting the stores. iTunes & Rhapsody are in the media all the time and are familiar names. SNOCAP, not so much. Too bad too, the musician stands to earn more from the SNOCAP store.

and do we trust Mr Roberts either ? (1)

Stu101 (1031686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708036)

This is the guy that took linux and tried to force his closed source click n run crap into Ubuntu. Basically, if you are someone who can help Mr Roberts, he's your best mate.

Business plan (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708120)

So, I was wondering exactly how he managed to make that business idea unprofitable. Until I ran across this part of the article; "Nonetheless they gave MySpace a mountain of money to give it a run."

Oh. I see.

Ok, here's a hint for future venturers in the music sales business (or, in fact, any business): dont hand mountains of money to any joker you run across. As soon as you hand over those mountains you're the one who's taking the loss.

TFA's problems (3, Insightful)

Smauler (915644) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708238)

The sad truth is that while the music business appears glamorous - and certain parts may be - the business of selling recorded music is unprofitable for everyone. That's right - everyone. Big box retailers move mountains of CDs but it's typically a loss leader designed to get people into the store rather than generate a profit. Offline music only retailers such as Tower Records have largely vanished.

If this is true (I haven't read up on all the figures), then this is what is wrong with the recording industry. If you can't make a profit selling millions of copies of something for £10 which costs (basically) nothing to replicate, and is the work of a few people over less than a year, your business is screwed. Seriously.

Selling music is like selling gravel. It's a commodity.

No, selling music is _not_ like selling gravel. When was the last time itunes ran out of stock of a downloadable song? The entire idea is stupid. If itunes sell me a song which I download, do they no longer have the song?

The market value of digital music: zero. (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708246)

As I said in the comments on the p2p site:

Recorded music will always have a market value of zero, or close to it. Even $1 per song is too high, and this price will fall.

All markets rely on supply and demand: as the supply of an item, prices fall. As the demand for an item goes down, prices fall.

Digital music has a near-infinite supply. Transfering 3MB of data (say, one song), as a cost of less than 1/2 cents from a server. P2P the cost is trivial and far lower.

Yet there IS a way to make money with music: it's called performing and value added items. When you go to work, say flipping burgers, you're paid for the act of working, the labor. The person who invented the burger doesn't charge fees for the act of making a burger. Music is no different. Making music, the act of writing it, is akin to learning how to make a burger. All of us get trained at no profit, and sometimes at great risk of a loss of time. Learning to make music is tricky, and it is artistic, but it should be no different in terms of learning how to make a burger, or learning how to fix a leaky faucet.

Bands will soon rely only on the performance of their music. That's what differentiates one band from another: their ability to entertain. And entertainment has GREAT value. There are many ways for bands to make money entertaining. You can play live. Maybe sell your CDs and include 1 ticket to a live concert. Or sell a CD, and include 5 tickets to an online performance.

Making money doesn't end there. How about selling CDs and offering CD purchasers the chance to win an hour of lessons in how to play their favorite song? Oh wait, the government prevents bands from offering contests in exchange for buying an item. It's the law that harms the musician.

You can make money selling autographed albums, or selling DVDs or CDs of the actual concert people attended. The cost to record a concert, and burn 50 CDs in 10 minutes before people leave, is trivial.

Don't complain about the zero value of recorded music -- its a market process that can't be worked around. Instead, find ways to MAKE MONEY WITH YOUR NEW AND ONGOING LABORS. Just like the burger flipper or the faucet-leak fixer.
---

I own a small music production and marketing business, and I help quite a few local bands make money. How do we do it? We book them shows non-stop. We target cities in the middle of nowhere, visit there once, build a street team, and then go back over and over and over. We sell awesome and rare silkscreened posters that cost us $0.15 each but sell for $5, $10 with an autograph. We sell limited edition LPs (yes, records) and move to sell them out faster than we get them in.

I designed a system that records a concert (music feed from the board, two cameras without cameramen) and burns DVDs of the show within 15 minutes of the end of the show. Those DVDs can be given away, or sold for a small price. Sell 5 DVDs for $5 and let people in the town give them to friends (or better yet, give them away freely). This generates more buzz for future shows.

A band is no different than a plumber, a burger-flipper, or an architect. We all learn how to produce new labor on our own time and dime, and then we use that learning to generate income by working. Recorded music is marketing, and marketing has a cost, rarely a profit. You market yourself to get people to pay for your future labor, not your past.

