A Review of Existing Music Subscription Services 141
An Anonymous Reader writes:
"While trying to find out which new CD's will be released this month, I came across a nice little article on the various music services on the net. It makes a few pretty good points about why MP3s are going to remain popular and why the various different vendors are most likely to remain second class." Five years ago, I thought this would be much simpler by now than it really is.
Hilary Rosen (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hilary Rosen (Score:2, Insightful)
MP3's were getting press then. The music biz should have gotten in on it then instead of fighting...they could own the whole internet music scene if they had been smarter.
The Market Speaks.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Market Speaks.. (Score:3, Insightful)
My fear is that they'll attribute their declining profits entirely to thievery. While it's true that some of their profits are being eroded by dishonest behavior, the same thing can be said of pretty well any other commercial endeavor. Stores lose money to shoplifting. Other businesses endure losses from theft of office supplies and personal telephone calls. But every one of those businesses has made a decision about how to balance its business model against the possibility of theft. The music industry in particular isn't doing this: in the face of demonstrable demand for something, they're choosing to cling to a business model that's becoming less workable by the day. The fact that there's some theft is inevitable. The fact that they've been unsuccessful in balancing the risk of theft against the business benefits of providing what consumers actually want just means that they're not particularly clever.
Conspiracy Uncovered; the Parallel is Chilling (Score:1)
Hmm. Who's been leaking internal memos from Redmond now?
Young technology (Score:1)
"... but the major obstacle isn't free music online -- it's immature technology."
What I am really eager to see is the growth of CD-text in more products. It's such a cool feature but it just doesn't seem to be spreading fast enough, IMHO.
Good systems (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. So instead of choosing to download a file on kazaa/gnutella/direct connect/etc and playing it in winamp, buying the CD if i like it, i should now first pay, then maybe find something interesting, download it if the systems work, listen to it if the systems work, and reinstall my system from scratch? No thanks.
Until they come up with a good, working alternative with a similar ease of use and stability, they wont get anywhere. Time to focus on the customers, instead of the bank accounts.
Here are the real music "services"... (Score:4, Funny)
USENET
IRC
FTP
Have I forgotten anything?
Re:Here are the real music "services"... (Score:1)
Ah... those were the days...
Strange, though, how every link on different sites for the same song all seemed to point to the same file on some other server.....
Re:Here are the real music "services"... (Score:1)
Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
This service actually knows what music I like, and half of the time I get it delivered on the door, in a peer-to-peer procedure commonly known as swapping. It does not (to the same degree at least) suffer from broken or low quality songs, as they've usually gone through an organical filtering device located on each side of a persons head. While it suffers from high latency, the bandwidth is all the same impressive for those with a dial-up connection. And it could even help your social life by exposing you to the world outside your door.
Kjella
Re:Uh..Hotline Anyone? (Score:1)
Am I the only person who uses Hotline here? Is HL not leet enough? I pull more stuff off of HL than than anywhere except irc. *yes, I am aware most of the stuff i get originates from irc, but it is quite nice not waiting in triple digit ques*
The text of the article just in case... (Score:4, Informative)
from http://www.icemagazine.com/digital/dd_179.shtm
"The record industry is struggling to bring its business into the digital age, but the major obstacle isn't free music online -- it's immature technology.
At the Future of Music Coalition's annual policy summit in Washington D.C., music industry executives, artists and artist advocates gathered to discuss and debate current issues. There, Hilary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), said that the launch of commercial Internet subscription services was the most significant music business development of 2001.
Yet MusicNet isn't setting the Net ablaze, particularly compared to illicit resources for music files. RealOne Player -- the software used with MusicNet -- was downloaded 18,000 times during the second week in January from software library Download.com, far fewer than 2.5 million downloads of popular but legally challenged alternatives Morpheus and Kazaa.
MusicNet launched December 4, offering 100 downloads and streams for $10 per month, or 125 downloads and streams plus other audio and video entertainment programming for $20 per month. Pressplay launched December 19, charging $10 per month for 30 downloads and 300 streams; $15 for 50 downloads and 500 streams; and a top tier that, for $25 per month, provides 100 downloads and 1,000 streams.
But Pressplay adds a key feature that MusicNet doesn't have: one can make audio CDs from the downloaded files. At the $15 per month and $25 per month levels of Pressplay, subscribers can burn 10 and 20 tracks per disc each month, respectively. That means a user could stream and download to experiment with a lot of different songs, and, at the end of the month, archive a few of the best tracks they heard.
Some way to save songs seems crucial. MusicNet's tracks stop playing if they aren't renewed each month; Pressplay's CDs are forever, but otherwise its songs work only for as long as one is a paying subscriber.
Late last year, Web site Listen.com launched its own online music service, Rhapsody. For $10 per month, subscribers can't download anything, but they can listen to unlimited streaming songs and albums from 43 indie labels. There's plenty of independent rock from labels including Matador (Pavement, Belle & Sebastian), Razor & Tie (Graham Parker, the Waterboys) and Knitting Factory (DJ Spooky, Arto Lindsay), and the service excels in its selection of classical music licensed from Naxos.
Unfortunately for record companies, people may be repelled by more than just the idea of paying for online music. Well-meaning consumers that spent money on MusicNet experienced technical problems with its software.
"It totally corrupted my [operating system] and it's been very difficult to rebuild everything so that it works again," writes one ICE reader. Other problems reported include denied access to music, even though subscribers had paid, and downloaded songs not working properly.
MusicNet has worked overtime to service subscribers, track and fix bugs and update its software. Things are better already and will improve further, but it's worth questioning whether services designed for PCs -- rather than devices with a single purpose, such as CD players -- could ever be foolproof.
It's impossible for online music providers to guarantee that their software and media will work on computers used by millions with varying levels of skill in maintaining a well-functioning PC. Without question, the first versions of new services caused problems when installed on even the leanest, best cared-for machines. Therefore, digital music services must spend significantly on customer service even though they don't occupy mall stores staffed with clerks.
Prior to introducing the CD, a great deal of research went into making discs "goof proof." Technical standards were set so that any CD would play in any player. There's no such cooperation on digital music. Industry efforts to work together with technology companies to create standards for online music moved slowly and were unproductive because of power struggles and corporate politics. Thus, anybody online can sell any sort of music file, regardless of whether it has any hope of working on a computer configured imperfectly.
That's one of the reasons music fans have gravitated toward MP3s. In addition to being readily available for free, they've proven technically reliable under the most dubious circumstances.
Record companies feel forced into digital sales by Internet piracy and complain that it is impossible to "compete with free." While that is true, a more daunting task may be competing with something that works for even the most negligent user."
Where was.. (Score:5, Informative)
Emusic lets you pay around $9.99 a month (if you sign up for 12 months) to download unlimited mp3s. Granted, I don't know what kind of speed you get from EMusic, but this is a very worthwhile purchase in my opinion. They also have the bands that I was looking for, even the slightly rare ones like Opeth, and Therion.
Re:Where was.. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Where was.. (Score:1)
And Opeth is very good music. Emusic also has Fates Warning. They seem to be a quality outfit, in the music download arena.
