Universal Music Group's New Music Sharing Service 446
First I had to decide which reseller of UMG music to use and decided on Liquid Audio's On-Line store. One reason I picked this service is because they are the technology backers of this venture, so who better? I'm really glad I picked them, and you will see why after you read about the issues I faced.
Of course, there were plenty of music choices to pick from and it was pretty easy to find artists I was looking for. I first noticed that not every track is 99 cents. Some are higher -- it seems that the less popular stuff cost a little more. Some singles cost $1.49, but I found one free track on this CD.
After finding a CD I wanted, I purchased and downloaded the tracks individually and as one large download, since they provide both options. After downloading the files I could not get any of them to play. For some time this confused me, then I tried clicking on a link provided in an e-mail that was sent to me to confirm my order. Well, they did not tell me this on the website, but clicking that link authenticated me to listen to the tracks. This was a bit frustrating, but survivable. Also, I found you can only go through the process of purchasing and downloading with IE. I use Mozilla by default and was not able to purchase with that browser. You also need to use IE to open the URL in the e-mail that authenticate your tracks.
Once done with that I attempted to burn tracks to a CD. I was using a machine with Windows 2000 SP3 and Windows Media Player 9 (current release candidate for Win2K). Whenever I'd try to burn a track, the Roxio software would die. So I gave up on Media Player 9 and downloaded Liquid Audio's Player (v 6.1). When trying to burn with this player it could not initialize my HP DVD writer (model dvd200i) and for some reason was calling it a 200j instead. I also tried downgrading to Windows Media Player 7.1, but that did not work either. The burning software did not even know my DVD Burner was there. I also tried Real's RealOne player, but it can not burn WMA files.
So I gave up and contacted Liquid Audio's Customer Service. They informed me (via e-mail exchanges) that their software could not recognize my DVD Burner and I would only be able to burn using a CD Burner, not a DVD/CD Burner. I was offered a refund, but I did not want that. I've got a CD Burner, but on another PC. So I thought I'd be able to move the files and burn there. I came to find out find out that I can move files to listen to them on another PC, but they can't be burned on a PC other than the one to which they were first downloaded. So Liquid Audio sent me another link to download tracks with after hearing I had to go to another PC. Then I was able to download and burn tracks with no problem.
You can play the tracks as much as you like on your PC, burn to CD as many tracks as you want, copy the burned CDs, and use the CD to make MP3s. Keep in mind there is supposed to be some form of digital watermarking on the tracks though. So if you give the music to anyone else, they (UMG) are supposed to be able to know it was you who violated their copyright.
So overall it was pretty frustrating making my first CD with this service, but I'll probably be using it again in the future. Like Tuesday, when some new music comes out. I have been boycotting UMG for almost a year, since when I heard they would copy-protect CDs. With this service I have officially ended my boycott.
Pros:
- Easy to download and burn a CD if you have Windows, IE and a CD Burner (not a DVD Burner).
- Easy to find tracks from UMG artists that are well known.
- Good customer service. They really helped as much as they could given the software limitations and offered a refund even though I would have been able to keep playing the tracks on my PC.
- No need to go to the store in the Winter!
Cons:
- No player seems to be able to burn using a DVD burner.
- Tracks are not authenticated till you click a link in an e-mail sent to you.
- Unable to use the service to purchase tracks using Mozilla.
- No small intro type tracks available, even when you buy a full CD of tracks.
Slashdot welcomes reader-submitted features and reviews -- thanks to darnellmc for this review.
Lossy or Lossless Encoding (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for the review (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows and IE? (Score:5, Insightful)
You also need to use IE to open the URL in the e-mail that authenticate your tracks
The price is not the problem. The problem is what they allow you to do and what they don't. Next.
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Digital watermarking? (Score:3, Insightful)
And probably get their lawyers all excited with the possibility of DMCA-related charges.
When will they learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't mention it but I assume these are not cd quality audio files, unless I'm missing something here. So I'd pay a small amount to be able to download and manipulate files as I please (50 each maybe) but add all the DRM to those files and I'd pay less. It only makes sense considering you're crippling my downloads.
I guess it boils down to... why use this over kazaa/limewire/winMX etc. etc. etc...
Price Gouging? (Score:2, Insightful)
How is
If you think
The same goes for all the whiners about $16 or $20 CD's. If you think the company is making sooo much profit from this, then you damn better well be investing all your money in the industry, since it's such a profitable, sure thing business.
Personally, I think $.99 is extremely reasonable, given that I can't hardly buy a 20oz Coke for that much.
Missing Con's (Score:5, Insightful)
Must remember to surf with IE rather than a browser you prefer.
Must remember to download tracks only while sitting on a machine with a CD-R or CD-RW
Must remember to never let your machine die or be replaced. If you do, you'll never be able to reburn the audio.
Thanks, I'll stick with Slamjamz [slamjamz.com]
Begining of the end for mass p2p sharing? (Score:4, Insightful)
The pricepoint is a little higher than what I'd like to see, but this is definitely a step in the right direction for the music industry. Kudos to them for actually trying to solve the p2p "problem" by giving consumers (almost) what they want instead of trying to lock down every electronic device. It may be a clumsy interface, but it seems like a good first stab at a compromise between consumers' fair use rights and copyright holder interests.
Watermarking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IUMA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Begining of the end for mass p2p sharing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well, atleast the customer service seemed nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, but isn't the whole point that this is a _legal_ way of attaining the music. So first the excuse was that the music was too expensive, now it's that it isn't quite convenient enough?
Re:Thanks for the review (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind paying for something, but the middlemen in the music biz add very little value, and IMHO screw a lot up!
I want to listen to lots of music but I can't afford to with a big mortgage and kids. I have several music mad friends who buy 100's of CD's a year - and they'd buy more if they could afford to. Basically we want to pay the creators of the music, and I don't see these services moving towards that so I shan't support them.
Read this Courtney Love [salon.com] article - she is so right (even if I was a bit dismissive of her before I read this).
That's what it's all about, not whether I can buy 'n download from the net! That kind of tech is just a way for us (musicians & fans) to cut out the fat cat middlemen, and introduce middlemen who get paid for the value they add... Thanks for listening, Andy. (UK)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
As to will it work on *nix/Mac, didn't the original announcement of the service say that it was pc only initially? Plus with the problems the author had using a pc, hard to imagine they have it working on anything else yet.
Re:How could they know if you share the music? (Score:1, Insightful)
They may partner with companies that make mp3 players, but I seriously doubt that any would conform to notifying UMG, unless they were legally bound to include such functionality.
Fair use is entact in this case. You can listen to it on your iPod without risk. You can even share it with your friends, but you are liable if they in turn (or someone else in the chain) mass distributes the mp3.
Re:Lossy or Lossless Encoding (Score:2, Insightful)
On any decent speed DSL line, that will take about 5 minutes, 20 seconds - a perfectly reasonable time to wait for an Actually-CD-Quality audio track.
Re:Price Gouging? (Score:3, Insightful)
Coke does well, but doesn't nearly get that kind of a markup on a 20 oz. Coke. Coke has to pay for manufacturing and trucking costs. The retailer that sells the product then has their own labor and real estate costs.
Perfect for Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ogg Vorbis (Score:3, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight...you are proposing to convert WMA->WAV->OGG to get rid of a watermark that supposedly *cough* doesn't have any influence on the music itself....and think you'll get a result that even resembles digital quality audio?
Not likely....
Btw. the first problem is that you got to have IE ofcourse...I have finally (after several years) deleted Windows entirely (after not using the partition for months and finally needing the space :), so I can't use IE, not to mention WMA files.
Re:Lossy or Lossless Encoding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price Gouging? (Score:2, Insightful)
no disc, no case, no jacket with said case.
still a waste of money, IMO.
prolly as much profit as selling cd's in the store too.
it is a step in the proper direction though.
i wonder if browser masquerading fools the system into letting you use it with opera or whatever?
Re:Thanks for the review (but...) (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you could email them and complain about how they implemented the business model, requiring IE in order to use their service. I would not pay for a service that requires IE. I hope their customer service lines are flooded. It sounds like it is a total hassle to set up and download music, even if you do have IE. It is amazing that we are this far along in e-business, and companies still don't get it.
But thanks for the review, it was definitely worthwhile. I won't be using liquid.com any time soon.
Re:How could they know if you share the music? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can envision people discovering the waremarking technology though. You and a friend register and download the same track, then run a binary diff on the files. Should be pretty easy to determine where the watermark is and change it though.
M@
This is news for who? (Score:4, Insightful)
This service needs IE, WMA, and a Windows Box? It won't work under my MacIntosh, Linux, or Home Entertainment system(s)? The songs won't work in my car, walkman or the kids boom-box?
Well maybe this is news I can use. I know I won't be using my disposable income on this service.
Enjoy,
Cost? Quality?? (Score:4, Insightful)
You do say there is watermarking... which listening tests have shown is subtle, but still audible, so you're already at a loss of quality here.
Also, for cost - popular tracks as high as $1.50, regulars for a dollar... Let's just pick a currently popular, common CD, like The Eminem Show...
20 tracks (though, 5 of those are skits, which you said you're not able to get...) - really 15 audio tracks... At a dollar each, that's 15 dollars. At a dollar each for most, plus $1.50 for the current singles (White America, Cleaning Out My Closet, Soldier, Without Me, Hailie's Song, What You Say) is 18 dollars.
Now, my local Newbury Comics is selling this same album for $14.99 (and with a coupon from the Sunday paper, I can knock 3 dollars off of that).
So, I can either tie up my cable modem and 'puter and download a watermarked, questionable quality version for 15-18 dollars, or I can pay 12 for the original, plus the non-music tracks.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see what the point is...
Of course, say I don't want all of those songs, but five from this album, and five from the previous, and five from the one before that... Then, there is a savings, but it's so miniscule - I'd be getting the popular singles off each album, so at 15 tracks * $1.50, I'd be paying $22.50... and if I bought the albums, either on sale or used, I'd be paying no more than $25-30... and get a bunch of tracks I'd never have heard otherwise that I might like. Plus, 3 separate booklets, liner notes, etc.
There's no way they're going to attract people from P2P sharing if their chosen method is slower, more expensive, and of questionable quality.
-T
What about the artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't intended to be a troll or flamebait post.
One of the issues that surrounds the music industry is the way that large record labels treat the artists who have signed with them.
Now a record company has suddenly made it (more or less) convenient to download songs legally, and as soon as it gets easy, the ol' consumer mentality will kick back in and the artists will end up forgotten.
The artists won't be thought of, just like most people don't really think about the sweatshop laborers in foreign countries who make clothing, or code cheap software, assemble appliances, etc. Give us what we want, and give it to us cheap. To hell with the people who have to work to produce the lifestyle we get to take advantage of.
*sigh*
The music industry isn't really upset that you're copying copyrighted material. They're upset that you're no longer a consumer. They want you to consume their services, and if they re-work their existing services in a manner so the production costs are cheaper than current costs, but still charge you the same and still screw over the recording artists, then they see it as a major win.
Maybe I'll get lucky and someone will reply and tell me why UMG isn't as bad as the others.
Re:Ogg Vorbis (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, as the reviewer chose the Liquid Audio site, I thought that would mean that they would provide the tracks in LiquidAudio format, but it's WMA? When I try to listen to or buy a track on their site, it seems to suggest that the tracks are in LiquidAudio format.
For general downloading or purchasing music online, I personally would avoid Liquid altogether. WMA/Real are acceptable as a last resort. MP3s are better than either WMA, Liquid, or Real. OGG would be the best of the lossy formats. However, couldn't they at least provide SHN or FLAC files? The SHN files I've downloaded from Archive.org[Etree] [archive.org] and recompressed into FLACs generally get about 2:1 compression. That's not bad considering they are lossless, "CD-quality." Please note that my mini-review of the formats is NOT based on quality. I've checked out the OGG listening test at vorbis.com and could hear no difference in the files. My preferences are mostly based on ease-of-use. MP3, OGG, FLAC and SHN are easier to use from my current computer to any other computers I may have in the future.
Maybe the general populace doesn't care enough about the quality of music on their PCs. So far, they've been able to get it all for free. However, when they start to be able to pay a bit for a downloadable song, they will (hopefully) demand more of their online music store. (e.g. They'll demand that it be like their brick and mortar music store, but online).
And, where are the liner notes? Lossy music, crappy software, no artwork?! Uhh.. Some of my parents' old vinyl records have really neat artwork on them. It's as though, as production costs have decreased, so has the product quality.
Not that I think the music that these companies churn out is always that great, but there are certainly lots of intelligent people working behind the scenes that know how to market a product well. Where are they?
Here's what I mean WRT the marketing: I know people here love to make fun of Microsoft (what would a Slashdot story be, without Microsoft?) but, honestly, if you can find it, watch the "Ray of Light" commercial for WinXP where people jump and jump and eventually take off and are flying around. It's horribly hokey and easy to make fun of, but they really make you WANT Windows XP. Not that I think: "Ohh, if I had Windows XP, I'd fly!" but they make you think that it's actually going to give you the freedom that you always thought it would. Please read the word "think" with emphasis
Re:well, atleast the customer service seemed nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lossy or Lossless Encoding (Score:0, Insightful)
I fail to see what's idiotic about downloading uncompressed audio.
Yes, but you also fail to see what's idiotic about quoting yourself (with a very, very derivative quote) in your sig line, so I wouldn't much want to follow your advice.
pros and cons about my little store around ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Service:
there's a real nice looking girl and she knows a great deal about music.
Prices:
It's much cheaper than your service as I can find whole CDs between 1 and 3 euros. Yes, they are used, but it's because the shop re-buy from its customers. They are as perfect as new ones. You can buy new CDs at regular price also. People are not doing it to rip them since the shop existed before cd writers.
CDs:
I'm not limited to one company, as a matter of facts I'm not limited at all since they sell all kind of music from all kind of compagnies from all countries.
Choice:
There's another shop just the same 30 meters away. Only there isnt a nice looking girl there.
CONS:
half an hour of subway.
Step in the wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a Windows computer. This is not a step in the right direction. Before this service I had nothing. With this service I still have nothing, and there is one more pillar under the Microsoft monopoly.
Maybe a LITTLE better once kinks are worked out... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the problem that these media companies need to contend with. What people want is huge repositories of music for a fixed price that's easy to use, and without stupid DRM restrictions. The advantage that this has over Kazaa is that it's easy to find exactly what you are looking for, but being charged a $1+ per track and having to go through the DRM rigamarole, why would you bother?
Most everybody I know would be willing to pay anywhere between $10-40/month to get access to a huge music repository that they could use without burdensome restrictions. I currently subscribe to emusic for this reason, it's only drawback is that they tend not to have the newest albums. Maybe do a tiered pricing system where you get the back catalog for some more modest price and then you can sign up for a premium membership that will give you the newer music.
At least they're nice about it (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the ability to easily burn them to CDs, despite the lack of DVD support, is a nice feature. I can even forgive the digital watermarking: it's my music to listen to (as I bought a license), but the content still belongs to the company, and giving it out in a easy-to-steal format is against their best interests. I'm all for free music, but this doesn't seem unreasonable.
The only fear I have is in the verification: what is the music file doing to check authentication, and is that exposing my computer or I to unique identification by some third party company or group? Or does the link just add something to my registry and check locally? All in all, this isn't reason enough to avoid at least giving it a try, as driving to a record store costs half as much as a cd itself.
Mozilla support would be nice, too.
Re:IUMA (Score:3, Insightful)
Because sometimes long term objectives are more important then short term pleasures.
Hell, by your reasoning, why boycott ANY product if the product is enjoyed? Sometimes it is more then just the product, but how the product is made or where the money used to purchase the product goes.
Based on my experience ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for iPod support.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I know that Apple is obviously the Big Evil One to Hollywood because they allow *gasp* MP3's by default with iTunes, but come on, people.
I want to see a song I like.
I want to pay $1 or $2 for said song.
I want to either put song on a music CD (they can mail me the CD, I don't mind), or put the song right on my iPod.
This should not be difficult. But it is - because the music company is so concerned with *their* wants rather than *my* wants.
And I'm even willing to pay for it. Go figure.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the kind of service I have been wanting for a number of months now. There is now way that I'm going to install Windows, M$IE, and a Liquid Audio player just so that I can pay for music in a restricted and proprietary format. Why are they making things so complicated? They can offer their files for download over HTTP and it will work with any well-behaved web browser. Since the article mentioned that it is possible to burn the music on CD, what's the use of using a #$@#$@$# format like Liquid Audio? This is so much locking people into specific hardware and software that I can't view it as anything other than a plot by the Evil Forces to lure people with nice goodies and then squeeze the money and life out of them.
Just give me music that I can _play_ and I will pay for it, ok? It's really not that hard. No Crippled Discs, no weird-ass proprietary formats.
Re:Emusic (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a musician (at least, I wouldn't call what I can squeeze out of a guitar music at this point), and I'm not a high-end audio geek. I do most of my music listening at my computer or on the bus with an MP3 CD player, or in my car. In those environments, there isn't much difference between 128kbps and 256kbps.
That said, when I do play MP3s through my stereo -- a ten-year-old mid-range Kenwood rack system -- 128kbps sounds pretty poor, 192kbps sounds fine if I'm not actively listening for MP3 artifacts, and 256kbps sounds as good as an uncompressed CD except in a few odd cases. I know people who claim to be able to detect the difference, but fortunately for me, my ears aren't that good, and frankly, CD-quality audio is overkill for the Sex Pistols anyway.
For $9.95 a month, and in my normal listening environments, eMusic [emusic.com] is a fabulous deal, and I hope they do well. I also hope they offer higher bitrates in the future, and I'd be willing to pay for it. In the meantime, being able to legally download a few dozen albums every night or two is really nice.
Re:Windows and IE? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone has their own standards. Nobody is arguing that we should take away the right to choose which standards to support. The argument is that if we do not embrace open standards, and instead either through apathy or indignance embrace proprietary ones just because they are the most prevalent, we will find ourselves locked into serving the whims of whoever developed that particular proprietary standard.
If you don't buy it, well, nobody's stopping you from embracing MSHTML. Just don't claim that supporting it is for the best of the whole community, and especially don't whine when MS locks you out with some proprietary upgrade or license change.
Re:Too expensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately,
(1) The RIAA isn't fully allowing a free market, because of price fixing, and
(2) Consumers may decide that the only price they can bear is "free" -- in other words, that they'll be happy downloading music so long as it's somebody else that already paid for it. If very few people are willing to pay, then the marketing machines can no longer survive. This might be good for artists that are already famous and don't need much publicity, but otherwise... *shrug*
Re:Step in the wrong direction (Score:3, Insightful)
But still, they went for the operating system that a vast majority of the people use and the browser that a vast majority of the people use on that operating system. Simply put, they went for the majority on this one.
And trust me, the RIAA doesn't want to help Microsoft any more than you do. Still, this is where IE as a browser has the advantage - everyone using Windows has it, and you don't have to send them off to download and use something else.
Re:Thanks for the review (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure I'll sound like a troll - don't waste mod points on me. I already know it.
I think that supporting this service will encourage the continuing price fixing and gouging for music. The middlemen have made so much money off artists & consumers and I am hoping that the digital revolution will turn this around.
So, when will you be happy? When either of these is true? :
1. Artists write, record, mix, produce, package, market and ship all their own music...or
2. Middlemen get paid nothing - these include song writers, sound technicians, recording techs, supporting musicians, producers, production assistans, secretaries, marketing advisors, managers, stock boys, warehouse managers, trucking companies, gas station attendants...I could go on for hours!
I'm sorry, it just realy sounds like people here are getting in the habit of forgetting that there's ANYONE involved in music production other than "the artist".
Price fixing and price gouging SUCK! I hate them as much as the next guy, but this IS a step in the right direction, and when you complain about this, too, you sound a lot like the psychos who think we never landed on the moon (add +5 funny to the "we landed on the moon!!?" comments) when you try to give them proof of it. Even if you showed the lunar lander to them, they'd still say, "It was planted."
You sound like even if the ultimate scheme was devised and adhered to by the hundreds of thousands of workers involved in music production, where the artists make planty of money and Hilary Rosen is eating out of a dumpster somewhere, you'd say, "I don't mind paying for something, but the middlemen in the music biz add very little value, and IMHO screw a lot up!" and never support with your pocketbook!!
/rant
This really ought to be simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
So this thing comes out. You can download music off the internet now, and it's legal! It's not ridiculously priced, but there are problems-- it's not
The question becomes, then: Were people interested in digital music that they didn't have to go to a CD store to get? Or were they interested in
I suspect that, particularly since the
So, if you're a record company, how should you go after a piece of that action?
Well, let's look at p2p programs. Say you want the latest track from Foo, called Bar. You ask for bar on the p2p client. You get back 142 responses. Now, of these 142 responses, 100 were bogus entries trying to get you to download their porno virus spam. 30 are busy and won't talk to you now, 5 have something completely bogus, 5 are people on the wrong end of a 14.4 modem, and two actually have what you want and open slots to download it, but one of those has it at 96 kilobits.
Now, if I haven't made it sufficient of a hint, perhaps the proper way to sell digital music online is to
a) Sell people
b) Make a reliable service to get them in good quality so you don't have to sort through 142 options to find the one that actually has what you want and will disconnect you halfway through the download anyhow.
How do you make money selling something that's free? Make it convenient. You can offer people both of those things and still get as much money for them.
-JDF
Re:An Alternative View on this Service (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell them to get back to me when I can download using Windows/Opera in mp3/ogg and burn with Nero. This one is not about price, but about convienience. They've got a bit to go there, spending an hour or more to get mp3s out of it is not my idea of fun.
Kjella