Burn A Song For 99 Cents 433
tusixoh writes "CNN is running an article about an online music company, Listen.com, who has signed deals with Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group allowing users to burn songs from both companies' catalogs (more than 75,000 available tracks) on Listen's Rhapsody music subscription service for 99 cents per track. Until now, Rhapsody had primarily offered only streamed music to subscribers from all of the world's largest record labels as well as several independent labels." The upside of this, of course, is that it won't be necessary to pay for songs that are just "album filler".
Neat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh my god..tears in my eyes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, from this point on, if I want an mp3, I'll check to see if one of those labels are the labels that the artist in question is on, if so, they get my 99 cents.
So this is better how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the real test..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still too pricey! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So this is better how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Metallica S&M would run over $20 on this. I'd rather pay the $16 for the CD and be able to burn it in the for4mat of my choice. (i.e. ogg)
This is better, because now you have a choice. If you want a whole album, you get a discount by going to Wal-Mart and purchasing the CD for $16. If you just want one song off the album, you pay 99 cents.
Stop Crying Damnit (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot Better Like This (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, it's nice to own the music I listen to, and if this makes it so I get the songs I want for $15 on one cd rather than for $225 on 15 cds, great. Now, the article seems rather slim on the facts in this case, but I would hope that (a.) the music is in a machine readable format (not copy-protected), or (b.) available in MP3 or some other open format as well.
Re:Slashdot Better Like This (Score:4, Insightful)
good start though.
Re:So this is better how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, if you like the whole album, then go down to your local music store and buy the whole album. But how many times have you spent $16 on a CD for only 3 good songs? Would you rather spend $18 for a CD of 18 songs you like or $108 (3 songs x 6 CDs x $16/CD) for 18 songs you like?
Come on, we've been harping on the RIAA and music labels for some time to give us this very thing. Let's pat them on the back for finally doing it.
As for your ogg comment, please. You'd be ripping it to ogg from what? A CD . And what do you make using this service? A CD . Duh. Burn the freakin' CD and then rip it to ogg.
Re:bah too expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
You could do like me and only listen to bands that make full CDs of good music. I can't imagine only wanting to buy a part of a CD. IMHO a band isn't worth listening to unless they build a decent albumn. In fact, a good deal of the best CDs in my collection are intended to be played from start to finish as one full serving of excellent music, not as a collection of individual songs.
So close... yet so far... (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds so good, then I see the details.
A dollar per track is a bit high, but I would certainly be interested in buying some tracks for that price. However, that price is "in addition to paying a monthly subscription fee of $9.95." I can't imagine buying more than ten songs per month. Once that's worked in we're up to two dollars per track. Two dollars? Too much.
Furthermore, I expect that this new functionality will be available through their proprietary software [listen.com]. I don't want to deal with your unknown software (even if it did run under my primary operating system: Linux). I want to open a account with some money, then download songs off your web site until my account is empty. Nice and simple. Do it for one dollar per song and I'll very occasionally use it for catchy tunes. Do it for fifty cents and I'll regularly use it. Do it for twenty five cents and I'll make heavy use it, regularly buying music on a whim.
They're kidding, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, I can spend my time searching for the tracks I want, pay for my own blank CD, bandwidth, wear on my burner, and end up with a crappy copy (marked with a Sharpie, of course) and a few more files in my playlist for a few dollars MORE!
My worthless two cents: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except, oops, it looks like you have to have windows [listen.com] in order to do any of this stuff. I don't own windows, just this macintosh. My college does have some WindowsXP labs with CD-Rs drives, but the since the user-permissions policies here are currently in the process of changing i'm not sure if i'll actually be able to use their client there. And i do not feel like badgering one of my friends to let me take over their computer for a few hours each month so that i can compose and make for myself mix cds.
Looks like listen.com just lost a customer. Too bad they chose to tether their downloads to DRM technology.. then they wouldn't have to limit themselves to customers who use one software platform.
In the meantime, this emusic [emusic.com] thingy that i found linked on this same slashdot forum looks *great*. Looks like i'll be taking my $9.99 over there instead..
Too bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm in the minority... (Score:2, Insightful)
It used to be, once I got that album home to listen to, these provided a pleasant surprise, and often became some of my favorite tracks.
Now I (and I presume everyone else) will be significantly less likely to hear those tracks (because we'd have to pay for them before receiving, and are unlikely to have heard them through 'regular' channels) and even more excellent music may be lost to the common consciousness.
How do we know whether a song is "filler" or "underappreciated gem" until we hear it?
How do we hear it before we pay for it?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Four times cheaper for back catalog access (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you get to cut the worthless songs but even then the prices match the store prices
The price matches, but the quality I can get for a given price increases dramatically. When I go to Best Buy and plunk down my hard-earned 13 USD for an album with 13 songs on it, I want 13 songs I like, not three. The way I see it, these CDs will be four times cheaper than[1] the CDs I can buy at Best Buy.
[1] Pedants: "Cheapness" here refers to the number of discs I can afford with a given amount of money. Thus, "Four times cheaper than" means "one-fourth as expensive as".