A shame they weren't mentioned.
E-Music has a lot of the underground music (Score:1)
emusic.com (Score:5, Informative)
and a bunch of other interesting stuff.
I've only had the service two months, and I've spent one weekend a month, dowloading 2 cd-roms worth of mp3s (legally!). Not sure if over the whole course of the year it will be worth it, but so far its great.
Re:Where was.. (Score:2)
Re:Where was.. (Score:2)
Re:Where was.. (Score:1)
I really recommend it if the catalog seems interesting to you. They're mp3s so I can do what I want with them - play on my laptop, mp3 player, burn to CD. Good selection, and sometimes I forget to use the site for a month so they make a nice profit. Too bad pressplay isn't hawking mp3s (as opposed to whatever nonportable secure format), otherwise I'd subscribe.
Re:Where was.. (Score:1)
I understand the hi-fi fanatics who complain about 128 kbps encoding, but those guys can go ahead and feel superior to me. My ears do hear a difference but I'm not bent out of shape about it -- 128 is plenty enough to appreciate the quality of performance and composition; I doubt very much if the fidelity of the various streaming and proprietary download services offer any improvement.
As for the amount of choice they provide, it's a lot more than it was when they introduced the subscription service about two years ago. Just recently, Kahimi Karie, Fantastic Plastic Machine and Pizzicato Five were added -- when I joined up there was no jpop at all, let alone avant jpop! For people who like to explore international music and the undiscovered edges of pop, it is a goldmine!
The catalog will only grow faster as their subscription base grows, so I'm pleased to see all the new services fucking up so badly in their implementation...If Vivendi makes money with Emusic while everyone else fails, it could well turn out that the only way anyone can compete is by offering higher bitrate mp3s, so even the bitrate fanatics should support Emusic.
Re:HAHA (Score:2)
Shouldn't feed the trolls but..
1. They Might be Giants simply don't do much in the way of CD's anymore. They've gone to digital in a big way.
2. Emusic does support the artists. I don't know how much, but I do know that a portion of my money goes to the artists - that was a major requirement of mine when I signed up. I figure the amount can't be much less than they get from the labels anyway.
Re:HAHA (Score:1)
Re:HAHA (Score:2)
They Might be Giants simply don't do much in the way of CD's anymore. They've gone to digital in a big way.
Setting aside that CD's are already digital, you are completely wrong.
Since leaving Electra Records (the label under which they recorded thier biggest college radio hits), they have made 4 CD's: "John Henry", "Factory Showroom", "Severe Tire Damage", and "Mink Car", as well as 2 "EP" CD's: "Why Does The Sun Shine" and their recent Christmas album. They are also releasing a children's album on CD, called "No". John Linnell (half of the TMBG line-up) released a solo CD last year called "State Songs", while John Flansburgh (the other half) released "It's Fun To Steal" with his side band, Mono Puff.
The did release one, and only one, MP3 only album, called "Long Tall Weekend", about 2 years ago, which was really a collection of projects from their Dial-a-Song material that they decided some of their hard-core fans would be willing to pay for.
Their latest album, "Mink Car", just came out on Rounder Records a few months ago.
They sure aren't advertising... (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet users are probably going to keep pirating until you can show us:
-- That this directly benefits the artists as much or more as it beneifts the RIAA;
-- That we can get most or all of the music we want while still paying a reasonable fee;
-- That the music is high-quality (128K MP3's are not high-quality);
and
-- That we will be allowed to entertain reasonable fair-use of the music; e.g. copying it to a portable MP3 player and/or burning a mix CD with that music.
Until then, and without marketing of the service, it will never take off. Then again, maybe that is what the RIAA wants -- "well, those damn Internet users are a bunch of pirates, and they obviously didn't want to support the 'artists' by using our [inferior] service."
Re:They sure aren't advertising... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is something that these services do not address well enough in my opinion.
Fifth and sixth commandments of music download... (Score:3)
You're absolutely right. The fifth and sixth points should be something like
Internet users are probably going to keep pirating until you can show us:
-- That the music we receive through your service will be in either MP3 format or a non-proprietary format that plays in the player of our choice;
and
-- That the music you provide us will be ours to use for as long as we want, without the requirement of a continuing subscription service (as CDs let us do today.)
The whole point of this is that the new distribution format should be easier and otherwise better not just for the record companies, but for music lovers (who are, after all, their customers.) Locking down MP3s and CDs is pointless and will only serve to alienate those consumers who do buy CDs.
Re:They sure aren't advertising... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a biased person when it comes to these mp3 subscription services, but I gave them a look to see if i'm wrong.
I was right...your not purchasing music....Your RENTING it. Their not concerned about what the customer wants, all they want is complete control of the consumer.
I was very disappointed because I had a small hope that the music industrry was getting a clue.
ah well. IRC/FTP/HTTP/Morph/KaZAA/etc is what I'll stick with.
Re:They sure aren't advertising... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) My friend is burning 75 GB of MP3's to CD's... That's over 100 hours of music... How often is he actually going to listen to each song, and how easily is he going to find the CD with the mp3 that he wants? (and no, he's not just backing them up on CD, he's transferring them) I don't think he's interested in the music as much as he's interested in the bragging rights, "Hey, I've got 75 GB of MP3's!"
2) Most MP3's out there on Napster, Morpheus, Gnutella and other file "sharing" applications ARE 128k. Sure, they aren't the highest quality, but they sound decent for most people. So evidently, the highest demand isn't for the highest quality audio.
3) People are greedy. Why in the world would you pay even $10, let alone $15-$20 for a CD of music that you could get for free?
I don't think MOST people pirate because they hate the RIAA. Most people in my dorm don't even know WHAT the RIAA IS. MOST people pirate music because they want music, and it's free.
Because of these reasons, I don't think that piracy will end, or even significantly decrease if a low-cost, legal, high-quality music system were to be implemented on the internet.
Re:They sure aren't advertising... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the world of music piraters are not assholes. I personally don't pirate music that is easily available, only things like B-sides on singles. I only own around 40 or so pirated songs, and some of them are actually from artists who support their music being available for free (and aren't signed to record companies who disagree), and so some of it isn't even technically 'pirated.' If I could find these songs on a respectable, easy-to-use, transferrable service, I would use it.
My best friend refuses to buy CD's for more than 12 dollars. In the punk world, that's not so hard, but outside of that, it can be a challenge. So he, too, downloads music for free. While I find this practice disagreeable, he is still willing to buy any good CD's for the price he believes to be understandable.
If the record companies would just be more reasonable, people like us would pay for music that we otherwise feel we must pirate to keep in budget.
As for having 100 hours of music...I own around 300 CD's. At an average running time of 45 minutes(most of my CD's are actually over well over 60 and I own no singles for the above described reason, but I'm being generous), that's 13500 minutes of music. 13500/60= over 200 hours of music. And in a year, I listen to every single one.
People who pirate music regardless are assholes, plain and simple. They're far worse than people who steal CD's from record stores- when you steal a CD, the money that would go to the artist and the recording company still does, it's only the store who's being gipped.
