Talk:Open music model

message: I'm not sure how relevant the comparison with Yahoo Music is, so I think I'm gonna remove it sometime soon if nobody has a good reason for it to be left in. I was just looking at their site, and from what I can tell, their plan has a lot more in common with the Napster pay service than with the open music model.  You pay the $5 a month fee and you can download and play songs on your computer, but you have to pay individually for each song you want to burn to a CD.  And if you want to play the songs on an mp3 player, you have to pay an additional monthly fee, and if you unsubscribe then the songs won't pay any more.  So like with the new Napster, you're essentially just renting the songs.  Anyway, with that reference, I'm concerned that we'll either be providing misleading advertising for Yahoo, or misinforning people about the alleged impact of the Open Music Model on commercial distribution schemes like Yahoo's.  (I don't have any reason to believe that the $5 a month rate in both systems isn't just coincidental.)  Generic69 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific suggestion of a $5 per month price point is what is interesting as well as its subsequent adoption by Yahoo two years later. Doesn't seem coincidental considering that research showed $5 was the optimal point. -- Kzm 06:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahoo! music comparison

message: I'm moving other research listed in the article here, which isn't specific to the Open Music Model:
Later studies, such as one conducted in 2003 by Amanda Lenhart,
 agreed with these findings. Lenhart's study found that:
* 29% of internet users illegally download files to their computers
* 21% of internet users share files with others, such as in peer-to-peer networks
* 51% of those aged 18 to 29, 53% of those 12-17, nearly 75% of boys aged 15-17, had downloaded music
* 6 million individuals would be looking for music to download on any given day
Bass Lead (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Research 

message: I'm unclear on how the subscription service is supposed to pay the musicians in the open music model. Is there any criticism of the OMM that we can cite? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article is incomplete.   The describe the model an end to end flow of money needs to be shown.   How do musicians get paid?, is it by the number of downloads?   What do musicians think about this model?   Also, could this model be applied to other forms of intellectual property?FreeFlow99 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is this, written by University of Georgia School of Business professor David Lowery, also lead singer in Camper Van Beethoven. It criticizes the "new music business" scathingly and documents how the technology industry is paying musicians far less money than the music industry used to. However, it doesn't mention that Open Music Model directly. Do you think we could use this here? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who pays the musicians 

message: The naming of spotify subscriptions may be slightly confused in this article. Spotify offers two subscriptions, called "premium" and "unlimited". Only the "unlimited" subscription is US$5 per month. While they both may be considered premium subscriptions in general, in this case it might be prudent to offer some clarification.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.214.59 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spotify Subscription