Slashdot Log In
RealNetworks Invests in Legitimizing Free Music
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Apr 27, 2005 05:01 AM
from the hammers-not-only-for-murder dept.
from the hammers-not-only-for-murder dept.
Rollie Hawk writes "Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.
You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing.
This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.
In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'"
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
steaming? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:steaming? (Score:5, Funny)
Whenever I have to run Realplayer, the word "steaming" often comes to mind.
Parent
Man flamebait or what. (Score:5, Insightful)
<news>"Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.</news>
<flamebait>You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing. This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.</flamebait>
<news>In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'" </news>
<flamebait>Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."</flamebait>
I'm not interested in the opinion of the submitter, timothy, I just want the god-damn news. Yes Real media are an easy target but you hurt the bloggers fight for acceptance as part of the media when you post stuff like this. Do you ever see the BBC saying "Real media is just crappy because I say it is?". I think not..
Simon.
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:2)
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:5, Funny)
<news>*</news> = News for nerds
<flamebait>*</flamebait> = Stuff that matters
Parent
Slashdot is the new RealNetworks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on now, the only people I know that give any credence to bloggers in the first place are themselves and the odd 'traditional' media-related reporter without a clue (e.g. The Guardian's Media Online section in the UK).
If I actually want to see technology news, rather than opinion from the off, I read The Register and New Scientist, not this place re-ha
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, of course not. Mainstream news outlets reserve those kinds of comments for companies that will never advertise with them. You'll find lots of (paid-for) faux-news reports on mainstream media that talk about how bad Kazaa and other P2P programs are, because they say so (or rather, their advertisers say so).
Parent
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:5, Informative)
From this [excite.com] more complete AP article:
Users who download RealNetworks' new Rhapsody software will get to select the 25 tracks - it could be 25 different songs played once apiece or the same song played 25 times - from a library of more than 1 million tunes, the company said Tuesday.
Forgive me if I'm not busting down Real's door to get this.
Parent
Re:Man flamebait or what. (Score:2, Funny)
Free... (Score:5, Insightful)
For $9.99 a month, users will get an unlimited number of songs each month. For another $5, they can transfer the tunes to selected portable music players.
So your free music is DRMed to death? You're also gonna have to pay to put your "free" tunes on a DAP? Free as in beer locked in a safe I guess.
Re:Free... (Score:2)
Maybe on Windows... (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly that was the case the last time I tried to install it in Windows, but I've actually been fairly impressed by their current Linux client.
I still use Totem for most of my A/V needs, but RealPlayer is actually fairly competent on Linux, without being overblown.
Re:Maybe on Windows... (Score:3, Informative)
Real Player is actually fairly competent on Win32 if you install it in the form of Real Alternative [codecguide.com]. Its effectively Real Player without the ad/spy/bloat ware and Media Player Classic bundled in a Win32 installer that Your Mumma could install. Very nice.
Just noticed that the same folks are doing something called Quicktime Alternative [codecguide.com]. Must give that a try too :-)
Re:Maybe on Windows... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Maybe on Windows... (Score:3, Informative)
I think the problem is just that MS treats its users like crap so everyone else just follows their lead. Linux and Mac don't have a large enough user base to play the "fling enough shit... some will stick" game with them, and the Mac/linux users are also more likely to seek out alternatives.
How free? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most imporantly, who does that file belong to once it's downloaded?
Re:How free? (Score:2, Insightful)
The free songs are streamed, not downloaded (Score:5, Insightful)
the whole service is based on listening to remote files. If you want to burn CDs you pay an extra charge over what you already stumped up, for a DRM-controlled AAC download. Which to me makes Rhapsody a rather expensive radio station.
Parent
Re:The free songs are streamed, not downloaded (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you capture the streaming audio
Parent
not everything can or should be free (Score:4, Informative)
You want the whole universe of music to be free? 25 songs is about a free CD every month. That's a good bargain. Do you usually buy more than one CD per month?
Furthermore, you can select 25 songs from 25 different albums if you so wish. This wy you can get onl ythe songs yo ucare about r if you really want to sample albums to see whether you like them or not, then that give you quite a range to select from.
all that assuming that they have an extensive store. Of course it all doesn't matter if they only have 20 albums that interest you
Re:not everything can or should be free (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:not everything can or should be free (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
The've released Rhapsody 3.0 too early (Score:5, Interesting)
New features in Rhapsody 3.0 attempt to mimick iTunes functionality - now Rhapsody allows users to add music tracks from the hard drive to its library. Rhapsody crashed on the very first run when trying to conenct to my account, exhibits bad behavior when resizing windows, has very limited interface options. It does not match the even the functionality of iTunes and certainly not its ease of use. You cannot remove 2 second gaps in CD recordings made in Rhapsody, there is no cross-fading between tracks and there are no criteria for creating automatic playlists.
