Re: [ElectronicMusic] mp3.com

["matt davignon" <mattdavignon@hotmail.com>]

Well, to be honest, nothing comes from the pockets of artists who don't 
get 
lots of plays. Not our pockets, just the ability to use their site. If you 
do get lots of plays, say $20 per month or more, then it's definitely 
worth 
your while to subscribe to this service. You'll get your space AND money 
back on your investment.

You do bring up an intersting point though. If somebody pays the $20 per 
month, they get a share of the advertising revenue that their page brings 
in. At the same time, though, the ads are removed from their page. Does 
this 
mean that they stop getting paid? Probably not, but it's a good sign that 
mp3.com didn't really think this thing through before starting it.

>From: "phalen orion" <phalen180@infin8ty.com>
>
>mp3.com premium artist services is a scheme by which the money that 
>mp3.com
>pays out to those who get lots of plays/downloads comes from the pockets 
>of
>those who DON'T get lots of plays.  Those who don't want to participate 
>will
>get slower (or nonexistent) service and have to suffer with ads placed on
>their artist pages without any compensation.  Sure this is good for 
>mp3.com,
>but is it really good for the artists?  I don't think so.

>and if mp3.com is basically going to be artist-supported and
>advertising-free (by making the "premium" services the de facto standard),
>that's fine... but I for one don't want to give them my money.

Funny you should put this way. If you asked the artists on mp3.com if they 
wanted the site to be artist-supported and advertsing free, most would 
probably say yes. Not when they're doing it this way though.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com