Interview with MusicNet Chief 92
prostoalex writes "Alan McGlade, chief of MusicNet, which sells subscriptions to its digital music catalog, talks about his view of digital music market, expectations and life in general."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Interview with MusicNet Chief
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Brain off-line, please wait.
Will this every work? (Score:1)
People will find a way around it, once it enters "meatspace" (i.e. the air) it can be recorded on a non DRM medium.
Why do they keep trying to screw both the end users and the artists - I think it is time for a revolution within the recording industry...Let's sort this out once and for all!
Re:This guy actualy has a clue! (Score:2)
From the article;
"
But right now they're offering more than you can offer. Let's forget about the size of the catalogues. You can put files downloaded off Kazaa or any of those companies on a MP3 player or record onto a CD. How far are you willing to go to offer legal music that can be transferred onto many different devices?
Those are all things we have to do. But like I said, it's an evolution. You have to be able to download files permanently, burn them to CDs, transfer them to devices, use them on several computers, or else transfer them to other devices that can store and play back music. All those things will have to be part of that process. And if I was just going to steal all the content I could do it tomorrow. "
This guy has a clue that may work. XM radio sells well. Cable TV sells well. You could hook XM radio to a sound card and make MP3's. You can hook a VCR to cable. It looks like the next generation of subscription music will have the same lack of a restriction (CD burning, MP3 player, MP3 Jukebox). As long is it isn't crippled by some pay per view encrypted service, it may have a chance of selling. What took them so long to get a clue? Now if the marketing department can get the sweet price point to sell it! Hint-- $100/month isn't it for the masses regardless of how it's marketed as for the price of 6 CD's.
Cable v. mp3? (Score:1)
Riiight. At $40/month I'm willing to pay for cable, that buys me about
Re:Cable v. mp3? (Score:1)
Re:Cable v. mp3? (Score:1)
The same is not true for radio "programs", which normally shuffle schedules around and talk over songs in a vain attempt to get you to shell out $17.50.
Talk radio doesn't shuffle schedules (Score:1)
The same is not true for radio "programs", which normally shuffle schedules around and talk over songs
Except for talk radio. Perhaps the pop music radio stations do, but NPR [npr.org] and other talk radio networks generally don't. Recording "All Things Considered" or "Dr. Laura" is what the "radio TiVo" devices are designed for.
Re:Cable v. mp3? (Score:1)
you are right _today_ but the future...?
consider joe sixpack or aunt tillie - they wont like to run l33t spyware free p2p app . they want to get onto the comp -go to one site like music.foobar.com and click on "buy ":) more like switching channels in a remote?
as somebody else said emusic has this right almost.
i think the biggest favour napster did us was that it made clear the true value for music and the ripoff that is going on - it should be cheap [think $2...] and it should be available on the net and on CD's. thats where i think its all going......
v
Re:If you love music you'll pay for it. (Score:1)
CDs cost $20 US because of all the middlemen that take their cuts -- managers, producers, advertisers, etc.
I've heard plenty of "good music" that people created essentially at no cost, aside from the time it takes to practice a bit and to foster their musical talent.
w w w . e r i c k r o u t . c o m [erickrout.com]
Re:If you love music you'll pay for it. (Score:1)
Here's one bit, 'tho -- how many good musicians have "real" jobs that they do, versus how many try to make it into a full-time job? The latter need either a completely separate source of financial support (rich sibling, for instance), if they can't rake it in. I suppose that the follow-up question would be -- how much time does a musician have to spend practicing in order to stay sharp? IOW, are part-time musicians viable from a consumer's point of view?
Mind you, I'm basically a bystander on this issue (I don't own a significant number of recordings, don't download music, and my radio mostly gets used as an alarm clock and for NPR news), so it's allt he same to me. *shrug* But if one asks artists not to expect mucho dinero and instead to restrict themselves to playing largely for pleasure, then there'll probably be some effect on the pool of artists, and it might be interesting to know what that effect would be.
Promotion, not production (Score:2)
Making great music takes BIG money, that's why CDs cost $20+.
CDs cost $20 not because of production costs but because of Clear Channel's near-monopoly on bandwidth into a moving vehicle. Clear Channel Communications Inc. controls both XM and FM radio in many markets, through "independent" promoters who charge exorbitant fees for getting a recording aired.
How much does it cost for a tracker [modplug.com], a wave editor, a couple sample CDs, and a brain?
Subscription (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't give out subscription numbers.
Translation: We don't have that many. It's embarassing.