Overall it seems like a very last-minute update to the previous version which was done without much design effort going into it. I do not think that it will create any waves of excitement among users.
Commentary??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this Slashdot: News for nerds or Slashdot: commentary for the mindless.
I know that most paid music services are a waste of money if I want quality music. But why do I need a /. contributer to tell me that Rhapsody is worthless.
This is how the article should have read:
In order to enlist a subscriber base Real's Rhapsody service is now offering 25 free songs for members.
There, no opinion, only news. Or is Slashdot so unpopular that the contributors need to generate news via provocation?
25 Songs (Score:2, Funny)
Well, it _does_. At least the universe of music worth listening to.
i hope its not crap still (Score:3, Informative)
but.. i hope its not slow and bloated still. I bet its still a complete adware-loaded pile of garbage.If you don't care what Real does to your computer (i.e. pop-up messages, registry files, all sorts of advertisements), then go right ahead. I long for the days when Real Player really WAS a free and hassle free download.Its a pain clicking thru the ad-bloated pages for a download of Real player these days.
25 Songs (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be RealNetworks, and hey, you may have a problem with them (plenty of people do), but 25 songs/month = 300 songs/year.
Just how much of a freebie do you want from a service that ostensibly sells you music?
These guys are worth over $1 Billion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn....I can't remember the last time I gave up on a RealPlayer install. Who uses this stuff, and how the hell are they worth over a BILLION dollars today....let alone being worth ten times that 5 years ago [nasdaq.com]
Movin' the goalposts (Score:2)
Because before all this happened, there was no legitimate free music. Just like software, music is something that "if you didn't pay for it, it's stolen".
gdlive.com
Re:Movin' the goalposts (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you pay Real Networks their $15.00, how much of that will the artist(s) see? Most major label music, especially the back catalog, has been "contractually" stolen from the artist.
Sample scenario: an artist writes songs, the record company offers them a contract which takes ownership of the songs. The artist goes into a studio, records the songs, and the album is released. All the costs of recording are charged back to the artist, including lawyers fees and expenses, dinners, even the cost of the tape/HDD the music was mastered to.
In short: for first albums at least, the artist pays all the costs and loses the assets they created, but retains some rights to play the music live. It's like taking out a mortgage, using it to buy property and build a house on it... after which the bank owns the property, but you have a right to live there, if you pay a reduced rent.
So if you're concerned about the artist getting properly compensated, don't buy any major label music, from Real Networks, iTunes, Microsoft, or Tower Records. Go direct, and support independent music.
Parent
Not much to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it, even if it is illegal, downloading from a P2P network is free. sure, there is a risk of 1 in 6billions of being caught, but a lot of people are willing to take this risk.
Even if a system comes out that allows you to d/l legally your song for say 0,001$, a vast majority will continue to get their stuff for free.
What I mean to say here is that there is no turning back, songs have become free and will stay like this from now on, what they have to do is to find a new business model that will allow them to get money from something else related to music, but not from the songs themselves.
The big thing here is that we're getting the goods directly, with no third men involved, and it is preciseley these 3rd men that are in trouble.
Bands make huge amounts from concerts, and they might make nothing from record sales, but their free music will make more people know them and eventually go to their concerts.
Re:Not much to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't know how much mainstream music costs in the US but I bet it's cheaper than here in the UK (£13-18 for a new album, which is about $26-$36), so the main reason people download it here illegally is the price.
We do have music services which are much cheaper than the CDs, such as Tesco.com's music download service (about £8.99 for an alb
If I were to use legal musicservices (Score:2, Interesting)
Punkrock, grindcore etc.
These legal services only seem to have popular music or music that have been popular.
I want that track från a 7" EP that was released in only 100 copies. I doubt a legal music download service can offer me that or any other song I wish to download since I rarely listen to mainstream music.
Re:If I were to use legal musicservices (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever wondered why Amazon, Wikipedia and other popular online services are successful? Because they don't particularly focus on the popular because they know that lots of not-so-mainstream records/books/articles give you more core mass than being focused on only the popular things would. I'd like iTunes for example to realise that, or a new company selling music.
Parent
Sorry for the rant... (Score:4, Interesting)
Dear music industry.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I _WANT_ to buy more music and a WANT TO PAY YOU for it.
But I will not part with a SINGLE PENNY for DRM'd crap.
Seriously, you are LOSING BUSINESS and LOSING PUBLIC SUPPORT by continuing with this.
I agree that there is a lot of online unauthorised redistribution of your works, but evidently DRM is doing nothing to stop it.
You need to find another approach. Change your business model, lower your prices... I don't know, I'm not a business person but I am a consumer and I do know that you are turning us all off your industry and before long if you continue treating us like criminals more of us will end up downloading everything for free instead.
Re:Dear music industry.. (Score:3, Interesting)
A real free service (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a simple java applet that downloads free MP3s for you. You listen, say if you like it or if it sucks, and on the basis of your reply it downloads other music that it thinks you might like.
This sort of thing is the future of music. Things like garageband mean that musisicans can make music cheaply. Make some of it freely available. Then, a blogger I trust recommends it, I download it, like it, go to your web site, and buy some more.
And the "Long Tail" dictates that this is the best way to find music that I really like.
Take my current favourite artist. Now, lots of people like her music, but enough for a record company to make a profit on her CDs in a record store? Probably not, hence her current lack of a deal. But I don't care. I bought her latest couple of CDs direct from her on the web. Paid what I'd pay in a record store, but I have a warm glowing feeling because none of that money paid for some wanker in a marketing department to interview focus groups. It paid to put groceries on her table.
Oh, and on her web she recommends another artist I'd never heard of who she is working with. More free downloads. I liked that too, so that's another CD sale. And I went to see them both play a gig in London (which was utterly superb) and as soon as their support act finishes their first CD I'm going to download that as well.
You see how it can work? That's what, 4 CDs and a show ticket, no marketing wankers required.
25 downloads? Or 25 "listens"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you please STFU. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but you are babbling utter crap. The Realplayer is up to date the only true commercial cross plattform player avaiable, and, legends to the contrary, a very good one. Maybe not up to date with the latest and gratest rich client technologies but SMIL is an open, official full range multimedia document description language and the RealPlayer is it's player, y'know?
So if you wan't to do some good you should favour Real Streaming over Quicktime and Mickeysuck WMV whenever a site offers it.
Take this from a Mac User who installed the Reaplayer on top of Quicktime.
It's not Quantity NOR price. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those with Clue(TM) are not going to pay $5, $1, $0.15, or $0.00 for music that TELLS US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT! Lose the FSCKING DRM!
25 free PLAYS not SONGS (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, it's misleading advertising (oh what's new?) and if Rhapsody thinks this is going to help them compete again iTunes, they're very wrong -- iTunes gives away at least two songs a week that you get to *keep* and play as many times as you want.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, this service is nowhere near the hype that Real made it out to be. It's basically a slightly better version of the free trial that most of the legal music services out there. The files are streamed to you (this is the standard method on Rhapsody, but it does a really good job of hiding the process so that you don't even realize it's streaming all this) so you cannot keep them. Instead of getting a whole month free after which they charge your credit card, for this system I don't think they even ask for your credit card as they plan on keeping the basic 25-song plan perpetually free (so long as enough users sign up for pay-plans and the advertisers keep staying along obviously).
Yes, this is advertiser supported, and yes, this gimmick will probably end if all of them decide it's not effective enough. But for now, you might as well try it out since it won't cost you anything.
It's an interesting way of trying to get new users hooked on the new service, though, and considering that I prefer Rhapsody's subscription plan and my Napster university account expires soon, I might just pick this up for the summer. I can't speak for the original poster though, something tells me there isn't an attractive pay-music service model in the world that'll convince him otherwise.
Wow guys... give a little more credit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Check this out, REALLY FREE MUSIC EXISTS (Score:3, Interesting)
Other artists, like Lobão and Supla, are selling their Albuns on newstands, with a Data track containing pre-ripped MP3 for redistribuition! The CD come as a supplement of a magazine, so it can be sold on newstands! Very clever indeed.
There are lots of small bands, and independent artists out there, some are good, other not so much. But their work is FREE, lets support them! Also, most commercial music is pure crap anyways... why even bother?