I see a future in my small market to generate millions, but not online, and not with the recorded music. Instead, we're talking about packing shows in Bertrand, Nebraska and DeKalb, Illinois, where there are thousands of teenagers and young adults who are seriously bored out of their minds sitting on the web all day long. They want, and pay for, good bands to come out and charge their lives with loud and fun music. Don't visit a town once, visit it 6 times a year. A tour van costs $15,000, and the gas is $100 or so a show. Pack a venue with 300 young adults paying $6 each, sell $1000 in completely custom and "rare" t-shirts and posters, hang out for 2 hours after a 45 minute set, and you leave town with $3000 for an total investment of 15 hours x 4 people. That's $50/hour per band member. Do this every day, 5 days a week, just like the plumber or the burger flipper or the architect.

You'll make money. You'll have fun. You'll generate buzz, which will get your shows more packed in neighboring towns, for that twice a year regional tour. There's no excuse for charging $1 per song or even $0.10 per song, when the market won't pay for it. The market WILL pay for something, though: you. In person. Live.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

hedkandee (1148031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708688)

Snocap is also getting into the advertising supported music business with their imeem deal, but this may be too late for snocap, imeem has only just got deals with all the major labels in the US and even with a top 100 website they aren't going to be supporting snocap based on this one deal

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (2, Interesting)

Morganth (137341) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708746)

Interesting concept, but your analogy is a strawman.

So in your world, there are only physical products and labor. What about other intellectual property that can't be 'performed'? I can't 'perform' my software as a software developer, but it can be distributed at zero cost. If I'm a scientist/researcher, I can't 'perform' a medical drug, but it can be distributed at low cost. I can't 'perform' a book -- well, not in a form people will want to hear -- but I can sure write one, and the book, too, can be distributed at zero cost. There are myriad other examples.

You are turning the clock back about two centuries, and your world will be one where the only great works of art and science are funded by philanthropy and patronage. The founding fathers understood the need for protection for science and authorship, and that's why they wrote the "Progress Clause" into the Constitution:

"Congress shall have the power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (2, Insightful)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709264)

I can't 'perform' my software as a software developer, but it can be distributed at zero cost.

You gave an example that refutes your own statement. We already live in a world where developers are paid to write software which is distributed at no cost.

Books have a tangible value, so they will continue to be sold. Electronic copies of books have no value, but many of us LIKE the physical books and will pay for their continued existence, so I think authors are safe. Drugs are not electronic in any situation so I do not know why you included those in your argument. Musicians will perform for a fee, and the free distribution of their music will benefit that more than hurt it.

Finally, as much as I hate to say it since I am a fan of the U.S. Constitution ... you need to understand that it was written two centuries ago and the founders had not the slightest inkling of what was coming. No amount of legislation will ever overcome the reality of the digital world. Fighting it is doing far more harm then help to our nation's economy. We will quibble about the intellectual property, companies will suspend forward progress while fighting patent holding companies that don't produce *anything*, and in the meantime other countries without such qualms will march right on by and take the lead.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (2, Interesting)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709522)

-Software developers all over the world are paid to "perform" their act of programming -so companies have software to use.

-Scientist/researchers are paid to "perform" research by funding agencies - usually government. Pharmaceuticals are a messed up oddity in research -hence why drugs are far too expensive.

-Writers in most fields are paid to "perform" writings for periodicals, not to collect royalties for 100+ years. For books, people pay for paper versions because they like the convenience.

Yeah copyright is useful, but draconian copyright that lasts centuries is pointless and hurts creativity. There are other, more common ways to make money.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713564)

Locklin:

That's an exceptional reply, and had I not posted the original one, you'd get one of my rare modpoints. Thanks for that insight.

I've come up with a theoretical replacement for copyright, one that I use myself. Nothing I produce is held under copyright, it is all pseudo-public domain. Because of this, my own income has gone up significantly more than when I "protected" myself through copyright or subscription-only services.

My system is MoralIP, which has two color: green and red. Green means the topic is freely distributable without referencing the original content producer. Red means the content producer gives you the opportunity to distribute it, but to acknowledge the author. There is no financial tie to either subsystems.

How does one enforce MoralIP? Simple. Imagine a Google-Toolbar-like program that utilizes search engine data to perform comparisons to data, be it text or otherwise. Yes, today's servers and workstations may not be able to handle it real-time, but the power will be there. The toolbar could look up entire pages of text, or even just paragraphs. When it finds a hit, it offers the reader a link to the original author. Say you quote a paragraph on your website without attributing another; this toolbar would instantly tell you where it came from.

The original content creator could submit their content to competitive "comparison engines" (like a search engine) for archiving and proof-of-creation. Someone looking to steal your content would have the liability of being called a fraud or a plagiarizer. Of course this gives no financial protection, but it does increase the original creators reputation to the reader. Those who copy without attribution (unless the content is released into the public domain, or through MoralIP) would be called out instantly, digitally, and without overhead.

