Audiogalaxy Returns as Pay Service

Triv writes "I just got an email from Audiogalaxy explaining how they have come back from the dead as a subscription service, labelled as Rhapsody."

No Linux Support

[whoisjoe]

Audiogalaxy used to have a command-line agent for Linux. The Rhapsody software is Windoze only. Sigh.

Unbelievable crap.

[User 956]

So, I'm paying $10 a month for no tangible product?

Seriously. Is such a paid, streaming content model really a viable solution? When Thomas Jefferson put the idea of intellectual property into the Constitution of the United States, he did so because he realized that information leaks; once people learn something, they can reuse that knowledge. If there was no protection to intellectual property, people would not be encouraged to share knowledge with others. Writers would not write, inventors would not invent, artists would not . So in the US Constitution, it says:

Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The reason why this is important is spelled out in Jefferson's own writings:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it...He who receives an idea from me, receives instructions himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should be spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature ... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

His assumptions are based on the fact that you can not control what people do with information that you give to them. If you hand someone a book, they can transcribe it. If you give someone a physical invention, they can disassemble it. But if you give them a new form of media, say, a song on a copy-protected CD, and they can no longer listen to it except on approved devices that they cannot copy from, why should the government provide the same protection to you? The record companies and movie studios want to have their cake and eat it too. They want traditional copyright protection, technological copyright protection, and a government guarantee of technological copyright protection. They want to deprive all those bearded Linux hippies their DeCSS, so they can't watch bootleg Buffy the Vanpire Slayer DVDs in their parents' basement. But if they have technological protection, then why should the government give them traditional protection? It was only there because information was hard to protect as property.

How far are we going to let the copyrighters go? We need to remind people that copyright, like most laws in the US, is a balance between two forces, and the scale should not be tipped too far to one side.

Re:Erm, its a streaming service

[RussGarrett]

Lots of people ask me what the goal is.

The goal is for you to be able to play any song, anywhere you are, in CD quality, for less per month than the price of a cd. If you're too cheap to pony up, then you can listen to ads instead, but no more than 10m worth for every hour you listen. A light DRM in place is fine provided the technology exists to stream this anyplace you are. Who wants or needs downloads if you can just stream it whenever you want. Disks are so overrated. If the tech isn't there do make that happen, then screw the DRM and let those that will pirate pirate and those that will pay pay. You'll never get them to behave otherwise anyway.

That's the goal. First person to make it happen wins everything.

Tom Pepper, Nullsoft

Think about it. If you had unlimited cheap streaming access to any music anywhere in the world, what's the point in downloading? There is none. You save many gigabytes of hard disk space too. With increasing bandwidth to the home, this is only going to get more popular. If AG can pull this off, and they can pull it off well, they will have my great respect (and my $10).

What i'd pay for

[ZakMcKrack3n]

i know this lacks realism, but let me dream a bit:

large archive, and if there's something i want and they don't have, they try to get it

i get to choose the quality: 64kpbs mono for a quick preview to cd-quality, with some bitrates in between

nice and/or usable (+quick) interface with working search function (ever tried searching for A [a-communication.com] on cddb [cddb.com] or freedb [freedb.org]?)

since they'll generate a user profile based on my downloads anyway, they could suggest other artists (like amazon)

pricing could (loosely) depend on traffic, so previews would be cheap or free and high-quality would still cost less than the cd

lyrics, links, booklets, etc.

i'm sure you can think of more...

This is exactly what Ive been waiting for

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first heard of this service (listen.com, but branded through multiple vendors), I thought it would be another useless service with limited selection and absurd restrictions, but I was wrong.

I signed up for it a few days ago, after hearing about it on joelonsoftware.com and dont want to give it up now. I can just look up an artist, add everything they've ever performed to my playlist and start playing.

Its awesome being able to go through the billboard hits for the last decade and add all of the hits to my playlist and start feeling nostalgic.

Why dont you guys open your minds a little with this one.

I have asked this before...

[sllim]

and gotten no response.

But since I have the eyes of fellow Usenet users allow me to try again.

Bottom line: Anyone that has used Usenet knows it is supperior to P2P networks.
The only advantage that P2P networks enjoy over Usenet is the ability to find whatever you are looking for immediatly. With Usenet if you want something obscure you will probably not find it today. But the beauty of usenet is if you request it, and be patient it will be posted. And during that time you will find tons of stuff to peak your interest. And the audio quality is almost always supperior to P2P networks.

That being the case here is my question.
Why is it that the media says NOTHING of usenet?

I pick up the newspaper and P2P was invented by Satan himself. But usenet is not mentioned anywhere.

I am not complaining mind you. I have always just kinda shook my head whenever I read about the evils of P2P wondering this.

Re:Unbelievable crap

[perfects]

I realize that I am in the minority here on Slashdot when it comes to my opinions about IP law, but there are some serious flaws in your logic. For example,

if they have technological protection, then why should the government give them traditional protection? It was only there because information was hard to protect as property.

By that reasoning, if I buy better locks and window bars for my house the police should no longer patrol around my house. The only reason they drive around my neighborhood is that it's so easy to break into houses and steal things, right?

Technological protection isn't intended to be a replacement for legal protection. The fact is that there is widespread, blatant disregard for the existing laws when it comes to copying intellectual property, and new digital technologies are making it easier and easier. And while new laws are in the pipeline it is unlikely that the U.S. government will provide additional enforcement. So companies that own the rights to digital music recordings (for example) want to find new ways to protect their property. They paid for the creation of the music, and they did that in order to be able to sell it and make a profit, and they want to be compensated when people use their property. This is true of both huge corporations and independent producers. And of software developers, movie producers, etc. etc. etc.

I have a lot of trouble understanding the current furor over all of this. It's as if the citizens of a city with a high crime rate are standing up and shouting "This isn't fair! We have been able to steal things for years and years without fear of being arrested, and now they are passing new laws and enforcing the old ones, and people are installing new security systems in their houses to keep us out! We have done it for so long that we now have a RIGHT to steal things!

I would love to see a poll taken about people's attitudes about this issue. I'd be willing to bet that there would be a direct, inverse correlation between 1) dislike for IP laws and technological copy protection and 2) the amount of creative work that a person has done. The more truly creative work that a person has produced in their lifetime, the more they would be in favor of strong copyright protection, both legal and technological.

And that would produce an indirect correlation with age. The younger the person, the less genuinely creative work they would have done and the more likely they would be to think that it is their "right" to make free copies of other people's creative work.

That, as far as I am concerned, is the "Unbelievable Crap".