[atlantaprog] Re: Major Labels

Let them die.  It's a business model that is on its last legs.  Everyone has 
already described what the problems are, and I agree with all those points.  
But I'd like to observe the delicious, delicious irony:  In the very striving 
of the controllers of the music industry to maximize both profit and control 
over the system, the have both lost control and squandered their profits.  Heh.
 
Just think -- almost 10 years ago, the entire industry COULD have gotten into a 
bidding war over Napster and locked up P2P and digital distribution at the 
outset.  Instead, they got Lars Ulrich to open his mouth (pretty much always a 
bad idea) and started suing teenagers.
 
Their loss, as anyone can see from looking at iTunes.  
 
 
 
 



> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:20:57 -0400> From: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: 
> ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: atlantaprog Digest V4 #136> > atlantaprog 
> Digest Tue, 02 Oct 2007 Volume: 04 Issue: 136> > In This Issue:> 
> [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> [atlantaprog] 
> Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead 
> once again changing the rules...> [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again 
> changing the rules...> [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again changing the 
> rules...> [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> 
> [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> [atlantaprog] 
> Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead 
> once again changing the rules...> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > 
> From: Andrew Tegethoff <ategethoff@xxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: 
> Radiohead once again changing the rules...> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:16:43 
> -0400> > Hah! Welcome to the future, bitchez! > > Seriously though, this move 
> is garnering this level of attention because it is a huge thumb in the eye of 
> the record industry as it has existed for a century. This really is the 
> breakthru event it's being hyped as -- an artist of this magnitude shunning 
> the entire system is nothing to sneeze at. I mean, even Prince had to go back 
> to the well after a bit. I don't know that RH will. I think they've got the 
> biz smarts and the artistic street cred to make this work.> > I'm all for it. 
> I'll definitely get the record, don't know if I'll DL or buy the boxset. > > 
> > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:24:45 -0400> From: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> To: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: atlantaprog Digest V4 #135> > atlantaprog 
> Digest Mon, 01 Oct 2007 Volume: 04 Issue: 135> > In This Issue:> 
> [atlantaprog] Radiohead once again changing the rules...> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > 
> From: Allen Welty-Green <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] 
> Radiohead once again changing the rules...> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:50:09 
> -0400> > Record labels? Who needs 'em?> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/01/ > 
> bcnradio101.xml> > Radiohead to give away new album> By Angela Monaghan> Last 
> Updated: 4:51pm BST 01/10/2007> > Shane Richmond: It's been done before, but 
> this time it is Radiohead> > In a break from industry tradition the UK band 
> famous for hits > including Creep, Paranoid Android and Karma Police, has 
> told fans > "it's up to you" what they pay to digitally download the album.> 
> > Thi> s isn't the first time that an artist has opted to charge nothing > 
> for its album, but the move is significant because Radiohead remains > one of 
> the biggest bands in the world.> > Radiohead is free to sell its album 
> directly from its official > website because it is no longer tied to a record 
> label. So far the > album is only available to pre-order from the website, 
> where it can > be downloaded on release on October 10.> > While loyal fans 
> are likely to want to pay the band something, > customers could opt to pay as 
> little 45p - the credit card handling fee.> > advertisement> The album is 
> also available separately as part of a £40 box-set which > includes the album 
> on CD, two vinyl records, a CD with additional > songs, photos, artwork and 
> lyrics.> > It is Radiohead's first album since Hail to the Thief, which was > 
> released in 2003 after which the band's contract with EMI/Capitol > expired.> 
> > It is likely that many of its millions of die-hard fans will be > unable to 
> resi> st buying the box-set, available in December, while > Radiohead will 
> not be required to share its profits with either a > record label or shops.> 
> > Radiohead could even benefit from those who ignore the box set and > choose 
> to pay nothing to download the album from Radiohead's online > shop, where 
> they will be required to register their details and > therefore become 
> targets for future marketing campaigns.> > Free albums also drive demand for 
> live tours, which translate to > pound signs for the artists behind them. A 
> great example of this is > Prince, who in July gave away his album 3121 for 
> free in the UK > through the Daily Mail.> > He subsequently announced 21 tour 
> dates in London, all of which sold > out.> > Radiohead has the financial 
> welly and is sufficiently well-known to > be confident enough that the move 
> is a risk worth taking, but it > might also become an answer for those lesser 
> known bands that > struggle to be signed by a record label, or are reluctant 