Re:They sure aren't advertising... (Score:2)
I agree with you, in spite of the hard numbers that I've seen (I can't find them at the moment, sorry). People who pirate mp3s say that they would like to give money to the artists, something like 60% of them (us).
However, while 44% of americans say they go to church regularly, about 20% actually do. [religioustolerance.org]
Why? Because they think people should go to church. Likewise, people who download mp3s, at least in a large part and I think in a majority, think that people who listen to music ought to support artists. That does NOT translate into action on their part; especially if you make it inconvenient, laborious or bothersome. [paypal.com]
If it ever becomes really easy for me to give Eddie Vedder five bucks, I will; in fact, I think enough people, even though it would be a fraction of those who download his music, would do it for Eddie Vedder to live handomely, pay his recording fees, do publicity and support a small staff. However, even if it becomes really easy to do, it is never going to be anything like the racket that the RIAA is running now, and at least some industry people know it. The RIAA's only hope of survival is to destroy online music distribution entirely, which is what these insults.. I mean services, are a movement towards.
Re:They sure aren't advertising... (Score:1)
MusicNet/Pressplay not mature? Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
Many enjoy calling the RIAA things like "stupid" and "doomed" when they are just getting stronger. They see piracy as an issue and take steps against it. That's business. In all fairness, it's not going to put them out of business, and neither will the "backlash" of a small contingent of techies who protest with sarcastic comments on message boards.
Laugh at the RIAA for being stupid, but they accomplish what they set out to do in the long run.
-sker
Re:MusicNet/Pressplay not mature? Of course. (Score:1)
Can you say DivX? The abomination created by mpaa lawyers and marketed by Circuit City?
DVD was also new then and some producers and studios (speilberg, fox) threatened never to release anything on DVD - only the pay-per-play model of DivX
The consumer won in the end because the model was STUPID and DOOMED. Heck, I still haven't set foot in a Circuit City since - I'll go out of my way to get what I need at Best Buy
The only thing that's getting stronger are the law firms in LA - who actually bill by the hour to surf the web for images of Homer Simson
There's still no excuse for greed...
Re:MusicNet/Pressplay not mature? Of course. (Score:1)
Certainly didn't hurt the MPAA though did it? Last time I checked, they were still pretty firmly entrenched at the top.
The point is still the same.
Music Subscription services (Score:4, Informative)
Right now, what bugs me is that there are so many different places out there, and I don't have the cash to subscribe to all of them, and chances are that I'd only want a few songs from each one, anyway!
The music service is a good idea, though. All the convenience of Napster, but still allowing the people who worked hard to create the music to get paid for it. If only the music industry would hurry up and get it done! If they hadn't made such a big stink, they probably could have bought out Napster and used that service- it was one that worked, at least!
Interestingly... (Score:4, Insightful)
U2, probably the biggest rock band of the last few years, with their top grossing tour, large number of grammy nominations, and superbowl performance this year, have openly said that they support passion for their music as long as "nobody is making a profit". Read their lyrics, read the quotes. It's all about the music, the fans, and the world, not about feeding corporate America.
U2 also allows people to record, tape, bootleg, rebootleg, download bootleg, and video their concerts, as long as they aren't selling the merchandise. I can't see how they would have any sort of objection with the online shuffling of their tracks.
You know, it's important to support bands like this, they're the reason that the new-age music revolution is going to take place. Free transfer of data and software is the only way that we're going to keep the net the way it is, communication - not profiteering.
Re:Interestingly... (Score:1)
Re:Interestingly... (Score:2)
Re:Interestingly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interestingly... (Score:1)
Phish. Grateful Dead. String Cheese Incident. Keller Williams. Medeski, Martin, and Wood. Bela Fleck. Rusted Root. moe. Dave Matthews. Galactic. Gov't Mule.
Have a look at etree [etree.org] for one community that specializes in trading these bands.
Re:Interestingly... (Score:1)
String Cheese Incident and Keller Williams are both on SCI Fidelity [scifidelity.com], a record label started by the members of the String Cheese Incident. They actively support the trading community, even releasing soundboard recordings of selected shows in MP3 and Shorten format.
Phish [phish.com] and the Grateful Dead [htpp] have had very public trading comminities throughout their existence, with the support of their record labels.
Not everyone signs away all of their rights when getting a record deal.
Re:Interestingly... (Score:2)
The classic game of rogue is not considered free software. Most Linux distros won't even distribute it. All because its very simple and otherwise unrestricted license has a clause saying not for commercial use.
I smell a whiff of hypocrisy emanating from the land of Slashdot...
Sounds a lot like... (Score:2)
I was thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
If years back the RIAA had sold, in stores, CD's full of high quality mp3s for cheap. Few people would be downloading vast amounts of mp3s that they are today. Think about this. The Led Zeppeling boxed set costs about 80 bucks in stores. I got it for 30 from columbia house. That's 4 CDs of quality music. If the RIAA sold all of that music in mp3 format on ONE cd, with extra bonus Led Zeppelin goodies on the CD (they would easily fit) for say 30 bucks, hell tons of Zep fans would have run out and bought it. But because they didn't (and still aren't) creating products like this, people are going out and downloading all the music for free.
Now they are trying these subscription music services. I guarantee the failure of these services. They are selling a product that everyone already has for free. It's like trying to sell oranges to a farmer in Florida. He already gets oranges for free from is farm (p2p file sharing service = farm), he isn't going to buy oranges from you.
The RIAA still has a chance however. Above I mentioned selling mp3 cd's with many many goodies. That I believe will not work today, because one guy will buy the cd and share it with the world. The only way I see for them to profit off of digital audio is this. Sell FULL mp3 cds. Make an mp3 CD that has say every Beatle's song ever in 320kbps. Sell another one that is full of say every single rock hit from 1965 - 1970. Sell one that has every single disco hit ever, etc. The problem here is breaking the barriers between seperate record companies. Think about it. If you put every single disco hit in high quality mp3 format on one 800MB cd, and I was a disco fan, I would pay 30$ for that easy. Here is why.
1) The time it would take me to find and download all of those songs is worth more than 30$.
2) I wouldn't think of all the songs that are on that CD. You can't download a song you aren't conciously looking for, or remember.
Now the one hole in this is that somebody will distribute these mp3s over the internet. I say let them. If you fill the CD full up to 800MB, nobody will ever share the whole thing. Most mp3 folk are either at college or on cable/dsl. They don't have the time to download 800MB of music at once. I mean I'm at RIT we have 2 OC3s and I have trouble donwloading a 100MB video file due to the people on the other end of the connection, let alone 800MB.
I don't even want to think about what will happen with DVD audio, when DVDR gets cheap. Gigs of audio on one disc, scary.
That's all I have to say about this whole issue. There is a demand for digital music. There is no legal supply. I see only one course of action for the RIAA to take in order to profit off of this. If they do not take it, then people will be sharing mp3s until the next big thing comes around.
Re:I was thinking (Score:1)
Another set of problems with your idea is song exclusion and duplication. I've looked at the "greatest hits of year X" CDs, and the popular songs (the top 20 or so) of that year are over-represented, while everything else is hit-and-miss. The other issue is holding back a few songs for the first "greatest hits", and then releasing a new CD that is more complete. If there's anything the RIAA can do to leech more money out of their customers, they'll do it.
