Slashdot Log In
MySpace Digital Music Service Is DRM-Free
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:20 AM
from the little-music-with-your-gossip dept.
from the little-music-with-your-gossip dept.
Anti-Globalism sends word that MySpace flipped the switch on its online, ad-supported, DRM-free music service that will "... give its roughly 120 million users free access to hundreds of thousands of songs from the world's largest recording labels. Unlike much of the material at Apple's iTunes store, the music sold through MySpace's new service won't contain the protections that limit how many times a track can be copied. MySpace is hoping to set itself apart from iTunes even further by allowing its users to create an unlimited number of playlists containing up to 100 songs apiece, a sharing concept similar to music services already offered by Imeem and Last.fm."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
neat (Score:4, Interesting)
Now for an easy way to get to a catalogue using XML so we can do machine-to-machine catalogue matching to download whatever we're still missing.
Re: (Score:2)
download whatever we're still missing.
If MySpace's downloadable music selection is like their present variety of artist pages then there's nothing to see there, move along(unless you like Britney Spears and Ja Rule).
Re: (Score:2)
I personally don't care that I never own the music- I consume music at a rate that wouldn't be affordable at purchase price.
DRM... MySpace... DRM... MySpace (Score:5, Funny)
Tough choice.
MySpace? (Score:2, Redundant)
I didn't know it still existed.
Free, eh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I open this music up in Audacity and cut a sample out of it? No.
Can I convert it to another format for my music player? No.
Is it DRM free? No.
Is this a bunch of misleading bullshit? Yes, yes it is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The portion of the "service" where they link to Amazon music for downloading is the real DRM free music.
MySpace.com: We're still relavent! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't go to Facebook because it's better and doesn't have nearly as many in your face annoying ads! Come back! See, easy pirate music!
Re: (Score:2)
For the average Myspace user... yes.
Slowly becoming the WalMart of the Internet (Score:2, Funny)
Bad summary (Score:4, Informative)
Myspace doesn't sell anything. If you want to buy a song you have to purchase it from Amazon through the link provided. Otherwise you use Myspace's music player.
Re: (Score:2)
Myspace doesn't sell anything. If you want to buy a song you have to purchase it from Amazon through the link provided. Otherwise you use Myspace's music player.
That is what makes this a "new music service" from MySpace. It's also what makes this story "news." Good summary. Have a biscuit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
or you could use Fire Fox's download helper to rip any song directly from the band's myspace page.
Or getmsmp3 [sourceforge.net], which has apparently been abandoned.... Notice reads:
Sorry everyone, but MySpace has its own special music interests now, and this
program can't play nice with their new business model. It's going to be hard
enough for them to be profitable without some script out there that can grab
content without watching ads. So getmsmp3 is officially abandoned. Sorry!
What a confusing article (Score:5, Informative)
Which is it? Again, FTFA:
Sound like the track copying limit is "zero", since it appears you can only play it with a custom player in a browser.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. I still cannot tell if it is ad-supported, or paid subscription, or pay per song.
But more importantly, why can this streaming business model work, and yet Pandora is bleeding from legal fees?
Re:What a confusing article (Score:5, Informative)
Pandora doesn't shove advertising down their viewer's throats. Also, pandora has a ton more listeners
Additionally, Myspace has yet to put this out there, and has yet to put prices out there. Just wait to see how much they charge and then people will start talking. Remember that if it's anything more than apple's 99cents it will be thrown aside as uncompetitive.
Also, since people are purchasing the songs on the same site they listen on, I suspect myspace some kind of way to weasel out of getting charged for the fees (they're not legal fees btw), that Pandora is being charged.
Lastly, Pandora doesn't sell the music themselves. They sell it through others.
Parent
Re:What a confusing article (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not actually DRM free.
The Amazon store, the only way to buy music from Myspace, is DRM-free, but I don't see how this is worth a headline since Amazon's store is nothing new. The only new component is terrible ad-supported DRM-laden streaming content.
Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
The catch: the music can be played only on personal computers connected to the Internet and listeners have to tolerate advertising splashed across the screen.
So it sounds like MySpace has made a listening service that allows you to listen to music, but probably has something resembling DRM to keep you from keeping it, listening to it offline, or putting it on portable players.
If you actually want to *buy* the music and keep it without DRM, it shuffles you off to Amazon. Amazon, of course, offers a pretty good DRM-free MP3 store.
Unlike much of the material at Apple's iTunes store, the music sold through MySpace's new service won't contain the protections that limit how many times a track can be copied.
Which is kind of misunderstanding the issue. iTunes doesn't control how many times a track can be copied, but rather how many devices are authorized to play it. But anyway...
MySpace appears to be in a better position to take on iTunes because its site has always emphasized music.
Weird comments like this are peppered throughout the article. Sounds like someone has beef. The author of the article (like the author of the summary) seem hellbent on painting this as an iTunes killer. However:
Despite its musical bent, MySpace isn't positioning its service as an iTunes killer. "We see this as more of a complement to what Apple is doing and create even more demand for digital music devices,"
Re: (Score:2)
So it sounds like MySpace has made a listening service that allows you to listen to music, but probably has something resembling DRM to keep you from keeping it, listening to it offline, or putting it on portable players.
If I can hear it, I can copy it. It may not have the same bitrate or clarity, but it's still able to be copied. No amount of coding wizardry can prevent this.
Re: (Score:2)
Well by that logic, there is no such thing as DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, there is no such thing as *effective* DRM. And there isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I was saying that it sounded like they were using some kind of DRM and Hyppy sounded like he was disagreeing by saying, "That doesn't matter, because I can still get it one way or the other."
So I was just trying to say that, if that's disagreeing with what I'm saying, then DRM isn't a concern at all (which I don't think is true).
If you think DRM is a concern at all, than Hyppy's post isn't very relevant.
Whatever you call it, it's still not DRM free... (Score:2)
DRM is not an obstacle to freedom. All it is, is a PITA and a disingenuous way to lock in people who don't have the code-fu to put the music
Whether that's true or not, that's got nothing to do with the fact that this allegedly DRM-free service is not actually DRM-free. It doesn't matter whether you consider DRM an obstacle, an annoyance, a fad, or a communist plot. Their service includes a technical mechanism to control the playback of the music by the consumer, and that is what "digital rights management"
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, but saying that is rather missing the point. Most people don't want to connect the microphone and speaker sockets on their computer, or position a microphone in front of the speakers, or even watch their network traffic to look for the original file. They want a button they can press when they hear a song they like that lets them save it on their computer to play it whenever they want. And they are willing to pay for that - as long as it's cheap and easy. Since amazon is easy for most people (beca
DRM-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
"You can only play the song in our custom application" seems about as restrictive of DRM as you get. How would this possibly be considered to be DRM-free? I also fail to see how this would eliminate limitations on copying, it seems they're attempting to set that limit at exactly zero. (Like all DRM, that will be circumvented, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way Stardock considers their software DRM free. They allow you to install it and copy it as many times as they want... but it still needs their activation software in order to do it. So I'm assuming that DRM software ceases to be called DRM software the moment you can use it as many times as you want (or until the company goes out of business... whichever comes first.)
I still can't figure out how this music and Stardock's method is still legally called DRM free.
Nobody's called them on it? (Score:2)
The same way Stardock considers their software DRM free.
I guess nobody has taken them to court over false advertising yet.
Once I can ... (Score:2)
... buy music, download it to my unencumbered computer system using open source software I compiled myself, play it directly using open source software I compiled myself, or transfer it to my portable player (and have it play there) using open source software I compiled myself ... then it's truly DRM free.
I don't want the ads. I am willing to pay for music. I'm even willing to pay the greedy fat cat businessmen a part of that for their effort at spewing other junk music all over the TV and radio. But it
Re: (Score:2)
... buy music, download it to my unencumbered computer system using open source software I compiled myself, play it directly using open source software I compiled myself, or transfer it to my portable player (and have it play there) using open source software I compiled myself ... then it's truly DRM free.
Does Amazon's store not count? I guess not, because they have a client for downloading albums, but I thought at least singles could be downloaded using only a web browser. But this "MySpace service" is actually just pointing you to Amazon.
I don't know. I still use iTunes. The client doesn't have open source, but as long as you stick to their "iTunes Plus" selection, the files themselves are completely DRM-free. I've not yet been in the situation where something I wanted to buy was unavailable in iTun
Re: (Score:2)
You know, except for downloading it to my portable player (an iPod, actually) using open source software, I can do all of this now. (And, before anyone points out whatever piece of open source would let m
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the Magnitude link! =) Looks like a promising site that Slashdotter-type-music lovers would appreciate.
Do what you want with "commercial" music (Score:5, Informative)
...but leave indie artists alone please. Myspace, IMHO anyway, is much more important to the music community because of its ability to allow non-commercial, non-signed artists to put their music and group information out there for everyone to see. The big labels have their own mechanism, and Myspace catering to this with DRM-free music is awesome - but please, don't let it affect the indie artists. Keep it where it is, because it works!
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad MySpace is so poorly designed and that so many of the pages are horrific messes.
But hey - if indie artists want to use a social network equivalent of a state university dorm to promote themselves, that's fine. They'll probably stay indie artists for quite a while with that tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
"...if indie artists want to use a social network equivalent of a state university dorm to promote themselves, that's fine. They'll probably stay indie artists for quite a while with that tactic."
---
Who ever said signing with a major label is the goal of every non-signed artist? I would *prefer* to be unsigned/on a small label instead of under some rapist-like major label contract.
Not every musician is in it for the money, friend. The crap artists you hear on major playlists are, but I wouldn't call 80% of
Royalties? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Pandora has been doing an awful job of pairing music by sound. I put in Type O Negative in the artists search and they start playing the Beatles? Or Pantera matching with Green Day? It doesn't make sense. I was so excited by the idea of putting in my favorite music and hearing new similar sound...and then I used it.
At least get it right... (Score:3, Funny)
This person obviously never used iTunes. Not that I think it is perfect but they are making it out like Apple chose to enforce copy protection. Why does everyone forget the label's forced it?
Even so they got the tech side wrong. If you are going to bash something at least learn how it really works and what the real limitations and problems are, and include a few other services for comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
They did choose to enforce copy protection. They don't have to make a music store with copy protection, the trade off though is that the big record companies might not sell their music on it.
Additionally, if Amazon can sell so much music without copy protection, why can't Apple do so now?
Re: (Score:2)
By requiring DRM, the music companies basically handed Apple a monopoly on music, because the iPod was an overwhelmingly popular device and the store and the devices began reinforcing each other in the market.
When the music folks subsequently tried to get Apple to create a differential pricing scheme, they suddenly found out that Apple had all of the power. Apple called the bluff when the companies threate
Wrong on every point. (Score:2)
It meant iTunes users were locked into iPods
Funny, I was using iTunes with my flash-based music player three years before the iPod Shuffle came out.
What makes it hard to use iTunes with non-iPods is that most non-iPods don't support AAC, the MP4 audio codec that was supposed to replace MP3. Instead they support WMA, because Microsoft has been pushing their proprietary format over the open one that Apple adopted.
and iPod users were locked into iTunes
Most of my tracks aren't from the iTunes [Music] Store.
It w
iTunes doesn't "limit how many times" you can copy (Score:4, Informative)
iTunes doesn't do this. You can burn to CD or copy any iTunes track unlimited times.
iTunes does restrict playlists to ten CD burns, but copying the contents to another playlist resets the counter. The summary is poorly informed.
Only 96kbit Audio (Score:3, Informative)
Myspace's on demand audio is encoded at a somewhat crap quality of 96kbit/sec
imeem is 33% better with 128kbit audio
No Radiohead or any Independent artists, though (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
agreed. this even made it into the national papers here in the Uk somehow.
As usual, big companies make pacts to keep the indies crushed in the sidelines.
MyPirateBay (Score:4, Funny)
How does this affect MyPirateBay again?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every time I see one of these articles I think "iTunes, or the iTunes Music Store".
They're very different animals, and ultimately do very different things. The music store has some restrictions (because there's no way in hell the labels would have allowed it), but the actual iTunes software imposes no such limitations.
Cheers