Real Launches Music Download Service 497
fupeg writes "Spurred on by Apple's success, as well as their own purchase of listen.com, Real Networks announced their own online music service, dubbed RealOne Rhapsody. Here is the press release. They're offering songs at $0.79 per song, but with a $9.99/month subscription. The first two months are free. The press release says that 2/3 of their 300,000 song catalog is available for CD burning, while everything is available for 'on-demand' listening."
Re:The Real link....get it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Did they already try this and fail miserably? (Score:4, Interesting)
It was called MusicNet. [siliconvalley.com]
From the link: "The original MusicNet that launched in December 2001 was a dismal failure...The subscriber numbers were so low that MusicNet has never been willing to state them in public."
Format please? (Score:1, Interesting)
Back-end economics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Real has slightly crippled their service relative to Apple's, but they are, in return, able to offer a discount to those users who download 50 songs or more per month.
Of course, we have to ask - who is doing the returning here? I'd be interested in learning what sorts of costs are being placed on the supply-side upon these services. Is the record industry giving discounts to services depending on the level of crippledness they impose upon consumers? I'd be very curious to know what the terms of the contracts are that Apple and Real signed with the recording industry companies.
Did I miss something? (Score:2, Interesting)
IT's Real!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is from the company hides their free player, tricks you into purchasing an upgrade, and has an install process which hijacks everything on your browser.
Even if this was a good bargin I would reject if becuase it is from Real.
Ted Tschopp
what labels? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah right.. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure if this will take off. I'm betting on "no" because of two factors:
Subscription Fees are bad.
People like to own, not rent, music.
-- Funky
.79 per song per CD? (Score:3, Interesting)
One CD I'm working on now thanks to the Apple store is a mix CD of Wierd Al songs next to the original counterparts - so I have Eminem's "Loose Yourself" right before you get to hear "Couch Potato" (although currently the Apple store itself does not carry Weird Al stuff so I have to burn from CD). I probably wouldn't be making such a CD though if I knew I was going to pay
SOS (Same Old Shit) (Score:5, Interesting)
For a music service to be great it needs to have some or all of the following characteristics.
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:3, Interesting)
16 songs
$15.99/CD...
Yes/no... On the Apple store, if you want an album, it's only $9.95, not $.99/song - so a 20 song album costs the same as a 10 song album... and cheaper than that, it's cheaper.
-T
I'm sorry.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rhapsody has been around for some time, I've been a subscriber for about 6 months now. There are many different Rhapsody partners, Real is only the most recent. List of Other companies that have been selling this same stuff for a while. [listen.com]
Sure, real is offering cd burning at
Meh...
Imperceptible watermarking impossible (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern audio codecs use psychoacoustics, which encode the sounds the human ear and brain can hear over the ones that we can't.
Watermarking works by putting imperceptible sound in the signal that can't be heard, but can later be extractable by computer.
See the problem?
A codec at a "good enough" data rate (where no apparent artifacts are heard), won't be at high enough data rate to encode a robust watermark.
Re:Not so awesome. (Score:3, Interesting)
You overlooked listening WITHOUT burning. Throw that in, and Real's prices look a lot better.
Re:SOS (Same Old Shit) (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM = forget it (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see how these companies survived this long. when will they understand that DRM = *piss off*
They need to realize that if they focus on refining the delivery mechanism for digital music first then they can worry about protecting their property further down the line. Right now they are losing buisness because its easier to find music and get it on Kazaa then it is anywhere else, but that can be changed easily.
Kazaa sucks ... lousy quality, unpredictable/lame download speeds, plus no guarantee of getting what you want. Give me a place that has ...
... and I am there. If companies would put DRM on the backburner for a while and focus on actually getting ppl the music they want then they would be in a much better position.
1. good quality rips
2. large selection
3. fast downloads
4. standard format
Two points to keep in mind (Score:5, Interesting)
The second point I want to make is that RealPlayer sucks butt on the Mac platform so Real stands to make zero inroads into the Mac market. I don't know what Real is like on Windows or elsewhere, but the Mac software is mediocrity in action. I wouldn't use Real's service at half that price unless they improved the lousy piece of dung that they pass off as their player. (Let's see, I close the main window and the application's menu bar disappears so I have to force-quit the damn thing. That's the hallmark of quality software.)
Never never never never. (Score:3, Interesting)
You also have to debug the application too! (Score:5, Interesting)
"6. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
You shall promptly notify Listen in writing upon your discovery of any unauthorized use or infringement of the Subscription Services (or their contents) or any patent, copyright, trade secret, trademarks or other intellectual property rights of Listen or its licensors."
Great, we are paying to be Real's beta testers.
"5 (d) Stolen Account Information Your Responsibility
You are solely and entirely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password, and for any and all activities that occur under your account."
So if somebody hacked its site and downloaded user info en masse I am responsible as well?
Re:I pay because.. (Score:3, Interesting)
This what the industry is actually afraid of. Not "piracy." They fear a direct artist to consumer model, which is perfectly viable already in many different forms of media. The artists and consumers just need to wake up, some already are.
Re:Imperceptible watermarking impossible (Score:3, Interesting)
All this is quite feasible and there are numerous patents on the subject, software that watermarks other lossy formats such as jpeg, not to mention stego software such as mp3stego which can already accomplish this feat. There is nothing infeasible or problematic about it at all.
Wrong, wrong and wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
They screamed bloody murder about the cassette while they spent milions shoveling out crappy soundalike megabands like Foreignstar Jourkansas - and then bitched when they started losing all their sales to tiny little labels like Stiff and SST (who actually had artists and a cool new sound) while the dinosaur crowd simply recorded the "hair classics" from the radio.
And how did they know what was on? Because disc jockeys, in a giant thumbing of nose at "the industry," began a very widespread practice of pre announcing tracks and running "album nights" when they would play entire albums without any interruptions at all. This further incensed the music publishers and is likely one of the biggest reasons they spent the last decade buying up virtually every station they could get their coke-sweaty palms on.
I know it's hard for a young person to imagine radio actually being cool and supporting genuine artists while thumbing its nose at the RIAA, but it really did happen - a long, long time ago, in a glaxay far...