There is a demand for digital music. There is no legal supply.
And considering the RIAA's current attidude, there probably never will be (without government intervention).
The value-add of music. (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer is that most people don't. Why? Because computer screens are small, and somehow your Altec Lansing 4.1 speakers just can't quite replicate that booming bass of the THX clips and helicopters. That is called a "value-add" in marketing-speak; it's a differentiator that people are willing to pay $8.75 a seat for.
Music, on the other hand, doesn't have that differentiator. Concerts are a differentiator, but they don't happen as often as new movie releases do. High-quality music that sounds basically as good as the stuff you get on the CD is available for free. Why would people buy the CD? What additional value is there in buying the CD?
The movie industry has done something right with DVDs (ignoring the region coding fiasco.) For $20, you get:
-- A movie
-- Interviews with the director
-- Deleted scenes
-- Interactive games/trivia that are unique to the movie (in the Shrek DVD, for instance, you can put your voice into scenes with the characters.)
The music industry is going to have to figure out a way to offer additional value on CDs, or else distribute the music more cheaply. The people have spoken, and they think CDs are overpriced. This issue is something that the RIAA has been unwilling to fix in the past, and now their livelihood is threatened. The solution is to either institute an easy-download service that has the features that consumers want [slashdot.org], or else add something of value to CDs. If they do neither, they will be out of business, period.
Re:The value-add of music. (Score:1)
The problem is that there isn't much discernable quality difference between an mp3 and a CD. While there's a difference, it's rarely enough of a difference to justify paying $15-20 vs. getting the music for free.
The obvious (to me) solution to this is to release better quality audio. I don't want band photos and lyrics and crap like that- CD audio isn't the absolute top bar for quality, although the music industry touts it to be. Why not put DVDs to use, and squeeze 4.7GB worth of music onto the disc? It's certainly doable, and it would certainly make the music sound better.
It would also address the other major problem facing the music industry, which is that making music just doesn't cost that much anymore. I can put together a very professional sounding home studio for under $10,000- professional enough sounding that nobody except elitist assholes or people who knew beforehand would be able to detect my subterfuge. The record companies can afford to take advantage of the quality increase that 4.7gb of disc space would allow- most likely the average person would not. While I'm not sure that I would want this to happen, I do find it disturbing that the music industry really expects us to believe that CD Audio is as good as it will get. It's not.
Re:The value-add of music. (Score:2)
Certainly, the number of people who have the audio equipment and golden ears to hear the difference between well-mastered CD audio and studio masters is very, very small. Not a group on which to base a RIAA-sized business model.
Re:The value-add of music. (Score:1)
But anyway, there are other ways of enhancing the listening experience through more data. How about providing a spread of channels, to allow for a limited amount of remastering at home; or what about surround-sound mastering, with more than just the two stereo channels? Maybe those wouldn't be beneficial enough, but I could see them having some value.
Re:The value-add of music. (Score:2)
You've obviously never downloaded someone's 128 kpbs Xing-encoded MP3 before. Let me tell you that they're more like cell phone quality.
Now, if you said optimized LAME-encoded MP3s, you'd have somewhat a case. However, few outside the audiophile community use these settings (or LAME) or even know they exist (or care). Xing can encode a forty-seven minute CD in 1.2 minutes and that's all they care about.
The obvious (to me) solution to this is to release better quality audio.
Unless you're doing actual studio-type work, there's absoluetly no reason to go above 16 bits/44 kHz. CD technology as it is saturates the human ear. However, more channels in music is a desired option, and at 16/44, you'll need 75 kBps/sec for each channel.
just that some have found reason to disagree.
There are too many wannbes who "just disagree" these days (and usually without adequate reason). About the same number that claim 64 kpbs WMAs are "CD quality." Post a link to reliable ABX tests and then you'll have a leg to stand on with this statement.
I mean, 96,000hz and 24bit equipment has a market for a reason.
Yes, for creating audio work.
And if the media provided a higher level of content, the players would too, I imagine.
I guess more players would support 24/96 natively, but 99.9% of people do not have equipment that comes anywhere near what the current CD spec can offer. Those who do care already have the equipment.
Re:The value-add of music. (Score:2)
The measurements most often used to measure audio quality statistically (S/N ratio, frequency response, etc.) were developped in the days of analog recording, and were therefore based on those things which analog systems tended to produce poorly. When digital recording came along, people looked at the statistic as said "Amazing! There is now wow or flutter, massive dynamic range, and the noise floor is even lower than the amp it's plugged into!" But then those who owned the top-end analog systems (the ones who did the best job overcoming the shortcomings of analog), and found that 44.1, 16-bit audio samples, while pretty darn good, didn't quite as faithfully capture the timbre of human voices, or violins, or flutes, etc. quite as well as their analog gear did.
Now most of the problems associated with "the digital sound" were really due to the poor error-correction methods and shoddy D/A converters of early CD players. Most of those "analog forever" zealots changed their position during the mid 90's, when higher quality digital components became available and the realized that the bad sound they were hearing was not the fault of the sample rate, but the fault of the electronics.
Still, most audiophiles tend to agree that the human ear can perceive the difference in sound generated by a 96 KHz system vs. the 44.1 rate you get from today's CD's. The only problem is, 95% of the consumer market is listening to their albums on $400 all-in-one stereo systems they bought at Target, on cheap-assed car systems, or those ridiculous Bose "wave" systems they saw on the late-night infomercials... so they will never hear the difference anyway.
Re:The value-add of music. (Score:2)
I'm not really a "CD quality forever!" zealot. I'm just sick of reading statements like "some guy told me this was the highest quality so he must be right" without any backup. I'm trying to become more informed in the realm of audio quality, a realm which includes less signal to noise than $2.50 PC speakers.
However, what about the analog nature of the environment? What about things like microphones, minute air currents, etc. Not everything can be digitized, and, at a point, "imperfections" in the environment are going to be present no matter what the sampling rate.
Re:The value-add of music. (Score:2)
Correct. Also, your speakers need to reproduce the sound by vibrating the air in your listening room, and then your room itself can distort the sound even more.
That is why Hi-Fi is really still as much an art as it is a science. The specs of a particular device do not matter as much as how well the system as a whole (from the studio or recording hall to your living room) creates the illusion that you are actually listening to an orchestra on a stage, or a jazz quintet is a nice-sounding room.
Re:I was thinking (Score:1)
Re:I was thinking (Score:2)
In the US you take all your shitty MTV pop stars. And you make one CD with all of their albums on it. Pop hits of the month. No seperate albums. People who like pop music will buy it. If they only like Britney and The backdoor boys, they don't have to listen to the nsuck tracks.
Another side note. In Japan CDs are very very expensive. Like 40$. People buy them a lot however. This might seem absolutely horrible at first, like wow, that's so much more evil than the RIAA. What I didn't tell you yet is that the musicians get like 50% of the money you pay for a CD. That's why the US version of Dance Dance Revolution has so few songs. They US companies aren't willing to pay vast amount of money to the artists to get their music into the game. The Japanese appartently appreciate the musicians and are willing to pay them lots of money to keep them making their quality musics.