The system could be paid for by content creators who wish to be archived as the original. The costs would be minimal, due to the comparison engines feeding the same data into ad-revenue run search engines. Google would be a prime candidate to offer a competitive product.

This also has the ability to give content creators a point of reference as to who is quoting them or using "their" content. Just like a trackback link on my blog tells me who is linking to me, the same feature would be possible in a comparison engine network.

I've laid out a nice summary of this theory, which I unfortunately don't have online (yet). Hopefully some young geek in a garage can implement it, and take the profits to use on whatever he or she wants to.

Re:Videolan has ascii output (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21710864)

You can absolutely perform all of those things, you can "perform" tech support on the software you've created often times for significantly more then you would have received from just a sale of the product, you can perform a lecture on the new drug and techniques and science that went into it or even perform research for new drugs for various companies. You can even perform book readings that will pack entire stadiums, unless of course you have a rather bad voice in which case perhaps you can be like Stephen King who labours constantly to create over a hundred books, rather then attempting to get rich off of one book.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708926)

et there IS a way to make money with music: it's called performing and value added items. When you go to work, say flipping burgers, you're paid for the act of working, the labor. The person who invented the burger doesn't charge fees for the act of making a burger. Music is no different. Making music, the act of writing it, is akin to learning how to make a burger.

Ummmm...

No, it's NOT like flipping burgers. Playing music requires serious skills. Now, playing BAD music requires very little skill, but if everyone is playing music for a living, no one's going to want to go out to hear someone who SUCKS. As a consequence, you will need chops, you will need skills, you will need talent. And sorry, but musical talent is not evenly distributed in the populace. Some are better than others.

So, your fundamental analogy doesn't hold water.

Composition IS a very hard skill to learn. Copyright of music was inherent to the 19th century music practice of composers - most of them made their livings writing minuets and songs to be played around the family piano on saturday evening. The music was PRINTED, and so, copyright became critical to the economic interests of not only the composer, but the music publishing companies that held as mighty a sway in the 19th century as the record companies held in the late 20th.

HOWEVER your other fundamental point about how to make a living in music is dead on accurate. That composition is stuck out in the cold will force changes in how we understand and appreciate music. However, I consider that, on the whole, a good thing. What will survive are those songs that survive into the folk canon - what gets sung around the campfire or the family piano. This will require a resurgence in sheet music, and will make perfect sense as we go down the other side of the energy curve in the next 30 years.

Musicians need to PLAY MUSIC and PLAY IT REALLY WELL. Sure - it was nice to have punk rock where any idiot could pick up a guitar and make music. But sorry - 1977 was 30 years ago. Those days are gone. Talent is needed, and good passionate songwriting combined with authentic and intense performances are the future. Pure and simple.

RS

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

Drive42 (444835) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709324)

Playing good music does not necessarily involve a lot of skill.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

shark72 (702619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713718)

"Recorded music will always have a market value of zero, or close to it. Even $1 per song is too high, and this price will fall."

You mean that recorded music has zero monetary value to you. I'll even wager that all your friends feel the same way: you enjoy acquiring music but you do not think it is worth paying for. No argument there -- but the iTunes Store is seeing its business grow each year, along with the rest of the digital music market. That's the problem that some record companies are having right now: customers are turning away from CDs and buying too many digital tracks.

"All markets rely on supply and demand: as the supply of an item, prices fall. As the demand for an item goes down, prices fall."

The mistake here is not taking into account market behavior. You've taken the behavior of you and your friends (you opt for P2P rather than purchases) and you're attempting to map it to the market as a whole to make a general statement. If your thesis were correct, then fewer and fewer people would be using the iTunes Store as they decide that the correct price for tracks is zero. But the reality is that more and more people are using the iTunes Store. This is simply because the market as a whole does not behave in the same manner as you and your friends.

To use a hypothetical example: it may be the case that nobody you know has an interest in purchasing a Volvo, and thus you might be tempted to state that the price of Volvos will certainly fall. But this statement, like your statement about demand for legal music tracks, does not take the behavior of the entire market into account.

"Digital music has a near-infinite supply. Transfering 3MB of data (say, one song), as a cost of less than 1/2 cents from a server. P2P the cost is trivial and far lower."

You've forgotten that cost is a factor of both supply and demand. The demand for pirated music is not yet enough to stop the iTunes Store from having positive growth. And (I'm sure, unintentionaly), you've confused cost of goods with cost of sale, and not acknowledged that price is a factor of both supply and demand. There are vertical market software vendors which have absolutely no problem hitting their sales forecasts for software that costs upwards of $3,000 per seat -- despite the fact that downloading a copy via P2P would cost very little in terms of bandwidth. The reason is that demand for pirated copies among their target market simply is not big enough.