This is not far enough a benefit to make it a sustainable venture.
How can you be sure that four times cheaper for the average fan of oldies singles isn't enough of a benefit?
Nothing will succeed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that must be why Linux has 95% market share on personal computers...
And why all those free web hosting / free 30-pound bags of pet food shipped to your door / free postage, etc. companies are thriving against the companies who actually expect to make a profit on the aforementioned items...
The phrases "Worth every penny" and "You get what you pay for" come to mind. A company wants to send me full-quality (not 128KBps) music that has no restrictions for 99 cents a track? I'll pay for it, and so will most others. It's all about perceived value and convenience -- things that most people will happily pay for.
Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Curious (Score:1, Insightful)
Cruise missiles, perhaps?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
But how much do the artists get? (Score:3, Insightful)
--Mike
Re:Nothing will succeed? OT (Score:2, Insightful)
there is off course one difference here. all of the above mentioned models were pre-existing. meaning the company that charged was established before the free alternative.
ie linux is trying to un-seat microsoft not the other way around.
whereas this company is trying to un-seat a pre-existing model. and they will fail unless they market it all to hell, get EVERY major and mid-major label involved , and make it CHEAP ! not to mention offering better speeds and quality than the compotition.
and since this is the RIAA i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for them.
oh and email is just dying out because of the post office right ?
Re:bah too expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry. I'll change my musical tastes today so I stop liking songs unless I like EVERY song by that artist on that album.
Sometimes, I like a pop song. I don't want the album, but one track may catch my ear. And how exactly do you know beforehand? What happens when a band you like releases a third album with a poor track? Do you throw it away?
Your post just sounds haughty. Not all people only like music that comes as "one full serving".
Re:positively redundant (Score:2, Insightful)
I want to go to their site, listen to the music, then "order" a custom-made CD with 15-18 WAV tracks with the track titles I choose from the "extensive" library, in the order I wish, delivered to my house, with a nice jewel-case, and an insert with photos and lyrics, delivered in 3 days.
Then I'll pay the 99c per track. Heck, my wife is arranging music for a party. She has a list long like her arm. She would already have ordered 3 CDs like that. Instead, she's scrounging to find the tracks with friends.
Re:There are ways to burn whatever you hear. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes. (Score:3, Insightful)
People see these media giants as pirates holding their monopoly by any means available, and the law as just another tool they use to do this.
Consequently they no longer respect the law.
I also think that breaking the law is a valid and effective means of protest. I smoke marijuana too :-)
Re:CD value is nothing compared to DVD (Score:3, Insightful)
I still believe CDs are way overpriced, though. And I got burned a few times buying a band's CD from hearing one good song on the radio only to find out I paid $15+ for one good song that constantly plays on the radio plus 10 really crappy songs. So I have bought hardly any CDs lately. I'll only buy if I know there are several songs I like.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Mix discs without a PC? (Score:4, Insightful)
make it a dollar per track, but I'm licensed to use that track for my entire lifetime, in whatever current music format is popular, that way I don't have to re-buy the song for my 8-track, cassette, LP and MP3 players.
That's what the current model does. A 10-track disc costs $10, and under the Betamax precedent, you can copy it to whatever writable medium is popular at any time.
let me mix and burn my own music without the need of my own PC
Mix your own music without a PC? How are you supposed to do beat-matched crossfaded transitions between songs? Yes, I do that on my own mix discs, even of rock music.
And why does a CD with one hour of audio (which cost thousands of dollars to produce) cost as much as a DVD
A soundtrack album (or any other CD for that matter) is as expensive as the movie because unlike the movie, you can play an CD in your car, in the kitchen, in your pocket player while jogging. Unlike a movie, a recording doesn't demand your full attention. Thus, you play it more often.
What? They're not PAYING me to burn their tracks? (Score:2, Insightful)
You kids are killing me. For ages you have been complaining about not beeing able to do this or not beeing able to do that. Finally when the industry puts out a model where you can actually buy the music YOU like, for a given price (we can ofcourse discuss if it should be 99 cents or 90 cents or 80...), you all start screaming "Bloody Murder!"
What will the industry have to do to satisfy you whiners? Pay you to download and burn a track to CD?
I'm getting sick and tired of your downright stupid comments. Give the industry a chance, give them feed-back. Say that 99 cents is too much, but don't expect them to give away the music for free. They are not in the P2P busines, but in the music business to MAKE money, not for charity.
If you can't afford to buy music by paying 99 cents a track, get an education, then get a job that pays you enough to download the music. Personally, I have no problems paying the charge, $20 is less than what I make an hour after taxes and other deductions.
Get a life, get a jobe! Pay for the stuff you enjoy, don't steal!
Re:Stop Crying Damnit (Score:3, Insightful)
If they go Palladium, I'll stop buying their music.
If enough of us do it, they'll have to wake up and smell the coffee...
Re:Stop Crying Damnit (Score:2, Insightful)
but isn't that kind of the point of why people don't like it? It doesn't do anything to stop people from downloading music, but it does stop people from doing other things that aren't nearly as questionable leagally.
