Talk:EMusic

message: "The record labels working with eMusic don't worry about file sharing of their music because eMusic users tend to be older, and less likely to engage in file sharing"
I would do it myself, but it has a reference. I am too lazy to read through the source so I can do a proper rewrite.
67.34.148.250 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence could use a rewrite 

message: On 22:48, 14 December 2007, Easpr vandalized this article to replace a large number of references' links to link to http://emusik.com [sic]. This made the references useless. I manually restored from diff of 11:48, 10 December 2007, the last version with accurate links, with the current version; the reference sections were exactly the same to my examination except for the vandalized targets of links. It was a reasonable amount of work to fix this without reverting all the way back to Dec. 14. Lord only knows I may have made mistakes so others should double-check these targets as well. Is there a way to propose some kind of sanctions against Easpr? Not that it would do a lot of good but I think it's called for. --Steve D (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References were vandalized 

message: It is riddled with unsubstantiated assertions and non sequiturs, like this one: "College students either couldn't or wouldn't pay for music online, so eMusic is more targeted at avid music fans."  The citation for that is an article from 6 years ago.  I think there is very little evidence that "college students couldn't or wouldn't pay" for online music, and if you are going to make that claim--despite the brilliant success of iTunes and, to some extent, some subscription services--cite something modern and relevant.  Furthermore, a 6 year old article does nothing to substantiate the assertion that this is eMusics motivation (which is the clear implication of that sentence).
In short, the section sounds like amateur hour, and should be rewritten.
I concur. Can someone fix this? I don't know anything about eMusic, and this isn't in an encyclopedic tone. J1.grammar natz (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Files' section is very awkward 

message: I removed the following list of publishers and artists, since I don't really think it adds anything significant to the page.  If you want to know exactly whose music eMusic carries, check out their website!
:Music from other popular indie labels such as Merge Records (Spoon, Arcade Fire), Epitaph Records (Bad Religion, NOFX), K Records (Modest Mouse, Built To Spill), Touch and Go (Mekons, Girls Against Boys), TVT Records (Ying Yang Twins, Guided By Voices) and Vice Recordings (The Streets, Bloc Party) are available. 
Starwiz 22:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed (then put back in) long list of publishers and artists 

message: Apple does not currently license this format, preventing competing companies offering their portable players or software media players from playing AAC-encoded files, which is perceived as a reason they have failed to meet financial expectations or compete successfully with Apple.
: I removed the "which is perceived as a reason ..." because it seems like POV. I added the "compete successfully with Apple" before I realized that it was too much info. If you think they should be included, feel free to discuss it. Perhaps they could be put in the other article, or in "See Also" or even a separate "Criticisms of DRM" section. I just think it would be too redundant though. --Lux 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem sentence 

message: i don't see a smooth way to convey in the article that part of eMusic's income is derived from the placement of advertising links on a user's desktop, Internet Explorer and the Start|Program area, in spite of emusic being a paid subscription service. Major software companies such as Symantec routinely remove emusic adware during scans ( http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/adware.emusic.html http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/grayware/ve_GraywareDetails.asp?GNAME=ADW_EMUSIC.A ). During installation neither the EULA nor the Privacy Policy is displayed ( http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=description&virus_k=133850 ).  eMusic may share your personal information with "affiliates, subsidiaries or joint ventures", and with "promotional partners and advertisers"  ( http://www.emusic.com/help/privacypolicy.html ). And before you can even see what songs are offered--or not--you HAVE to give your credit card (just try to get beyond the http://www.emusic.com home page without being taken to the sign-up page).  If you do try their service--if just to see what's there--and forget to cancel, you will be charged every month on your credit card, a tactic pioneered early on by AOL and others.
:The part regarding eMusic requiring you to give your credit card just to see what the service offers simply isn't true, though they're certainly not 100% forthcoming about it. I suggest you add a "Criticism" section to the article, but I would definitely mention that when you do so, you stay fair and even-handed about your approach, because the way you've written this does not come off as neutral. Make sure you watch your grammar as well.
:I'd also like to note that "This security risk must be manually installed" seems to emphasize that eMusic doesn't do anything necessarily virulent when getting you to use their service. In fact, you don't need to download any extra software to use it, and can download MP3s directly from the site. The service is also, unlike AOL, easy to cancel and can be done online.
:To be honest, and I don't mean this to be necessarily rude but just to note your tone, it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder against the service, and since Wikipedia deals with neutrality, you will need to avoid showing any sort of bias against the service. - Stick Fig 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  integration 