I acknowledge that the notion that somebody might want to pay for music when they get it for free is, on the face of it, counterintuitive -- but that's not the point. The essential thing to understand that the demand for legal music downloads continues to grow, no matter how irrational this may seem.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713794)

You mean that recorded music has zero monetary value to you. I'll even wager that all your friends feel the same way: you enjoy acquiring music but you do not think it is worth paying for. No argument there -- but the iTunes Store is seeing its business grow each year, along with the rest of the digital music market. That's the problem that some record companies are having right now: customers are turning away from CDs and buying too many digital tracks.

Not true at all. My wife and I don't pirate any music whatsoever. I think we downloaded one album using utorrent, but it was an album that was out-of-print, and the record label had no idea how to acquire it. I also downloaded a soundtrack that was never sold as far as I know, except on LP form (North Shore the movie). Other than that, I've downloaded 20+ albums that we had already purchased, but the CDs were too scratched to RIP to our iPods.

I do morally believe in compensating musicians for the time spent recording. But I don't do it through buying an album always. I produce some records with my money, putting cash up so the musicians can record it. I get a thank-you in the form of hearing that music be completed, seeing them live, and maybe getting my name in the liner notes. Good enough. For most of history, people like me "produced" art by paying for the work to be performed. That still occurs.

The mistake here is not taking into account market behavior. You've taken the behavior of you and your friends (you opt for P2P rather than purchases) and you're attempting to map it to the market as a whole to make a general statement. If your thesis were correct, then fewer and fewer people would be using the iTunes Store as they decide that the correct price for tracks is zero. But the reality is that more and more people are using the iTunes Store. This is simply because the market as a whole does not behave in the same manner as you and your friends.

No, people use iTunes for convenience, and because they have a moral backbone to support the artist. The market price for recorded music is zero. The market price for compensating some musicians has value, but it is above and beyond the music you acquired. It's a sign of wanting to hear more in the future.

The market may not behave like I theorize, yet, but it is moving in that direction. I've worked with over a dozen bands in 2007 who are forgoing CD sales and iTunes as their income source (but still sell them for those who want that convenience), and have moved primarily to playing more shows, and producing more marketable goods that can't be easily duplicated. A few bands even tell their fans to bootleg the CD for their friends -- and these are bands who are covered in Guitar Player magazine, the Chicago Tribune, and MTV. Not big enough to be huge, but big enough to realize their income comes from getting in a van, and playing a gig.

You've forgotten that cost is a factor of both supply and demand. The demand for pirated music is not yet enough to stop the iTunes Store from having positive growth. And (I'm sure, unintentionaly), you've confused cost of goods with cost of sale, and not acknowledged that price is a factor of both supply and demand. There are vertical market software vendors which have absolutely no problem hitting their sales forecasts for software that costs upwards of $3,000 per seat -- despite the fact that downloading a copy via P2P would cost very little in terms of bandwidth. The reason is that demand for pirated copies among their target market simply is not big enough.

And it won't. But the act of piracy is not an act of theft, in my opinion, because a physical item wasn't taken. The same is true for software, which is a market that I am active in (I own a small programming shop). We practically give away our software, but do charge for support. For custom applications, we charge the labor for the act of producing the software, but we don't charge a per-seat fee. Some huge software programs that are easily "pirated" and easy to learn (say, AutoCAD), still have a market for support and updates. The updates could also be "pirated," but the level of quality that corporations demand would seem to me (and is proven, in fact) that the companies are willing to pay up-front for the next version, or the support potential. The software I use, I pay for, but I know that newer versions make me more money by adding to my efficiency in using it.

I acknowledge that the notion that somebody might want to pay for music when they get it for free is, on the face of it, counterintuitive -- but that's not the point. The essential thing to understand that the demand for legal music downloads continues to grow, no matter how irrational this may seem.

Of course it does, and yet the price is still flexible. iTunes offers a great service to many people who WANT to compensate the musicians for their work. That won't change. Yet as more musicians enter the market, and there are more ways to promote the added supply of music creators, I do believe that the current system will fall apart eventually.

I don't think it is irrational that iTunes continues to grow, but not because of the price. The interface is great, and its a huge promotional tool. I even had podcasts moving through it, and I was amazed at the convenience. Yet I don't believe that market can last forever, as the invisible hand of supply-and-demand eventually wins all wars.