> to share> > their profits.> > ------------------------------> > End of 
> atlantaprog Digest V4 #135> *********************************> > 
> _________________________________________________________________> Climb to 
> the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with 
> star power.> 
> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct> > 
> ------------------------------> > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 12:10:36 -0700 (PDT)> 
> From: BK Broyla <bkbroyla@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead 
> once again changing the rules...> > According to another article I read on 
> this, when someone buys a song for $1 from iTunes, Apple keeps about 30c and 
> the record co gets 70c, of which 8 to 14c goes to the artist. So for a $10/10 
> song album the artist gets a maximum of $1.40, which is roughly the same for 
> a physical cd sold in a shop for $15. So if half the fans download this for 
> free and half pay only $5, RH gets $2.50 which is far better for them. And 
> that's disregarding the idea that many fans will get this $75 box set with 
> the 2 cds and 2 vinyl LPs, which (minus shipping/handling/production costs) 
> is pure gravy for them. And those who download even for free off their 
> website have to register so they get valuable marketing contact info for them 
> to promote tours, future records, merch, etc.> It's a stroke of genius for 
> RH. And the same indy, bootstrap idea helps unknowns take it to a higher 
> level. My only question is, can you use this idea to run the whole path, from 
> unknown to RH's level? I suspect the large record cos are still useful for 
> getting you the exposure from low-level to hugely famous, but at the bottom 
> and top ends you probably don't need them.> > BK> > Andrew Tegethoff 
> <ategethoff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } 
> body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Hah! Welcome to the 
> future, bitchez! > > Seriously though, this move is garnering this level of 
> attention because it is a huge thumb in the eye of the record industry as it 
> has existed for a century. This really is the breakthru event it's being 
> hyped as -- an artist of this magnitude shunning the entire system is nothing 
> to sneeze at. I mean, even Prince had to go back to the well after a bit. I 
> don't know that RH will. I think they've got the biz smarts and the artistic 
> street cred to make this work.> > I'm all for it. I'll definitely get the 
> record, don't know if I'll DL or buy the boxset. > > > > > > > > 
> ---------------------------------> > > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:24:45 -0400> 
> > From: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: 
> atlantaprog Digest V4 #135> > > > atlantaprog Digest Mon, 01 Oct 2007 Volume: 
> 04 Issue: 135> > > > In This Issue:> > [atlantaprog] Radiohead once again 
> changing the rules...> > > > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > 
> From: Allen Welty-Green <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> > Subject: [atlantaprog] 
> Radiohead once again changing the rules...> > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:50:09 
> -0400> > > > Record labels? Who needs 'em?> > 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/01/ > > 
> bcnradio101.xml> > > > Radiohead to give away new album> > By Angela 
> Monaghan> > Last Updated: 4:51pm BST 01/10/2007> > > > Shane Richmond: It's 
> been done before, but this time it is Radiohead> > > > In a break from 
> industry tradition the UK band famous for hits > > including Creep, Paranoid 
> Android and Karma Police, has told fans > > "it's up to you" what they pay to 
> digitally download the album.> > > > This isn't the first time that an artist 
> has opted to charge nothing > > for its album, but the move is significant 
> because Radiohead remains > > one of the biggest bands in the world.> > > > 
> Radiohead is free to sell its album directly from its official > > website 
> because it is no longer tied to a record label. So far the > > album is only 
> available to pre-order from the website, where it can > > be downloaded on 
> release on October 10.> > > > While loyal fans are likely to want to pay the 
> band something, > > customers could opt to pay as little 45p - the credit 
> card handling fee.> > > > advertisement> > The album is also available 
> separately as part of a £40 box-set which > > includes the album on CD, two 
> vinyl records, a CD with additional > > songs, photos, artwork and lyrics.> > 
> > > It is Radiohead's first album since Hail to the Thief, which was > > 
> released in 2003 after which the band's contract with EMI/Capitol > > 
> expired.> > > > It is likely that many of its millions of die-hard fans will 
> be > > unable to resist buying the box-set, available in December, while > > 
> Radiohead will not be required to share its profits with either a > > record 
> label or shops.> > > > Radiohead could even benefit from those who ignore the 
> box set and > > choose to pay nothing to download the album from Radiohead's 
> online > > shop, where they will be required to register their details and > 
> > therefore become targets for future marketing campaigns.> > > > Free albums 
> also drive demand for live tours, which translate to > > pound signs for the 
> artists behind them. A great example of this is > > Prince, who in July gave 
> away his album 3121 for free in the UK > > through the Daily Mail.> > > > He 
> subsequently announced 21 tour dates in London, all of which sold > > out.> > 
