iConfused

[c9]

Alright so I have this iPod now, and I'm putting music on it and all that shit. Some notes:

1. iTunes SUCKS. It's insanely slow. Also, it's slow.
2. Country-by-country iTunes stores suck too. I like the free US track this week, but can't download it because I'm in Canada and the Canadian store doesn't have that track for free. The free Canadian one is garbage.
3. I know there's all sorts of DRM on these things, although it apparently has been cracked, so somebody emailing me the song won't work, will it?
4. Now that I can store 100 songs, I obviously want more! I need to get a new hard drive, digitize all my CDs, and then get an iPod nano so I can listen to them all.
5. I need to win the lottery.

Comments

[c9.livejournal.com]

Oh certainly. But AOLTimeWarnerPepsiSony saying "we're trying to protect our poor artists!" strikes me as disingenuous: they're trying to protect their profits, like any company would. Rather than saying labels (since that means tiny ones too... anybody can have a label these days) perhaps I should say "evil corporate masters." :-)

[rebelprince26.livejournal.com]

well, if they can't make a profit then neither can their artists, right? they actually are protecting the artists. and trying to make enough money to support the very high risk involved in breaking new artists. it's a really tough business. only 10% of albums released each year break even. that means 90% lose money.

[c9.livejournal.com]

But rather than attack that problem, many labels are now releasing less and less albums, and spending all thir promotion dollars on designated "superstar" releases, meaning that the new artist that could hit it big is never heard, most of the time.

Additionally, some people think that labels are a little obsolete now, and some artists are in fact making money selling directly. Labels are required under the old no-internet system, but may not be as necessary now.