Looks like major labels may take the Janis Ian article to heart.
(And the chorus of thousands who point out the same fact:
discovering a new artist online may encourage one to
go out and buy the albums.)

Universal is releasing 1,000 of its 11,000 albums online to Emusic. Yours to burn on CD, put on your iPod, or even use
on that little car player some of us have. Available "all you
can eat" for a $10 monthly fee.

They are the first major label to do this.

Granted, it's probably the 1000 lowest-selling albums iin their
inventory. But that's the whole point, isn't it? Expose us
to some new (or very old) stuff.
It's not like a very high percentage of new albums are worth
the cheap plastic they're burned on.

The AP story is here.

Set your DSL modems on stun!

Only time will tell how that turns out. The industry is forever changeing, just as you get settled in on one way up pops another new plan. (normally for the better) lets see where it takes us this time?

Set your DSL modems on stun!

Ha! Gonna save that line!

In the article they say they are hoping people download and then buy the album. I don't buy anything I have downloaded from emusic. Don't the record labels get any money from emusic. I thought that was why they charge a fee so they can pay the copyright holders.

Isn't emusic like 128kps?

Accoring to their FAQ, yes, they are at 128kbps.

And in an amusing example of ``well, at least you tried'', the question to which that is an answer is:

At what bitrate are EMusic's MP3s encoded at?

yes but I guess it sounds good to me. I don't download classical or anything like that just mostly punk and alternative.

Plus I doubt I could tell the difference between encoding rates without comparing side by side and since I don't have the cd that won't happen.

That sucks. It's like they want people to start paying for their online music, but they don't provide good quality mp3's! I've got no problem paying a monthly fee for my music (I do for my tv programmes, so why not my music?) but I'm not going to as long as they only provide 128kbps! Good God, I've abandoned 128kbps a LONG time ago. I use AT LEAST 192kbps (preferably even higher AND VBR, though I could live with 192kbps CBR).

I hope they're not using this as a test case, 'cause then I can imagine when it fails they'll say : "see, we gave people the opportunity now and it's STILL not a success!"
Of course not! If DVD's only had VHS quality and no 5.1 sound I can guarantee you that they would have failed as well, innovating or not.

I hate to say it, but not everyone thinks like you. Imagine all the college students out there who download music. The vast majority do not care about 128 bitrates. They especially don't care on their 15 watt dorm room computer speakers.

What this is is a way for you to guiltlessly download presumably well done songs at high speeds. I assume the connection to these downloads will be faster than the usual P2P. I also think that despite the 128kbps, you will still get better quality rips than the average P2P network will offer, presumably free of clicks and pops and bad info.

Basically, the quality of 128kbps MP3s in this method should be better than the 128kbps MP3s from most P2P.

Of course, if this catches on well, we should presumably have all those lovely new MP3s on our free P2P programs

your right, up until I got my Empeg, I downloaded and ripped nothing higher than 128 to save space, Amazingly there isnt much sound difference when played straight out of the computer through my home stereo. But I can definately tell the difference now, even some 192k rips just dont sound up to par.
But Like I used to be, most dont care, and can download a lot more at 128k

Actually, I would say that today's college students have much higher standards for music quality than the rest of the population. I've met very few people in college who listen to their music on the proverbial "computer speakers", and if they do, they are usually quick to justify it by pointing out the high end system in their car.