I'm just preparing for the future, is all.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

MrDiablerie (533142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21714162)

And how does this logic apply to music that isn't restricted to a typical live band formula? There are a lot of electronic acts out there that I enjoy listening to but are boring as hell to watch live.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21715046)

Obviously electronic music is not economically viable in the New Order. And there's no point writing songs that are too sophisticated or difficult to reliably perform live. No, the only worthwhile music under the New Order is the type of music that makes for a great live show. Which means that in the future, only bands with great costumes and a taste for pyrotechnics will be successful and financially viable--actual musical talent is unnecessary.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

MrDiablerie (533142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21720882)

That must mean in the future every band is like Kiss. Rockin and rollin all night. Then again music talent isn't necessary right now, look at the lip syncers at the MTV video awards.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21720910)

Sure, but with the current system the diversity of available music is beyond anything we've seen in human history. By the way, KISS sucks, and while the truly good bands can put on a live show they shouldn't be required to.

Re:The market value of digital music: zero. (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 6 years ago | (#21734542)

And how does this logic apply to music that isn't restricted to a typical live band formula?
They can collect money for the act of writing that music in the first place. For that matter, so can the bands who are good in a live setting.

Imeem Has A Deal With Snocap (1)

hedkandee (1148031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21708360)

imeem [imeem.com] has a deal with snocap and is using their audio fingerprinting technology [imeem.com] to figure out who owns the copyright on all the music that users upload and who gets paid. Perhaps snocap just has to wait a few more months until imeem's growth brings in some real revenues for snocap, but even this deal makes them more attractive to potential buyers. Conspiracy theorists might raise the possibility that myspace might make a point of purchasing snocap because (a) snocap has a deal with them and (b) they could directly attack imeem.com which is diving headlong into their business by offering the artists a better deal than myspace ever has. While imeem has been paing artists who have their music shared on the site, myspace has resited allowing artists to make anything off music plays on their myspace pages. Myspace has been banning the string 'imeem.com' from their pages for most of this year, so it doesn't sound so ridiculous that they might borrow some more cash from newscorp just to inconvenience a rappidly growing competitor.

What happened with CD Baby and Snocap (4, Interesting)

linuxbaby (124641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21709300)

When not on Slashdot, I'm the owner of CD Baby [cdbaby.com] , which was the largest provider of music to Snocap.

Snocap had everything going for them, and could have probably succeeded, but their execution was so bad that it was unbearable.

Check out my What happened with CD Baby and Snocap [cdbaby.org] article, and especially the comments below it, with all these musicians so frustrated that Snocap won't reply to anybody's emails.

The most brilliant idea, with bad execution, is worth nothing. [oreillynet.com]

it's not melting... (1)

m1ndrape (971736) | more than 6 years ago | (#21711130)

him, lars ulrich and dr. dre spent the last 10 years snorting all that sn0w. real soon lars is gonna make dre real paranoid how they are losing PROFITS!!! and start cap'n everyone's ass, leading way to a new rap about the evils of sn0wcaps. that's right ALL you thieve'n college kids, recognize da copyrights...or this might happen to you.

Shawn Fanning left snocap a long time ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21711266)

This has been all over Valleywag for quite some time. Shawn Fanning long ago moved on to a new company, CEO Rusty Rueff slowly destroyed the original vision.

Why does anyone care what Shawn Fanning does? (1)

scrad (1085217) | more than 6 years ago | (#21713080)

Help me out if I'm missing something here, but for years I read stuff about "Sean Fanning" as if he is some kind of mover and shaker in the online music biz.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here but he's just some geek who wrote a poorly implemented, centralized, file sharing database engine that people used to keep track of who had what music so they could share it, right?

So, what makes that so 'special' that he's a 'guru' in the online music biz? He isn't. He's a guy who wrote a server application to track music on various peoples pc's and facilitated basic transfers between them. Sounds like a weekend project to me.

Even Marc Andresen is a little smarter than that, but not much. And he doesn't deserve the hype or 'respect' he seems to get. The only reason any of these guys get the press they do is because they were 'discovered' by VC firms and others and perceived to be 'smart'. I dare say that the average Slashdotter could have done anything they did better, faster, and with more finesse.

The REAL people behind these things like Snocap are the Wall street or Venture Capitalist guys who talk to some bozo's who come up with the spreadsheets and business plans to build this earth shaking new product. You think Shawn is the driving force behind that? No way. He's just the guy who says "Oh yeah! Great Idea! I can build that with a team of programmers in 6 months for $5 million and 25% stake in the company!".

These are maybe 'above average' programmers. But businessmen? I think not.

But hey, they're millionaires and I'm not. So what do I know?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?