> > > Radiohead has the financial welly and is sufficiently well-known to > > 
> be confident enough that the move is a risk worth taking, but it > > might 
> also become an answer for those lesser known bands that > > struggle to be 
> signed by a record label, or are reluctant to share > > their profits.> > > > 
> ------------------------------> > > > End of atlantaprog Digest V4 #135> > 
> *********************************> > > > > > 
> ---------------------------------> Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star 
> Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now!> > > 
> ---------------------------------> Luggage? GPS? Comic books? > Check out 
> fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.> > > 
> ------------------------------> > From: "Jim Combs" <jwcombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 
> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> Date: 
> Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:23:56 +0000> > > If enough big artists do this, it 
> accomplishes three things: 1) Breaks the backs of the major labels who could 
> not survive without big artists, and 2) teaches consumers a new norm for 
> obtaining music, and 3) actualizes the concept that consumers buy music from 
> artists not labels.> > This all will be both good and bad for indie or small 
> artists, probably in equal measure and unknown ways.> > -Jim> --> -Jim> 
> www.myspace.com/jimcombs> www.sensitivechaos.com> > > > -------------- 
> Original message ----------------------> From: BK Broyla 
> <bkbroyla@xxxxxxxxx>> > It's a stroke of genius for RH. And the same indy, 
> bootstrap idea helps > > unknowns take it to a higher level. My only question 
> is, can you use this idea > > to run the whole path, from unknown to RH's 
> level? I suspect the large record > > cos are still useful for getting you 
> the exposure from low-level to hugely > > famous, but at the bottom and top 
> ends you probably don't need them.> > > > BK> > 
> ------------------------------> > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:11:53 -0400> From: 
> "Brian C." <brianclune@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once 
> again changing the rules...> > I fucking love radiohead. They provide a free 
> option ( i mean there was> going to be one anyway right?), but those who want 
> the collectibles/box set,> song lists, pics etc can get that too. I bet when 
> they tour I'll be more> inclined to shell out 50 bucks to see em knowing they 
> did this.> > > On 10/2/07, Jim Combs <jwcombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> >> >> > 
> If enough big artists do this, it accomplishes three things: 1) Breaks the> > 
> backs of the major labels who could not survive without big artists, and 2)> 
> > teaches consumers a new norm for obtaining music, and 3) actualizes the> > 
> concept that consumers buy music from artists not labels.> >> > This all will 
> be both good and bad for indie or small artists, probably in> > equal measure 
> and unknown ways.> >> > -Jim> > --> > -Jim> > www.myspace.com/jimcombs> > 
> www.sensitivechaos.com> >> >> >> > -------------- Original message 
> ----------------------> > From: BK Broyla <bkbroyla@xxxxxxxxx>> > > It's a 
> stroke of genius for RH. And the same indy, bootstrap idea helps> > > 
> unknowns take it to a higher level. My only question is, can you use> > this 
> idea> > > to run the whole path, from unknown to RH's level? I suspect the 
> large> > record> > > cos are still useful for getting you the exposure from 
> low-level to> > hugely> > > famous, but at the bottom and top ends you 
> probably don't need them.> > >> > > BK> >> >> > > > 
> ------------------------------> > From: Allen Welty-Green 
> <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again 
> changing the rules...> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:24:54 -0400> > What I like 
> about this is that it differentiates between the > *product* (i.e. the actual 
> disks) and the "art" (i.e. the music). > I've often thought a good model for 
> bands to emulate might be the > *shareware* model. Download it free. If you 
> like it, send some cash > and receive some tangible goodies - actual disk, 
> lyric book, etc. > Maybe a code to unlock some sort of hidden content. Maybe 
> multitrack > files of the project for DIY remixers to play with. Something 
> like > that. Of course, this would mean that bands would have to make > 
> available some goodies that people would want, and Radiohead has done > this 
> with the box set.> But not wanting to rain too much on the parade, word is 
> that next > Spring, this new RH CD will be available in a conventional CD 
> format > at the record stores. I guess they still have to make some > 
> concessions to the segment of the marketplace that still likes to own > a 
> tangible product (but aren't inclined to buy the box).> > A> > On Oct 2, 
> 2007, at 4:11 PM, Brian C. wrote:> > > I fucking love radiohead. They provide 
> a free option ( i mean > > there was going to be one anyway right?), but 
> those who want the > > collectibles/box set, song lists, pics etc can get 
> that too. I bet > > when they tour I'll be more inclined to shell out 50 
> bucks to see > > em knowing they did this.> >> >> >> > On 10/2/07, Jim Combs 
> <jwcombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> >> > If enough big artists do this, it 
> accomplishes three things: 1) > > Breaks the backs of the major labels who 
> could not survive without > > big artists, and 2) teaches consumers a new 
> norm for obtaining > > music, and 3) actualizes the concept that consumers 
