Forgive us, folks, we just can't seem to get off this whole BuyMusic.com thing. We just stumbled across a USA Today article on the new venture and there are a few things in there we just can't let pass without comment. Like, say, the title. "Unlimited downloads are now PC"? What exactly about BuyMusic can be described as "unlimited download"? This isn't an all-you-can-listen-before-the-company-goes-under subscription service, it's a pay-per-song deal. Color us confused.

Moving on, the confusion in the press over just what it is that BuyMusic is offering continues apace; first there was that Associated Press article claiming that all of BuyMusic's 300,000 songs were 70 cents apiece; USA Today gets the price right ("as little as 79 cents each, though most sell for 99 cents or $1.19"), but claims that BuyMusic has "350,000 songs." We realize that most of these articles need to be written ahead of time, but is there a particular reason why they can't be edited for accuracy once the real deal is in big green and yellow letters on the BuyMusic home page? Yeesh.

Next, there's the question of just which recreational narcotic Buy.com's Scott Blum is abusing; the guy actually claims to be prepared to sell 1 million songs a day. Tough talk from a guy whose servers unceremoniously soiled themselves for several hours on their first day of business. "I expect to do 200 million to 300 million downloads in the first year," he says. Mmmmm, yeah. Whether or not he's really got the infrastructure in place to move roughly 3 terabytes of data every day, we'll be pretty surprised if demand levels out to much more than a tenth that after the initial launch-- once people realize just how little they're getting for their money.

More on the "What Is Scott Blum Smoking?" front: you just gotta love the guy's comments about the iPod. When confronted with the fact that BuyMusic's songs won't work on an iPod, he actually described the top-selling digital music device by saying "it's like building the best car in the world, yet it doesn't use everyone's gas." Okay, Scott, so what you're saying is that Microsoft's WMA format (what BuyMusic uses) is "everyone's gas"? Funny, we'd have thought it was MP3. (Or 87 octane unleaded.) You do realize that the iPod works just fine with MP3s and Windows, right? Scott? Exhale, buddy, exhale!!

Then there's the business of advertising: BuyMusic is kicking off with a "$40 million ad campaign," which, in addition to mocking Apple's own iTunes Music Store, apparently focuses largely on "near-naked rocker Tommy Lee," including his oh-so-charming likeness on the "world's largest billboard" in Times Square. Come on, guys, haven't the good people of New York City suffered enough in the past few years? Meanwhile, EMI's Ted Cohen asserts that "the reason Apple has done so well is they've advertised it really well." What do you think, people? Is this the first time that anyone has accused Apple of "advertising well"? We thought the AppleMusic.com commercials were cute, but we certainly wouldn't describe them as "pervasive." We think the iTMS has done really well because Mac users know a good value when they see it.

Whatever. We're done for now, mostly. Gee, we think we just got a full week's worth of rants finished up in one day-- woo-hoo, early weekend and party at the beach!