message: I could not access the eMusic web site when I wanted to go there to join the service and buy music, as an alternative to iTunes and all the others. The reason I could not access is b/c of my modified hosts file, which is designed to prevent adware/spyware/hyjacks etc.  I am not the only person who uses precautions such as this (and other methods [ie, modification of the privacy settings in the browser]), and I know that others similarly situated may also want to know why they can not connect, and what to do so they can buy music from eMusic. Ask yourself this:  how many people use software that prevents or removes adware/spyware/etc?  Obviously many of those people want to spend money at eMusic, but are unable to connect and don't know why.
cite: see http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt, one of the most popular modified hosts files and cited by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file .
In that list you will find emusic.com, optimost, google-analytics, and many others that flash by too fast to see when the emusic page is attempting to load. Because those sites are blocked, the page will not load--you just get a gray page with www.emusic.com in the address field. SueNami 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it perhaps possible that your hosts file is too aggressive at blocking? Either way, I feel this is not worthy of addition to the article; most mainstream web users would not block hosts this aggressively. - Stick Fig 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ACCESS

message: Just added "traditional music" to the list of genres that Emusic specialises in; two of the last three featured Emusic Dozens in the email newsletter I get have been about American folk music. Motmot 11:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres 

message: I have just joined eMusic and discovered it does not download mp3 format files as stated in the introduction. The downloads are in emp format (whatever that is), and you must download and install their "Download Manager" to convert them to mp3 format.
I think the introduction needs correcting. Can somebody please explain what this "Download Manager" actually is? TiffaF 07:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The EMP format is just a shell to download the MP3 files. You don't even need the download manager to download the MP3s. You can turn off the download manager and download the MP3s straight from the site. So we're keeping it the same. - Stick Fig 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Files are EMP, not MP3 

message: What does age matter in regard to downloading music legally? Are young people thieves? Was eMusic somehow specifically designed for the older crowd? eMusic probably does have a lot of jazz, but that doesn't indicate age either. They have a large number of electronic artists and other "off-beat" genres.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.95.165 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older? 

message: I deleted the mention of watermarking.  The Napster article given as a source is outdated (from 2000, when Napster was still a filesharing service).  The other source and all other information I can find indicate that at most audiobooks are watermarked, and whether or not personally identifiable information is included in those watermarks is undetermined.  On Metafilter, people compared MD5 checksums of music downloaded from two different accounts and found no difference (http://ask.metafilter.com/79103/Does-emusic-use-watermarking), indicating no watermarks. The paragraph also conflicts with the sentence immediately preceding it.  Schlegel (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watermarking 

message: e-music has an amazing number of songs from Indian movies all the way back to the 1940's and also copious (including rare) Indian Classical pieces.  Since I am interested in Indian music this has proved to be a treasure trove.  I wonder how much other ethnic/world music is available here.````rahmboy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahmboy (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Music 

message: Do you get your slate wiped clean, so to speak (number of tracks left refreshed, that is) at the end of every month (for example, you sign up on December 29 and you get 30 tracks to download, then they refresh the number of tracks on January 1) or at the end of a 30-day period (you sign up on December 29 and it gets refreshed on January 28)?  I couldn't find an answer on the eMusic site.  Thanks!--The Great Honker (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The download period is 30 days and refreshes at the end of that period (and appears to apply down to the hour of original subscription), regardless of change of month or year. ChronoSquall14 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about use 

message: Do emusic still require customers use a download app? If so, it could do with a section and I'll see if I can find a source for it. (Personal note: That's the one thing that's stopping me from signing up. I've never had a problem downloading files with my browser, so I'm immediately suspicious when someone wants me to download executable code to fix a non-problem.) --91.85.188.169 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just registered (which was unnecessarily difficult by the way), and all albums and individual tracks I try to download are tiny files with an .emx entension. That's the bad news. The good news is that it's just a simple XML file (looks like xml anyway) containing info like track titles, label, genre and, yes, a direct link to the actual mp3 (or links in the case of an album emx file). I'm guessing this download manager thingy they have just parses the emx file, extracts the download URL and downloads the file. Me, I just did a Cat_(Unix) on it and fed the URL to wget, but I'm sure you could just as well enter the URL in a browser. So yes, they're still making things harder than they have to be, but you can get around it easily. Open the emx file in notepad if you're on windows, paste the url for each track in the address bar of your browser, and there you go; no need for their download manager. Of course, I just registered, so who knows what I'll find later, but for now it looks like you can make their download manager redundant by a modicum of technical finesse. Friendly Cave (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: You can enable or disable the Download Manager by logging in, clicking "Your Account", then "Download Manager Settings".  Like Amazon, the download manager is required to download the whole album.  I've used emusic for two years now, and I have almost never used their download manager (I run Linux, and when I first signed up their Linux client was garbage).  Instead I use a 3rd party download manager called emusicj; it works with both emp and emx files.  Also I should note that although emx files are simple, parsable XML files, the emp ones use some sort of encoding (they're not human readable).SDNick484 (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Download app 

message: Is it true that your account gets deleted after a certain period of inactivity? If so, is there no way to go back and print out a receipt of the tracks you've purchased? SharkD (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says, "eMusic stores a record of user purchases on its internal servers, but does not place any purchaser information inside the tracks that are sold." How can this record be accessed after one cancels one's account? SharkD (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Receipt? 