> buy music from > > artists not labels.> >> > This all will be both good and 
> bad for indie or small artists, > > probably in equal measure and unknown 
> ways.> >> > -Jim> > --> > -Jim> > www.myspace.com/jimcombs> > 
> www.sensitivechaos.com> >> >> >> > -------------- Original message 
> ----------------------> > From: BK Broyla <bkbroyla@xxxxxxxxx>> > > It's a 
> stroke of genius for RH. And the same indy, bootstrap > > idea helps> > > 
> unknowns take it to a higher level. My only question is, can you > > use this 
> idea> > > to run the whole path, from unknown to RH's level? I suspect the > 
> > large record> > > cos are still useful for getting you the exposure from 
> low-level > > to hugely> > > famous, but at the bottom and top ends you 
> probably don't need them.> > >> > > BK> >> >> > > > > 
> ------------------------------> > From: "Wade S" <cobwebstrange@xxxxxxxxxxx>> 
> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> Date: 
> Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:37:42 +0000> > I think it's pretty cool that Radiohead is 
> doing this. It gets them in the > news, it gets the music out to people, It's 
> got all of us talking about > their new album and before this thread, I 
> didn't know there was one. Good > job!> > However, there's been a bit of talk 
> about how it's good because it's anti > major label in some ways. "Major 
> Label = Bad" is an idea that I hear a lot > about. It seems like there's been 
> a lot of negativity towards the major > labels since around 1991 / Nirvana. 
> Why is that? What do you guys think > is wrong with the major labels? Just 
> curious.> > -Wade> > 
> _________________________________________________________________> More 
> photos; more messages; more storage—get 5GB with Windows Live Hotmail. > 
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507>
>  > > ------------------------------> > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:20:35 -0400> 
> From: "Brian C." <brianclune@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead 
> once again changing the rules...> > Other than suing it its clients (as young 
> as 12 years old) and historically> robbing the artists because they had a 
> stranglehold on distribution...> nothing.> I love that the distribution is 
> now in the marketplace. like myspace and> other internet places will show the 
> cream (whatevr that means, prettiest,> baddest assed, best musically) etc 
> will filter through the masses. At least> WE get to decide what WE like, not 
> some record exec pushing out stacks to> get a local DJ to play the most 
> recent JLO single until it is so carved in y> brain I kinda like it.> > On 
> 10/2/07, Wade S <cobwebstrange@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> >> > I think it's pretty 
> cool that Radiohead is doing this. It gets them in> > the> > news, it gets 
> the music out to people, It's got all of us talking about> > their new album 
> and before this thread, I didn't know there was one. Good> > job!> >> > 
> However, there's been a bit of talk about how it's good because it's anti> > 
> major label in some ways. "Major Label = Bad" is an idea that I hear a> > 
> lot> > about. It seems like there's been a lot of negativity towards the 
> major> > labels since around 1991 / Nirvana. Why is that? What do you guys 
> think> > is wrong with the major labels? Just curious.> >> > -Wade> >> > 
> _________________________________________________________________> > More 
> photos; more messages; more storage—get 5GB with Windows Live> > Hotmail.> 
> >> > 
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507>
>  >> >> >> > > ------------------------------> > From: James Combs 
> <jwcombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again 
> changing the rules...> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 20:34:17 -0400> > I worked for 
> CBS Records from 1978-1983 and what my friends who are > still in the 
> business tell me, the late '80s and '90s saw the rise of > lawyers and 
> accountants running labels. That move away from people > with ears to people 
> with spreadsheets is blamed for the current > malaise that permeates the 
> industry today. The music business was > much more a balance of music and 
> business back then, and > unfortunately music took the brunt of the reform 
> just before the turn > of the century.> So major labels decided it was not 
> financially viable to support the > development of new music or any music 
> outside of what was saleable.> > And for independent artists or developing 
> artists, it means the > labels are there to capitalize on your hard work and 
> investment.> > Which is not necessarily a "bad thing" but it is definitely a 
> > commercial thing.> --> Jim Combs> > Buy my new Sensitive Chaos "Leak" CD at 
> http://cdbaby.com/sensitivechaos> > Atlanta's Creative Loafing Best of 2007 
> "Best Local Electronic Act"> > "I highly recommend Leak for its 
> inventiveness, its beat-happy > effervescence, and its thorough lack of 
> pretension, not to mention > it’s just a flat out fun album from start to 
> finish." - Bill > Binkelman, New Age Reporter> > www.myspace.com/jimcombs> 
> www.sensitivechaos.com> www.myspace.com/sensitivechaos> > > On Oct 2, 2007, 
> at 5:37 PM, Wade S wrote:> > > I think it's pretty cool that Radiohead is 
> doing this. It gets > > them in the news, it gets the music out to people, 
> It's got all of > > us talking about their new album and before this thread, 
> I didn't > > know there was one. Good job!> >> > However, there's been a bit 
> of talk about how it's good because > > it's anti major label in some ways. 
> "Major Label = Bad" is an idea > > that I hear a lot about. It seems like 
> there's been a lot of > > negativity towards the major labels since around 
> 1991 / Nirvana. > > Why is that? What do you guys think is wrong with the 
> major > > labels? Just curious.> >> > -Wade> >> > 
> _________________________________________________________________> > More 
> photos; more messages; more storage—get 5GB with Windows Live > > Hotmail. 
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en- > > 
> us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507> >> >> > > > 
> ------------------------------> > From: Jeff Blanks <jblanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 
> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: Radiohead once again changing the rules...> Date: 
> Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:35:10 -0400> > On Oct 2, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Wade S wrote:> 
> > > I think it's pretty cool that Radiohead is doing this. It gets > > them 
> in the news, it gets the music out to people, It's got all of > > us talking 
> about their new album and before this thread, I didn't > > know there was 
> one. Good job!> >> > However, there's been a bit of talk about how it's good 
> because > > it's anti major label in some ways. "Major Label = Bad" is an 
> idea > > that I hear a lot about. It seems like there's been a lot of > > 
> negativity towards the major labels since around 1991 / Nirvana. > > Why is 
> that? What do you guys think is wrong with the major > > labels? Just 
> curious.> >> > -Wade> > It's been going on a lot longer than that--since the 
> dawn of the punk > era, maybe before. I think the equation is "Major Label = 
> > *Mercenary*" and "Mercenary = Not Good". (I think "mercenary" is a > better 
> word than "commercial", which could simply mean "commercially > viable" in 
> the sense that a record could make its investment money > back, or even allow 
> the musicians to support themselves. As the > stakes rise, supposedly the 
> desire to take risks tapers off. Glad > they forgot that during the 
> classic-rock era!) There's also "Major > Label = Gatekeeper" and "Gatekeeper 
> = Not Good", too. I think most > of us here have come around to the 
> understanding that the culture of > music-making is better off when all the 
> commercial success isn't > hoarded by a few people at the top. Smaller labels 
> potentially allow > more musicians to make a living, though they're not the 
> only > necessary element in a new equation. The linchpin of the old > 
> equation seems essentially to be, if you'll forgive me, the major > 
> radio-major label complex. (But don't forget concerts and TV. TV > wants big 
> names to attract people to their shows; if there were no > big names, would 
> TV change to reflect that, or would they try to > create their own big 
> names?)> > Still, the size of the record company isn't the only factor > 
> determining how the terrain of popular music culture lies; I think > there'll 
> always be some desire to hook into music being propagated on > a large scale. 
> For example, like millions of other people, I like > going to an arena show 
> occasionally, and you can't have that unless > the acts playing it are 
> selling enough copies--or, like Radiohead, > already have a big audience. But 
> there'll always be some form of Big > Music, for better or worse; as critic 
> Glenn McDonald (a reviewer > unusually friendly to prog-rock, BTW) writes 
> below (in an article > from 2000), "...distribution isn't the choke-point in 
> the system, > it's still attention." And the people who can command--or 
> direct-- > attention in music will by defnition be Big Music. Question is, 
> can > there be ways in which anyone can get attention on a large scale? > 
> Might the likes of Myspace or YouTube provide an answer? (Never "THE > 
> answer", of course; why let one answer have all the fun?)> > 
> http://www.furia.com/page.cgi?type=misc&id=Napster> > > 
> ------------------------------> > End of atlantaprog Digest V4 #136> 
> *********************************> 
_________________________________________________________________
Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews

Other related posts: