Teen's Eagle Scout Project Used In O'Hare Security
Cell Phone Could Warn Of Gas Leaks

Tommy Lee's Naked Eloquence On File Sharing

Say That Again

from the so-convincing dept

Fri, Jul 25th 2003 2:19am — Mike Masnick
Part of the promotional campaign for the Buy.com's new BuyMusic service is to have well known musician Tommy Lee posing naked on a huge billboard in Times Square to "make the case" that downloading music on file sharing services is bad. I'm not exactly sure how a naked Tommy Lee proves that file sharing networks are bad, but I guess I just needed to hear his convincing argument. Tommy Lee was on hand to unveil his nakedness and told everyone, "when people steal music, it sucks." Aha. Case closed. Is he trying to tell us that if we went out and bought his music he'd keep his damn clothes on? Meanwhile, as more details come out about BuyMusic.com it sounds like a weak copy of the other, dreadful music services that are already out there. They're being incredibly misleading in their advertising, and are offering digital music in restrictive formats. The advertisements say songs are $0.79, but they actually range from $0.79 to $1.29 - and most of the popular songs are on the higher end. Also, there isn't much you can do with the song once you download it. You're limited in ways to get it off your computer. You can only burn it to CD a limited number of times, it can only be played on a single computer, and they won't work on most digital music players. This really doesn't sound all that different than the old, dreadful, PressPlay - just without the subscription fees. So, no Tommy, the fact is, when the music industry puts up awful attempts at offering music where they do everything possible to restrict the consumer from actually listening to the music - that sucks.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Harry Payne, 25 Jul 2003 @ 4:13am

    Tommy missed the perfect example...

    ...now, snaps of naked Tommy and Pamela from that infamous video would serve as a perfect example of what happens when your "valuable intellectual property" gets pirated.
    Can't see that on the billboards though.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    thecaptain, 25 Jul 2003 @ 7:42am

    No Subject Given

    Yeah like I'm ever going to be influenced by what Tommy or Pamela says.

    These people are so far away from reality that they don't even have a passing acquaintance with it.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Adam Haberlach, 25 Jul 2003 @ 10:19am

    Shrug.

    At least they are trying. You complain that $1.29/track is too much, but it seems that you will not be satisfied until all music is absolutely free. That's not a market. While you, as a consumer, help to set the price, you cannot demand that it meet your needs so long as there are other pressures involved.

    It still sounds like this is progress: it is per-song, you can burn CDs, and they are at least acknowledging the existence of digital players.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 25 Jul 2003 @ 10:43am

      Re: Shrug.

      My argument is not that all songs must be absolutely free. My argument is that they're not going to convince many consumers to stick around very long if they have restrictive and misleading policies in place. I'm looking at it from a business perspective, and these companies are misleading and angering potential customers when they have other alternatives. That's just not good business.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Mark F, 25 Jul 2003 @ 2:19pm

        Re: Shrug.

        Comments by the site's founder in various article indicate they he wants the same type of deal as iTunes has but he could not get the music companies to agree to it. I doubt any business plan starts with, "make it the same cost as our competitor but more annoying to use."

        Hopeful the music companies will come around.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2003 @ 11:54am

      Re: Shrug.

      Any network like this is by definition competing with the open networks. In order to convince people to pay for something that they can get for free, the network has to offer something that the open networks don't at a price that the consumer will be willing to pay. They can set their price as high as they want, but if large numbers of people don't think it's worth the money, the company will fail.

      There are really only three main areas where a proprietary network could beat the open network: reliability, size of catalog, and guaranteed file quality. If any of those things is lacking, their value proposition decreases proportionally. A restrictive file format also lessens the value proposition because it makes the for-pay file less desirable than its free counterpart.

      The market will set the price eventually, but I'm betting $1.29 is too much. In fact, I suspect $0.79 is too much for a service with this many flaws.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2003 @ 7:07pm

    Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

    First: I don't use credit cards. Not even debit cards. ...and until there is a good anonymous, easy to use, cash to credit and back again system usable with the Internet, I won't ever.

    Second: Why in bloody hell would I pay $1 a song, when I can rent and rip for almost the exact same price.

    Third: The cat is already out of the bag. The RIAA will fail with their scare tactics and there will still be file traiding 1 year from now, 5 years from now and 10 years from now....

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      1337kr3w, 4 Aug 2003 @ 3:02am

      Re: Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

      i will never feel sorry for guys who complain the ylost half there profit,,so the yhad to settle for 3 million dollars ONLY,,boo god damn hoo. There producy is that much because there "PEOPLE" told them to make it that much,,now we all know its 10 cents a cd-,,and they have music "PROFESSIONAL" software that could alot of what the machines do.i SHARE with a smile.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      1337kr3w, 4 Aug 2003 @ 3:05am

      Re: Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

      i will never feel sorry for the pimps and hoes,lol, who complain they lost half there profit,,so they had to settle for 3 million dollars ONLY,,boo god damn hoo. There product is that much because there "PEOPLE" told them to charge that much,if they werent trying to get rich in one yaer,i might feel different, you know if they actually worked year round for twenty years,now we all know its 10 cents a cd-,,and they have music "PROFESSIONAL" software that could alot of what the machines do.i SHARE with a smile,and ecnourage more people who do!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jamm, 11 Jul 2004 @ 9:56pm

      Re: Why iTunes and BuyMusic don't work for me...

      I completly agree, File sharing will always be available, most people prefer ' free ' music ! The RIAA, with a little help from Metallica, thought file sharing would fade, after the whole Napster shutdown. It didnt work, It just gave others more insentive to create a new file sharing programs. Free vs Pay ? Free will always win here.
      Why even consider the cash to credit system ? those who choose to pay $$ to download ? Just get some good free ones, from a choice, popular sharing tool. theres many available. Download, Burn , Delete, and call it , a great mix !

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Teen's Eagle Scout Project Used In O'Hare Security
Cell Phone Could Warn Of Gas Leaks
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.