Re:I was thinking (Score:2)
However, Japanese CDs tend to be more extravagant. Most of their stuff comes with better packaging compared to US fare and some even come with printed scores (in the case of instrumental music). Yes, it's mostly more expensive for the same reason that everything is more expensive in Japan, but there are some other reasons as well, as you pointed out.
No review of Emusic (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, e-music is not perfect. Most new artists are not there, but the oldies are there in force. But the real triumph for e-music is it is easy to use, software agnostic, and affordable.
These services are not supposed to be popular. I think Pressplay and others are like the 100 mile Carbureator. The Music Industry really wants this to fail. Then they can claim that the only reason for the popularity of Napster and clones is that their free, not that consumers want digital music.
The record companies have already waited too long for this. With the ubiquity of MP3 hardware in our homes, and a need for the RC's to make an alternative with capable DRM. If they move away from MP3, you'll just see a whole bunch of converters out there so that the new files can be played on old equipment.
~Hammy
correction (Score:2)
If you were a subscriber, rather than somebody who just likes to talk about how cool it is, you would probably already know that.
Unfortunately for emusic, a lot more slashdotters wanted to praise it than actually get it.
Services that offer nothing I want. (Score:5, Informative)
- Anything you download stops working the second you don't renew your subscription. So even if I don't want anything new, and I'm happy with my downloads, I have to keep shelling out money to keep them? That's a far worse deal than just going out and buying the CD. And it's especially a lot worse for people who are used to the Napster/Morpheus paradigm of downloading and having it forever.
- Both focus too much on streaming. And Rhapsody focuses entirely on streaming. Am I the only one who loathes streaming anything?! I want to download it once, not every time I want to hear it. Streaming is too dependant on my connection and their servers, which I don't like. The quality always suffers, and if you are on dialup, forget it; you'll have to rebuffer every 10 seconds.
- Limited File Movement. At least Pressplay offers you the option to make CDs from what you download. But what if you don't want CDs? What if you want to move them to a RIO/iPod, or to a minidisc?? You're stuck. And MusicNet doesn't let you do anything with them, just download them and listen to them on your PC. Nevermind the fact that a LOT of people listen to the majority of their music in their car, or on a portable MP3 players, you simply don't have the option anymore.
- Bad file quality. I won't even subscribe to non-crippled services like eMusic because of the fact that they only offer downloads at 128kbps. This is AWFUL sound quality. First off, I don't want anything in mp3 format, and if does have to be mp3, it should be variable bitrate encoded. Offer me a service that lets you download Oggs, and then I'll consider. But otherwise, I just cringe when I hear a song in mp3 at 128kbps.
- Selection of artists. Most of the stuff I listen to is rather obscure by the standards of most of music industry (I listen to progrock & hardcore, if you care). These services don't offer any of the artists I like, besides a few of the more mainstream ones (i.e. Rush), whose work I already own on CD. So where is the incentive? Sure, I like to hear new music in different genres, but when I'm working or trying to relax, I want something by a band I already know & love, or something in a similar vein. (i.e. if I'm in the mood for Kings X, I might listen to some Pain of Salvation or Fates Warning instead, but I won't put on the hottest rap album on the market instead.) So for me anyway, there is really no point whatsoever, since I'm not going to get anything good out of it. When they start carrying Dark Day Dawning or Madball, then I might reconsider.
I especially won't subscribe to MusicNet, because where does my subscription money go? That's right, to the already-overflowing pockets of Hilary Rosen, not to the artists.I'll subscribe when there is a service that offers music I like, in a format I like, that I can do what I want with it, and that supports the artists directly. Of course, this is exactly what the RIAA doesn't want, so it probably won't ever happen.
Re:Services that offer nothing I want. (Score:2)
Streaming?? That's radio, and can be supported by commercials. Same thing for music I download and can't keep.
~Hammy
Re:Services that offer nothing I want. (Score:1)
You're dead right though, I've weighed their service, and found it wanting. I might switch when it beats what I've already got access to.
Hmmm (Score:1)
operating system corruption. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, winamp doesn't try to keep me from listening to my music if I don't pay the monthly extorti...er.. subscription charge. It doesn't care where the mp3 came from, if its copyrighted or not, if its publicly endorsed or not. It just plays the silly thing. And it seems to work pretty well at that.
The big problem with all these subscription services is that they're too little too late. Back in 1997 they could have completely cornered the market. Could have been the first out of the gates with music over the internet and due to a lack of alternative options they would have had a LOT of subscribers. Instead, when these services were demanded, they decided to sit back and twiddle their thumbs worrying about how to prevent the rampant piracy that might result if they released such services... and the rampant piracy happened regardless, only they now have no hope of getting the worms back into the can. Now everybody has a taste of freedom. And I'm not talking about the beer flavored freedom here. Its the freedom to use the media you own as you wish.
So far, I've been able to download mp3s and listen to them forever, or burn them to cds (data or audio), send them to my friends, whatever I want. People are USED to this. Honest people are USED to this, but might still be willing to pay a reasonable monthly fee, especially if the industry made it easier than using the legally challenged services. Face it, napster might have been the most popular thing to come along in terms of obtaining music for free, but it still had its technical limitations. An industry endorsed solution without any barriers or restrictions could have stomped napster in its prime, but to do so, people would still have to have complete control over what they've downloaded. And the RIAA and other interested parties just couldn't handle that.
Well, so napster might be off the table, and those evil people distributing lyrics might have been silenced. But consumer demand is a funny thing. They have certain expectations now. And they WILL get what they want, despite how much effort they have to invest and how many laws they have to break to accomplish it. Even in some draconian scenario where you manage to completely legislate all your competition off the internet, a parallel internet could very well arise behind you, competely beyond yours or anyone else's control, and where everything would flow freely. And you would only have yourself to blame for it.
So tread lightly.
-Restil
My thoughts on this (Score:5, Interesting)
-----
Quick quiz: Which of the following is immoral:
1. You're about to buy a book. But then you realize that you can just read it at the library, so you do that instead.
2. You're about to buy a book. But then you realize that you can just photocopy it at the library and have it bound at Kinkos, so you do that instead.
3. You're about to rent a movie. But then you remember that your friend owns the DVD, so you borrow it instead.
4. You're about to rent a movie. But then you remember that your friend owns the DVD, so you make a copy of it instead.
5. You're about to buy Photoshop, just to edit one picture. But then you remember that your roommate owns Photoshop, so you just use his computer instead.
6. You're about to buy Photoshop, just to edit one picture. But then you remember that your roommate owns Photoshop, so you just install a copy on your computer instead.
Seems to me that most of us draw the line as follows: It's okay to borrow IP from someone, as long as only one copy is in use at a given time.
So i've got a huge stack of CDs collecting dust. If i shipped them off to friends, and my friends sent me their CDs, and we all listened to each others music, i don't think any reasonable person would consider this wrong.
But let's say we optimized things, so that instead of shipping CDs, we all ripped the CDs and traded MP3s instead. Why is this wrong?
