shut up and pay !

RSS
Condividi

Mar 31 2009, 22:33

".......we need to ask our listeners from countries other than USA, UK and Germany to subscribe for €3.00 per month...."
Commenti accettati
Fuck CB$, sysel's empire

Commenti

  • jirkanne

    Territory ...............................Internet Users US ........................................220,000,000 UK ...........................................43,221,464 DE ...........................................55,221,183 Rest of World ..................1,263,128,942

    Apr 1 2009, 0:41
  • konzument

    Share this journal with sysels ... (there is some button for it)

    Apr 3 2009, 17:23
  • jirkanne

    Interesting discussion in the Journal of user "uneasthetic" : " ... STOP WHINING AND PAY FOR SOMETHING FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE 2 Apr 2009, 21:04 i'm totally sick of the "keep last.fm free" and "strike from scrobbling" mewling bullshit that's going on at the moment. where did this sickening sense of entitlement come from? 1) last.fm is a BUSINESS. you've been using their services for free up till now. YOU'RE WELCOME. now pay for something. offline, you don't get shit for free. i can't walk into record stores and take all the music i fancy for free. to do that, i download things. (and feel guilty about it). i buy music whenever i can. 2) last.fm PAYS ROYALTIES to the bands who have music on here. where is this cash supposed to come from? not from the bail-out package for the banks, that's for sure. pay your way. 3) the main functionality of the site, the reason most of us are here in the first place - the collating of STATS - is unaffected. so from now on last.fm will only make charts for music you've PAID FOR or DOWNLOADED FOR FREE from somewhere else. boo fucking hoo. 4) i've liked this site from the moment i started using it. i've been a paid user for a couple of years, and i live in the uk where i don't have to pay for it. i'm a student and work part-time, but i can still afford to pay for this site. it's like £18 a year or something. if you can't afford that, you probably have more important things to worry about in your own life. i don't mean that to sound callous, but this site relates to our consumption of consumer goods. if you're not willing or unable to shell out the price of one album PER YEAR to have SHITLOADS of FREE MUSIC at your fingertips, then all i can really say is FUCK OFF AND STOP COMPLAINING. ..."

    Apr 4 2009, 21:32
  • jirkanne

    Reply to user "unaesthetic" by user "Ambybunny": "...3 Apr 2009, 16:48 No, you're looking at the whole thing like we are complaining about costs. That's not the issue. Also, using the caps lock doesn't make what you are saying any more coherent. I'm going to contrast on your points one by one here: 1. Last.fm was never about delivering free music. Rest of the stuff you wrote has no place there since you are only using classical "piracy is theft" arguments that have been proven wrong time and time after in an argument that is not even about piracy. By the way, it's totally ok to not feel bad about downloading or streaming music. Do you feel bad listening to the radio too? Do you buy every piece of music you hear? 2. Last.fm pays royalties for licensed music, so what? Is that supposed to make me any more sympathetic to them failng in the advertising department? What's that got to do with me anyhow, I'm not on last.fm to find out about licensed music, I'm here to find and tell about free music. I'm also not interested to hear this argument that it's the licensing that costs money. Of course it does, but why do you think the copyright industry is entitled to my money? I don't even listen to their music, well, not too much anyway. Why not do what the people at the group Free For Free are asking and provide royalty free music for free? We don't care what they do with the licensed music. They could shove it up their... I bet you thought you knew what I was going to say. ;) Anyway it doesn't much concern us. 3. Too bad, but you are wrong. Audioscrobbler and Last.fm were totally separate projects which merged in 2005. Last.fm main functionality till that point was to provide with "an internet radio station and music community site, using similar music profiles to generate dynamic playlists". 4. This is essentially the same argument as 1. Just more bickering about how low the cost is. As I've said before, it is not about the cost. It's about equality and freedom. Here's what the last.fm about us page says: "Last.fm has always been about making music culture more democratic: everyone listening to music how they want to, when they want to. Without a middle man making your decisions for you." I am a subscriber, but I do not support ther latest actions. That's why I'm leaving, I think this company has shown it is willing to break its promises for reasons of greed and thus can not be trusted any longer. Whether they are solely responsible for this is not my primary concern, which is only that they have chosen to disrespect, discriminate against and divide most of their target audience and the communities on their site. That's my main gripe with Last.fm. ..."

    Apr 4 2009, 21:36
  • jirkanne

    also interesting point of user "franko-gap" : "...Actually, it is YOU who GIVE THEM STATISTICS for free, not them to you. They can sell those statistics to record companies and to various advertizers (i.e. fashion ads, audio players ads, etc. any who could benefit of music-listening statistics), and I am sure they ARE doing it. The statistics you see for free are just a part of the whole picture. The gratis radio was a cool recompensation for giving them gratis statistic. A fair trade. Now we are left without it. They expect us to still give them gratis statistics, even if we have to pay for the radio, even if they don't give us anything in return. i think it is not a fair trade. So I am refusing it. We all are. As simple as that. We are just asking back what we had all the time: a radio in return for statistics. ..."

    Apr 4 2009, 22:34
  • jirkanne

    interesting calculations by user "Alatelen" : How much the subscriptions really cost Here's a little calculation I did for a journal comment. I'll repost it here: According to Worldsalaries.org( http://www.worldsalaries.org/ ), the gross annual average salary in Brazil is 9,801 reals, or 817 reals per month. According to Google, 1 GBP is 3.316 reals, and a subscription of 1.40 pounds would therefore cost Brazilians 4.64 reals, or 0.57% (about 1/200) of their monthly income. The gross annual average salary in the UK is 32,602 GBP, or 2717 pounds per month. A subscription of 1.40 pounds costs the average British 0.052% (about 1/2000) of their monthly income. As you can see, the Brazilians end up paying over 10 times as much as the Brits. As a thought exercise, to see how large that sum is for the Brazilians, multiply your county's average monthly salary by 0.0057. That's how much it hurts their pockets. For the average British citizen, this cost would be .0057 x 2717 = 15.49 pounds For the average American, it would cost 19.96 dollars. For a German the subscription's cost would be 16.58 euros (although the Euro cost varies depending on one's country). ...Seems a little harsh for an Internet radio, right?

    Apr 9 2009, 10:37
  • jirkanne

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

    Apr 10 2009, 11:11
  • Drive-In

    i don't want to pay. russia

    Set 10 2009, 20:22
Visualizza tutti (10 commenti)
Aggiungi un commento. Accedi a Last.fm o registrati (è gratuito).