Re:What? They're not PAYING me to burn their track (Score:2, Insightful)
But, the truth is that we (the listeners and creators) of music don't need them any more. They are just trying real hard to be the middleman. I won't support their hair-brained schemes.
Some guy in the 1890's used to have the market cornered for buggy-whips. But, he was no longer needed and his source of income disappeared. The record companies (as they exist now) will be gone before you know it!
I buy music. I support local bands. And, I support artists who allow me to sample their music in non-proprietary formats (like OGG or MP3). And, I buy music from artists who sell directly. There is no need for me to give my money to the RIAA.
Re:Oh my god..tears in my eyes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, why are you jumping to the harshest conclusion?
If I say I agree with the AC are you going to assume I want to steal music? I got news for you buddy, I spent a good deal of money legitimizing my MP3 collection. There was a time I had a CD containing the song of every MP3 I had. Why did I have MP3s? Two reasons: 1.) To try out music, 2.) so I can listen to my music from work without having to shuffle CDs all day. Never mind that the RIAA was making money from my downloading. No no no, everybody who has an MP3 is 'downloading communism'.
I agree, they owe everybody an apology. When we get it, I'll resume legitimizing my MP3 collection.
I don't really give a flying fuck if you think I'm trying to justify not paying for music. You know damn good and well you wouldn't get gas at a station that raised your car 5 feet in the air to prevent you from driving off.
Re:Stop Crying Damnit (Score:4, Insightful)
It hasn't affected your downloading warez and mp3's yet. That's an important distinction to note. Remember, the RIAA and MPAA have both openly stated they fully intend to begin poisoning peer-to-peer networks with bogus files to deter people downloading content and go after individuals (that is, not corporations or groups -- but single itty bitty people like you and I) sharing their music.
Of course they haven't started invoking the DMCA in all the evil nasty ways everyone here is predicting. It's too soon. It makes far more sense for this law to stay on the books for years, fall into obscurity, then suddenly reappear with big nasty pointy teeth to bite every music and movie sharing human right in the ass.
That "dark ages" you describe is close and getting closer; the world's most prevalent computing platform (Windows, sad as that may be) is already chock full of "Digital Rights Management" functionality to limit what consumers can do with their music and videos. CPU manufacturers are already building copy-protection schems straight into their hardware right now; the next generation of CPUs will cheerfully obey the MPAA and RIAA's wishes, refusing to run binaries that aren't blessed by someone with deeper pockets than we have.
Someone recently said it perfectly, that this "Trusted Computing" initiative isn't quite how it sounds -- Microsoft are pitching it to sound like we (consumers) can "trust" their operating system. In reality, it's an initiative to make a platform that the MPAA and RIAA can trust -- they can trust that it will only let us do precisely what they grant permission for us to do with the content we pay for, and nothing more. Do you honestly believe "compress to an unencrypted, open format with decompressors and players available for free on all platforms," "compress and transmit to my friends on AIM," and "store for future playback without the original media and license file" are going to be on that list?
Getting back on subject (today's conditions), note that students have been thrown out of dormitories (and sometimes ejected from school entirely) for sharing music, companies (namely Napster) have been sued out of existence not for sharing music, but for enabling others to do the same, and ISPs are being forced to spy on their customers' activities just to avoid lawsuits and criminal prosecution under that lovely law that supposedly hasn't affected you.
Remember: the DMCA created brand new crimes out of thin air. I can literally write "this string is encrypted", forbid you from decoding it without buying a license from me, and if you point out I've ROT26'd it, you've just violated the law. If an RIAA minion catches you handing a CD-R with a copy of a new album on it to a friend, you can be thrown in jail for copying and distributing the material, and your friend can be thrown in jail for receiving it. The DMCA is being invoked more and more every day. I imagine you might be pretty surprised if the cops break your door down to confiscate that evil, crime-breaking computer of yours that's sharing your favorite Pink Floyd tunes, and to haul you to jail for it. You can literally spend more time in jail for a criminal violation of the DMCA than you can for certain violent crimes.
But you're right. I'm just being pessimistic. The DMCA doesn't affect us. Not one bit.
Betamax and Diamond precedents (Score:2, Insightful)
The Betamax case says absolutely nothing about media-shifting, only time-shifting.
The Betamax case (Sony v. Universal) states in specific that time-shifting is not infringement. It also states in general that devices can have substantial non-infringing uses, as the Supreme Court outlined in what came to be called the "Betamax Test".
Now if you had mentioned the Diamond case, you might have a point.
Wasn't the Diamond case decided on the "Betamax Test" of substantial non-infringing use? But anyway, thanks for the pointer. Now I can use both Betamax and Diamond against those who try to argue anti-emulation and anti-homebrew positions.
Re:99 cents... plus $9.95 a month (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been one of the people saying over and over that if I could reliably download a legal MP3 for $0.99, I would much prefer that over P2P. But, as a general rule, I would not pay $9.95 or $14.95 a month for the right to do so
I *might* consider it if I got 10 or 15 downloads "free" per month, but even then I don't want to enter into a commitment contract (not even a "cancel at any time" one).
Bad for artists? (Score:2, Insightful)