Because lots of people could conceivably be listening to the same MP3 at the same time.
If there was a system like Napster, where you could listen to other peoples' music and they could listen to yours, except only one person could be listening to a particular copy at a particular time, would this be wrong? I say no.
This would give the consumers what they want -- they don't have to shell out $18 bucks for a CD full of songs they've never heard and probably don't like, and most reasonable people would say the system is fair and ethical.
How about just a resale system? I'd like to sell off all those CDs i don't listen to, even for 10 cents apiece. I could use the money to buy a new CD and listen to it for a while. If i didn't like it, i could resell it for a bit less than i paid for it, and repeat the process. I'd get to hear a lot more music that way. And i'd never again be stuck with a CD i didn't like.
-----
I think most of the MP3 revolution is a backlash against the lack of a system like this. We all have crappy CDs that we don't listen to, and we can't try new music without the strong risk that we'll be stuck with another crappy CD.
Re:My thoughts on this (Score:1)
Ever been to a used CD store? They get CDs by buying them from customers just like you, and for generally more than 10 cents. Usually it's something like $2-3.
On a similar note, these stores are really great once you have one of those new devices that fixes scratched CDs, b/c the used CDs play just like new, only cost maybe eight bucks, at most.
Re:My thoughts on this (Score:2)
Re:My thoughts on this (Score:2)
Re:My thoughts on this (Score:2)
Piracy...thinning out the herd of crappyness (Score:1)
If the industry sees piracy as the main reason for loosing money, let them think that...we all know that there are two reasons that the music industry is "suffering".
1. Overcharging on CD's. Why would we want to pay $20 for a $1 piece of plastic...
2. Crappy "talent". Over the years, the "talent" pool starts to fill up with bands, imitators, and imitators of the imitators.
It reminds me of the cycle of life and death in nature. Lots of deer(money) are around, so predators("talent") starts to feed off of them more. The predators("talent") begin to multiply until there isn't enough deer(money) to support the increase in population. The predators("talent") having less deer(money) to feed on begin to go the way of the dinos and only the strongest predators(actual talent) survive.
In the end, it means that we have to endure cycles of crappy music to get to the really good stuff...and since the good stuff has a presence, even in the midst of the crap, it's not such a big problem... soon enough, the record companies will being to trim their rosters in an effort to lose less money and we will be left with the best bands, and then the cycle will repeat.
They expect people to pay for this? (Score:2)
I checked out pressplay - for $10 a month, you get to stream 300 songs and download 30 songs. Plus, the songs stop working after you cancel your account. Aren't they generous? For $15/month, you get more streams and downloads, and you can burn 10 whole tracks to a CD! (only 2 tracks per artist, and only tracks that have been designated as 'burnable') Their website has no mention of portable players - apparently this isn't a permitted way to hear the music you rented.
Do they even wonder why people aren't signing up in droves? Maybe the new Napster will fare better than pressplay if they don't impose so many restrictions on the listener.
Rare Bootlegs? (Score:2)
I never did care for wasting bandwidth getting something I could get off the shelf at K^HWal-Mart; I was only ever interested in getting things I couldn't otherwise get, i.e., old Led Zeppelin bootlegs and stuff.
Something tells me those are gone for good *sigh*...
Welp, I'm downloading Kazaa, better keep this short...
Deadlock? (Score:1, Insightful)
To forget about piracy they need to provide something better than gnutella/morpheus/etc.
Solution in search of a problem (Score:1)
In order to compete with existing P2P file-sharing, a subscription site needs to offer some advantage over them. The fact that a sub site is legit will not be sufficient until there are significant negative consequences to "ilicit" (read free-as-in-beer) file sharing.
So... how to compete? A sub site would therefore have to offer superior selection and accessibility. That means offering ANY file users want REAL FAST, RIGHT NOW. So far, given the high cost of bandwidth and securing the rights to songs, no sub site is anywhere near realizing this.
Note that this means it is in their interest for sub sites to crack down on "illicit" P2P file sharing. Don't be surprised whan the folks behind these sites to back law enforcement efforts to go after "pirate" P2P software like GNUtella [gnutella.com], etc. Could a Napster-FBI alliance be far off? Stay alert...
eMusic (Score:3, Informative)
Consider:
1. eMusic lets you download MP3s that work anywhere
2. As many as you want per month
3. Download speeds that are almost always about 50kbps
4. Properly named and organized
5. Artists get a cut of the action!
6. Download a whole CD in one clickwith FreeAmp for Windows or Linux, or RuMPsucker for Mac.
The only bad thing is that they rip at 128kbps.
I write them all the time about kicking up the bitrate. LAME at --alt-preset standard will kick out VBR files that sound great for their size.
Feel free to tell them you would sign up if they increased their encoding quality: info@emusic.com
Damn... RuMPsucker rocks! (Re:eMusic) (Score:1)
Ehhh... (Score:1)
I'm not surprised if the services will work only with Windoze and/or MacOS (the latter with a bit of complaint-flooding). I have a WinXP box right now, but I'm prepared to use Linux. I don't want to lose my music service account because I am not using the "proper" OS.
Otherwise, they're all crap to me. I'll get my ass back to live shows.
what i would pay for (Score:1)
1) Accurate file info
2) Good compresion rates
3) Compleat/accurate ID3 tags
4) Resume/Pause on dling songs
5) Good selection: many genras, and artists.
I am willing to only download a limited number of songs each month, and even to have them deactivated at the end of the month, as long as i can keep a certain number, in a format that i can keep forever, and even burn to cd.
The prices for this "music net" service seem very reasonable to me, but unless i can be assured that i am really downloading a song by Less Than Jake, and not some other band that has been mislabelled, i am not going to pay, why not? because i only have a certain number of downloads a month.
I also want to be assured that it is good quality, i don't want to pay for 62kbps, streaming audio sounds better than that. Minimum 128k preferably that would be an average on a VBR.
Those tings are what gave me the most headaches with the pirated music scene (which i gave up when napster closed, btw..), and i refuse to pay for a service with a limited number of songs when they are mislabeled, and bad quality.
I think the selection is obvious, if they don't have what i want, or don't offer a good selectio of a genre, i don't want to pay. What would be nice would be a suggestions bar or something, HAve the _CLIENT_ (or even a guarenteed anonymous server) keep a record of the gene of the music you usually dl, then make suggestions based on that, i would really enjoy the service. I have seen many programs that try to do this, but they usually don't do very well. Maybe reduce the monthly rates if someone will "profile" songs based on certain criteria, then the client would collect info on what you dl, make a profile of what you like, and make suggestions based on that.
I would be more than willing to pay for a service like this. Remember the artists get _nothing_ if you pirate music, not even the microscopic cuts the RIAA usually gives them.
--
"the colors all the same through colorblind eyes, and if you think you're so different then you're wasting your time" -T
What Napster had (Score:2, Interesting)
Hard to find stuff.
I could always find music by old/obscure/never top-of-the-charts artists. All of these subscription music services want to concentrate on the latest, hottest bands. The stuff I want is in someone's collection somewhere - a publisher won't want to even bother establishing the rights and making it available. When the service is based on making a profit only the profitable stuff will be available.
Obscure Music (Re:What Napster had) (Score:1)
Sure, there's a lot of stuff I'd like to have that eMusic doesn't have, but for 10 bucks a month I don't expect to get all the music I ever want to listen to. What I do get is some of the stuff I want -- easily $10 worth a month -- and a chance to check out a bunch of stuff I wouldn't have heard otherwise, for no extra cost. If I like it, it's mine. If I don't, I delete it.
A lack of something you can hold... (Score:1)
Whenever I go out and buy a CD I have something I can have, hold and play whenever I wish. I don't have to rely on any database of licenses to use it if my computer goes down, the responsiblity is entirely mine.
Another advantage I have in buying a CD is that I don't have to give all my personal details to the record companies and they don't have a database of my listening habits. I prefer my privacy!
Weblisten.com (Score:3, Informative)
People are talking a lot about the new sites, i.e. MusicNet and Pressplay, but not saying a word about existing sites.
There is a site here in Spain called Weblisten [weblisten.com] where you can download thousands and thousands of songs (even full CDs) in MP3 (128 Kbps) or WMA format. They have been out there since 1998 or so and it's LEGAL. Yes, it's LEGAL. They pay a (big) fee to the SGAE [www.sgae.es], the Spanish Society of Authors.
They carry almost everything that is published in Spain and has any success. I mean, this it NOT only for new artists like mp3.com: Weblisten has REM, Leonard Cohen, Britney Spears, etc.
Their website is in English and Spanish.
BTW, I'm not endorsed in any way with Weblisten.com. I'm only a user.
Re:Weblisten.com (Score:1)
Re:Weblisten.com (Score:1)
The catalog is a bit limited if you look at it from the USA or Canada. But it's very complete if you think that Weblisten.com is an Spanish site, addressed mainly towards users in Spain.
Re:Weblisten.com (Score:1)
Pardon me? (Score:2, Interesting)
The record industry is struggling to bring its business into the digital age, but the major obstacle isn't free music online -- it's immature technology.
Pardon my language, but this is BS and FUD.
Napster was killed by legal action, not "immature technology"; as was the original MP3.com, Kazaa, and others.
Note that the various existing P2P file sharing programs seem to be doing just fine with the technology we already have (and older, yet!). Where does "immature technology" come into the picture? I fail to understand that. To me, it sounds like a weak excuse for for failing to understand the consumer market and what consumers want. A very weak excuse; perhaps why most labels resort to lawyers instead of listening to their customers and artists.
The problem is reflected in the book industry; people would like to have the equivalent of a library to go to to try out music before they buy (NOT the limited "library" of predetermined play on radio stations); and many object to the artificially high prices of music bought at the stores. RIAA, what part of "NO" don't you understand? Even a lot of artists are saying NO! Wake up and smell the burning coffee.
Eric Flint makes the point very succinctly in his comments on Baen's Free Library
here [baen.com]
and I'll quote shamelessly:
The only time that mass scale petty thievery becomes a problem is when the perception spreads, among broad layers of the population, that a given product is priced artificially high due to monopolistic practices and/or draconian legislation designed to protect those practices. But so long as the "gap" between the price of a legal product and a stolen one remains both small and, in the eyes of most people, a legitimate cost rather than gouging, 99% of them will prefer the legal product.
(Microsoft, are you listening?)
'nuff said.
Shadowbearer
major labels (Score:2)
* MusicNet - AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann, EMI
* pressplay - Sony, Vivendi Universal
for more information on (legally) downloading music in Canada, you can visit my page at
http://www.akerman.ca/digimusic.html [akerman.ca]
Personally, I like Emusic.com the best. Real MP3s. One price for unlimited downloads. Artists get compensated. Sweet.
NEGRA MODELO (Score:2)
No, seriously. Who's gonna pay for music when you can just listen to it on the radio, or, heaven forbid, record it off the radio?!?! If you want the music so bad and don't want to waste a lot of money on it, buy it at the used CD store! Then, you can record the damn thing on audio cassette and sell the CD back to the store. You won't get "full price" back, but you will save even more money. Vinyl rules. Video cassettes rule. Audio cassettes rule. 8 tracks rule. CDs suck. DVDs suck. New technology sucks. Everything sucks.
Ooooooh well.
Yeah, why don't you mod this "-1: fucking numbskull."
Re:NEGRA MODELO (Score:2)
That's like saying, "Who's gonna pay for moviews when you can just watch them on TV, or record them? People even pay to rent movies that they have to give back in a couple of days after only watching ONCE.
Frankly, I would be very happy to pay $15/month for a service which: 1)Allowed me unlimited streaming on demand for all major labels and a large number of independents, incl. foreign, obscure, and demo versions. 2)Allowed me to log in from any computer so I could access my account at a friend's house (Just as I could currently bring my CDs to a friend's house.) 3)Allowed me unlimited temporary downloads. They could expire in a week...long enough for me to get a good listen on a portable device or on my PC when I didn't have the available bandwidth for streaming. However. downloaded songs should automatically renew themselves when I'm signed on to my account, so I wouldn't have to keep downloading the same favorite songs over and over again. I'd have no desire to burn CDs to "keep" mp3s because any song I wanted to hear would be instantly streamable, more easily located then trying to find a particular song in a stack of CDRs. 4)The service ought to suggest songs that I might like to listen to, based on my prior downloads.
With a service like that, there would be no need for me to play conventional CDs at all. I could listen to any song I wanted to at any time. It would be my own private, commercial-free radio station. Yes, I would gladly pay $15/mo. for that kind of service, and I think many other people would too. All the music you ever wanted, a mouse-click away. Just like audiogalaxy, but legal.
Your criteria for ideal on-line music sales? (Score:3, Informative)
1) I want MP3's at the point of purchase, and the option to get CD-quality copies (lossless compression) now or later.
2) I want the right to listen to it on any device and on any medium I choose, when I want, where I want.
3) I want the ability to copy it for my personal use - i.e., copy on my hard drive, copy in my car, etc.
4) Once I buy it, I "own" it forever. If my music server crashes and I don't have backups, and I can prove I've purchased the music, I get another copy.
5) I want all the stuff that comes with a physical distribution - album cover art, liner notes, lyrics sheets, artist history, etc.
6) I want EVERYTHING IN THEIR CATALOGS available ALWAYS. That means they bite the bullet and make available even the most bizarre, obscure shit they own at all times. NOTHING IS EVER "OUT OF PRINT".
If the music industry would come across with a program like that at a reasonable price I would gladly pay for recordings, and not share anything. But as long as they continue their insanely paranoid control freakery, they earn nothing from me but my contempt.
How about you? How would YOU like to see on-line music distributed?
Off-line music CD sharing (Score:2)
I personally would prefer to get CDs in mail without all the hassle with mp3. Do you know if such a service would be legal in the US?
One point.. (Score:1)
What most of these subscription services are trying to introduce is One producer/one player, whilst this one producer might be the combined conglomerate of the entire RIAA, it's the one player point that's the problem. One player encourages competing imcompatible services and the loser is the consumer.