message: I would like to update much of the information in this article.  Conflict of interest: I work with eMusic.  To begin, I would like to update the first section by deleting the second paragraph "eMusic differs from..." This is out of date as both Rhapsody and Napster are now selling MP3s.  I suggest replacing it with:
eMusic was one of the first sites to sell music in the MP3 format, beginning in 1998.  It differs from other well-known digital music services (iTunes, AmazonMP3) in that it is a download-to-own subscription service.  
I would also like to edit the 3rd paragraph: 
While lauded by the general public, its early support of the MP3 format, lack of digital rights management (DRM) encoding and low price model made the service unappealing to the Big Four record labels until recently.  Prior to July 2009, eMusic sold music from independent labels in all genres  leading it to specialize in underground artists and non-mainstream music genres, including indie rock, pop, jazz, electronica, new age, underground rap, traditional music, classical music, heavy metal, hardcore punk, and experimental music, all on independent labels.
--Melomania (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Start working on it in user space and I'll take a look at it when you're done. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating information 

message: I noticed a lot of complaints against the service on both cnet and other review sites because of the fall advertising that they offer a free trial. As far as I understand the trial is actually a sign-on bonus of several free downloads on top of the monthly fee. Not sure if this deserves a mention anywhere, but if emusic was mroe clear in their terms they would avoid a lot of complaints.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.96.161.163 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with free trials 

message: EisenEimer ,  Dom and Jason are planning to make revisions to this page as part of our Psychology of Internet Behaviour Module in our final year at University. We have selected this page as we have already done detailed reports on EMusic as part of our E-Business Module. The academic research will allow us to contribute updated relevant information to the page.
Yorkshiregeek (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I have not had any feedback from my sandbox so I have taken the plunge and uploaded changes to the introduction and the sidebar. I welcome constructive criticism but be nice seeing as though I am new to this. :) Yorkshiregeek (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ok. There's some really nice info and research there, but it should be be put into the body of the article -- the lead is supposed to be a summery, and in fact the best leads have minimal references as they use statements that are referenced later (check out WP:LEAD for more). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I have taken the notice at the top of the article too seriously with the additional content. :S With the exception of the third paragraph the other elements should form summary information about eMusic, I feel. What if we work the third paragraph into the main sections of the page? Do you think that would be more acceptable? Yorkshiregeek (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  University project 

message: One of the links (4|^ a b Matthew Flamm, "eMusic revamps to stay in tune", "Crain's New York Business", March 20, 2011) requires registration to view the article, is this acceptable or should the information be freely accessible by all viewers? Mynewdomicile (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. A free one is always better, but it's just as acceptable as a reference from a book (remember them?) found in very few libraries, or whatever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paywall Link 

message: I find the heading lacking somewhat, files? should this maybe be file and permissions? Mynewdomicile (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should create a section called 'File format support' thats what Itunes page shows. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking, I'm also concerned about the lack of references relating to certain comments, such as the lower quality VBR bitrate within files? Mynewdomicile (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked the introduction and moved the previous content to the main body. I have also renamed all the sections to make it flow more. Please have a look in my sandbox User:Yorkshiregeek/sandbox to see what I propose. Within this new structure what sections are you working on? As we are one team member down I need to pick up on some of the other sections. Although tidying up references too looks like a challenge? Yorkshiregeek (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to Jason's work I have also some work in my sandbox, creating more headings, possibly structuring the article more? User:Mynewdomicile/sandbox any critique is welcome. Mynewdomicile (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, I was just having a little nose at both your article, and talkpage. We had some kind Wikipedian add a bit of code to help set out our references into columns rather than just a long list, thought I'd give you a heads up. Two squiggly brackets Reflist|colwidth=25em Two squiggly brackets, should do the trick. Good luck for presentation day! Jack Greenaway (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Files heading 

message: I noticed you removed my addition for the category of music streaming. Technically this is now correct. Check this link that shows that they now offer radio streaming. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/08/emusic-adds-a-little-streaming-to-its-mp3-store.html so I do feel this was correct. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emusic Streaming 

message: There is a suggested link on this page to pull the Cductive into the eMusic as it was a company acquired by eMusic it would appear sensible to build that into this page as part of the history of eMusic. Do others agree? We are going to look at how a merge is done as I am not familiar with the process but thought I would stamp my flag on this discussion given we have been editing the page recently. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, just really need the redirect tag dont we? Mynewdomicile (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cductive Merge to eMusic 

message: Being a red link, is it worth creating an article with a redirect to eMusic? 78.147.206.23 (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason why not. Go for it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodnoise 

message: The following sentence: "In 1998, eMusic was the only other provider of music to iPods other than iTunes due to it offering DRM-free music to its customers."
Of course, in 1998 neither iPods nor iTunes even existed.
Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was recently added. Feel free to revert, and even add the correct date. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I've removed the sentence. According to CNN this would have been correct if the date was changed to 2007, but that appears to contradict the Napster (pay service) article. Peter James (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EMusic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901184346/http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/release341.html to http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/release341.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified