Journal orthogonal's Journal: Emusic.com acquired; pricing plan to change 4
I submitted this as an article; of course, it was rejected. So I'm posting it as my first "journal".
Emusic.com, which I first heard about in a Slashdot comment, and which I strongly promoted on Slashdot for its DRM-free, "unlimited" downloads of quality MP3s for a low ($9.99-14.99) monthly subscription price, has significantly changed its policies.
Emusic.com has been acquired by Dimensional Associates LLC, which is either going to brilliantly leverage its investment, or (I suspect) kill the golden goose.
Beginning 8 November 2003, will end "unlimited" downloads (they actually limited it at about 2000 tracks per month) in favor of a new teired pricing plan:
- $9.99 for 40 tracks per month (25 cents per track)
- 14.99 for 65 tracks per month (23 cents per track)
- or, supposedly for current subscribers only, $50 for 300 tracks per month (17 cents per track)
While these rates are still significantly less than iTunes, BuyMusic, or the new Napster, it wasn't the rate per se that made emusic so attractive. What made emusic work for me was paying a single set rate, and knowing that I didn't need to worry about losing out if I downloaded a dud, because a dud only cost me the time to download it. If I didn't like it, I'd just download something else.
The other virtue of emusic was to open up classical music for me: not only didn't I have to worry about downloading a bad rendition, I was also able to build up a large collection of classical, exploring different style or different renditions of the same composition.
Being limited to 40 or 65 tracks (from three to six albums) per month, I'll have to start worrying: is this album worth downloading, or should I use my limited downloads for something else?
In the year I've been with emusic, I've probably downloaded an average of 500 tracks per month, paying $9.99 per mobth to do so, for an average track price of two cents. I can understand why emusic would want more than two cents per track. But I can't justify $50 per month -- $600 per year -- for that, I might as well get the cable tv I've successfully avoided for years.
At $9.99 per month, it's 25 cents per track, but I don't have that same freedom to take the risk of downloading a dud album.
So it's likely I'll be ending my subscription. I won't be going to KaZaa; I want to get my music legally. What does Slashdot suggest as a replacement for emusic? What do you think a fair and sustainable price per track is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I think you're seeing it right (Score:2)
What front page article? I missed it.
But since I don't have emusic, I'm unfamiliar with how it works. Can you only download albums, or can you download individual tracks?
You can download individual tracks. I never did this, as I figured one track might not be representative, and I had no good way of organizing/cataloging individual tracks.
I'm guessing they were flat losing money from bandwidth and licensing.
Maybe so. At my download rate, they'd make about 2 c
Re: (Score:2)
noooo (Score:2)
Since I tend to download like a maniac, having grabbed some 20 or so cds in the first week of my subscription, this new pricing scheme will make me drop my emusic account.
I like the site, and I like supporting artists, but I'm a fan of the unlimited subscription pricing model, so I'll be canceling my subscription.