So how much crap can consumers put up with before they'll start really doing something about it?
Cheers,
leroy.
Simple economics. (Score:1)
With regards to your article (http://www.icemagazine.com/digital/dd_179.shtm), I think it was an interesting and informative read. I'd also like to offer my own view on why Musicnet and Pressplay will not succeed, regardless of whether or not there remains any "free competition." There are two reasons, both are simple economics.
The first is what I call "Gresham's Law of Digital Music" with a twist. The twist is there is no limit on the supply of digital music (endless copies can be made and distributed virtually free of cost). So, few people will bother with the crippled and restrictive subscription services, and continue to hoard the good MP3s.
The second, is the basis of the free market system. People want digital music. They are willing to pay for it. People never had any desire to sign up for a subscription and have to continue paying to keep their digital music. (Some people might call that extortion.) So, until the RIAA decides to give people what they want, a wide selection of unrestricted digital music at a reasonable price, people will pay nothing for a service that does just that.
I find it to be quite ironic that the RIAA's desire to maintain their monopoly on music distribution will be their downfall.
Features I want to see in my online music service. (Score:5, Informative)
This may be a bit redundant, but I thought I would describe the online service that I want and would be very willing to pay for a long time.
Access to complete music catalogs. Each year there is a lot of good music made and we only get to hear a small part of it. Sure you can go through and order imports and obscure artists, but all in all the depth of music avaliable for easy purchase is sharply limited when considering what it could be.
Priority downloads. This helps compete with the peer to peer systems while at the same time rewarding those who pay for the service and broadband internet.
Quality encodes. For the dialup users be sure to offer the 128Kbps, but at least use VBR and a good encoder. For the priority subscribers, offer higher bitrates. I believe that most people can hear the difference. It may be true that a lot of them don't care, but offering the higher bit rates is a win-win because they could get more money per month for them. Given a chance to sell something for very little effort that is almost pure profit, it is foolish not to make the offer.
Unencumberd file formats. Nobody is going to keep paying for their music that they had to invest time and money in downloading. Besides that, how many people actually sit down at the computer to listen to their music? Not very many compared to the ones that use portables, or their car.
CD compilation options. Maybe paying for broadband is too much or unavaliable. Don't want to miss out on those potential customers. Make an option where they can choose what they want and get it mailed to them on CD. Price it so that the average user gets a CD a month at about half the cost of broadband. This way everyone has a chance at being attracted to the service. Someone sending e-mail and surfing might just skip broadband if they can get that content via CD on request. This could also include software like the computer mags are doing, or other media. The idea here being really simple. Offer people a reasonable way to get what they want and a high percentage of them will pay for it.
User profile agents. If they use the data for what it is intended to do, this feature would have high value for most people. Imagine after a few months filling out your most wanted collection you get some suggestions and they actually hit the mark! More reason to continue using the service. Share your new music with your friends and tell them where you got it.
Referral bonus. Goes with the above. Encourage and exploit the coolness of P to P. The more the merrier. Maybe get a month free or something when you are mentioned as the referring agent. Tie this in with retail marketing campaigns and you will get an appreciable audience. Open up your new CD-RW and in the software package included are 10 free tunes / one month trial deals that encourage people to take a look.
My tunes site where I can review and self-pimp music I think is interesting, or horrible whatever. This is where the suggestions and interaction with the agents happen. (Don't email with special offers unless I want them.)
Retail CD tie-ins. Buying CDs should be cheaper for priority members. Those really wanting to enjoy the music on the go are probably wanting to create CDs and share with friends so, save us time! Make getting that CD easy and less
expensive then delaing with a retailer who may or may not have the thing. Since there is one less distribution mouth to feed, pass the cost on and reap the benefits of happy listeners.
Local media tie-ins. Have to share the bandwidth somewhat. Provide a means where local content providers or ISPs or maybe fan clubs can host priority content. The vast catalog will be centralized so anyone can get to it, but allowing communities to form enhances the word of mouth effect in any local area. Small artists might find themselves popular in a few cities so why not go on tour and know there are fans waiting to pay?
Tip the artist. Allow for a simple way to say thanks to an artist that might deserve it.
Reward program to encourage more purchases. Once you get people paying for the service, and actually buying CDs full of content on a regular basis, give them another reason or two to stay on for a while. Early releases from their favorite artists, downloadable high quality cover art or posters that sort of thing. Just mailing free posters to the younger crowd would be catchy enough for a lot of them. Early notification and avaliability of concert seating would be another nice reward for actually using the service.
Once the thing is rolling, you suddenly have a whole lot of things that you don't have right now with the traditional radio and promotional channels.
Done right, this sort of thing will allow various communities to evolve. It will be possible to market and promote more artists with a higher degree of success. Addressing different segments of the population will be possible and probably worth doing.
All of this assumes that the current RIAA group and its power over the industry remains unchanged. (Personally I want reform in this area.) But if I were them, and wanted to keep my position, the things I mentioned above would be the things I would be hard at work doing.
real profit lies in user-created radio services! (Score:1)
But there's one thing I might pay for: commercial-free user-created music channels (or "radio stations"). www.live365.com is a great example, even though the commercials are awful. Users are allowed to create their own radio stations for $30-50 a year, and they do this by uploading mp3's to a central server. There are provisions for DRM, but apparently live365 bought blanket licenses to songs protected under ASCAP. The breadth of these radio stations is just incredible; I have one trance station from Holland, Albanian folk music, Asian underground, old Egyptian music by Om Kulthoum, etc. These stations repeat the same songs every three hours or so, so it's as good as owning. Also, the live365 player displays the playlist of current and recent songs.
The subject of discussion here is misplaced. Obtaining an mp3 of a song is a trivial task; the hard part (and the value that a company can provide) is calling attention to interesting songs and helping users to find the new and different. And for that, the p2p players do practically nothing. From www.live365.com I have learned about so many great singers. This is accomplished by users adding their own custom playlists.
The revenue model for live365 seems to be based on advertising, but I would certainly pay $5 a month for access to hundreds, if not thousands of streaming playlists. (Of course, I'm talking broadband users.
I have to wonder... (Score:1)
The problem people keep mentioning is how to get people to pay for something that is already available for free. The commonly-mentioned solution seems to be to provide better quality or convenience for a reasonable cost. Convenience certainly doesn't seem to be satisfied with the 2 mentioned services.
But I have to wonder if the companies aren't finding that they have a societal problem more than they have a technical problem. (Admit it, you just nodded and said "Duh".) But I don't mean this the way you are thinking.
Corporations preach the pursuit of the almighty dollar (currency of your choice). Nothing is more important than minimizing costs and increasing profits.
With a free service available that kinda-sorta-mostly satisfies people... Have consumers learned the corporate lesson too well, and zeroed the music entertainment budget in the name of minimizing costs?
Even with a high-quality convenient legal service, will we still go for the no-cost service, simply because we learned too well to slim-down the budget at the expense of moral concerns?
If this is the case, should we feel bad for the RIAA? "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Gotta feel for the bands, but the corporations are getting just what they give.
(Yikes, I sound like Katz!)
Re:PressPlay doesn't suck (Score:1)