Re:Subscription (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA Exec #1: Bob, how's our new "file-sharing" service coming along, you know, the one that grants users the right to listen to a song on one computer for 30 minutes a day, all for $9.99 a month, and if you violate the terms of service, the FBI is notified directly?
RIAA Exec #2: *clik clik* Hmm, it's coming along okay Sue, three people have signed up in the past month alone. Not bad but we just can't seem to get volume of users we were predicting.
RIAA Exec #1: Actually one of those was me, and the other two were Hillary. We need to figure out what type of file sharing service people really want. If only there was some kind of "model" or "prototype" we could study. If only we could figure out some way to use the internet to profit from a music sharing system by building an extensive user base to attract advertisers and investment dollars. If only there was some way to do that.
RIAA Exec #2: I have no idea. To be honest I'm not even sure what the internet is, isn't it like a modem? I heard that once. Oh well, it's 1pm already, the work day is over, time to go golfing!
RIAA Exec #1: Good thing, my brain hurts.
emusic.com (Score:2, Interesting)
$15 or $10/month (depending on whether you sign up for 3 months or a year), for
all-you-can eat, no digital "rights" managment, mp3 format music.
Re:emusic.com (Score:1)
Same thing happened to me with NetFlix, and I'm REALLY glad I didn't have a usage contract with them...
Re:emusic.com All you can eat.. (Score:2)
Can anybody subscribing to emusic comment on the music selection or lack thereof?
Yeah, and.... (Score:2, Informative)
Value added subscription? (Score:3, Insightful)
I could see a similar thing happening in the music space. What's the business model of Kazaa or Morpheus? How will they make money to support being around long term if the idea is to steal it and give it away for free? And for the average person, you see more spoofing where files were named the same thing, but it wasn't an actual Eminem song, or it was just a couple seconds of it. And the file quality isn't consistent, the directories sometimes are wrong, you get viruses. If we actually offer a product that is extremely convenient, seamless to use, the file quality is guaranteed, the download times are optimised, and it comes with lots of other unique features that make a seamless experience. Would people be willing to pay for that? Absolutely. Over time will it marginalise pirate services? I think so.
Is this guy serious. He likens music trading to the cable tv industry where the value added services provided by cable over tv (better quality signal, improved channel guides, more content, etc) can be provided by his service to cause people to convert from pirating mp3s. First of all, I do not see how he expects to create anything better than mp3 because of the sheer entrenchment that this format has. The quality out there is the generally 128kbit which is not necessarily the greatest but the general populace decided that it was the best bitrate for them. Be it speed of download or that audiophiles aren't all that plentiful. The reasoning does not matter. It simply means that people have already decided what format they want.
McGlade is never going to provide enough value added services in my opinion to actual sway most of the people out there. I believe that the best the music industry can hope for is that people who listen to mp3s enjoy them enough to purchase the albums. He can't provide more content since all the popular songs are the ones distributed on the p2p systems. He might have a chance with the less popular ones.
Channel guides have an interesting correlation. If they can make it easier for people to find songs they enjoy listening to then they may be able to get people to subscribe just to find more songs they enjoy. People will pay for that service. They will not however pay extra for "untethered" (non-DRM media).
my 2c
Re:Value added subscription? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) What about lyrics distributed along with the song?
2) Videos anybody?
3) Making songs easy to find.
4) Helping you find music you like ("Oh, you like that beatles song?? We also have these three different versions of that song recorded live. Would you like to listen to those too? What about this Stone Temple Pilots version of the same song??" Or maybe, "Our statistical calculations say you like this type of music, you're about to waste 10 downloads at the end of the month. Here are some songs you might want to check out
5) Histories and stories of the songs and the people who made them.
6) Online interviews with artists.
7) a trillion other things... use your imagination.
I think there could be tons of value added. I'd love to use a service like this, as soon as it becomes cheap and truly has alot of content.
lyrics? (Score:1)
1) What about lyrics distributed along with the song?
Many bands already give these away for free; if not, you can usually type a few key words of the lyrics into Google and get an unauthorized lyrics page. In fact, that's how I look up artist and title so I can preview a recording on winmx before I head over to cdnow to buy it.
Videos anybody?
Not very many people have cable or DSL yet. Few college students at home over summer break have broadband because the 1-year minimum service contract makes it cost four times as much as it does to anybody else.
Re:Value added subscription? (Score:1)
Some strange thing happened, some "samples" started to have liquid audio domain but indeed,they were "drm'ed" windows media audio files...
Now I see no Liquid Audio files at all.
Oh,btw, for curious, yea, it has some sort of an evil anti-piracy (drm etc) feature too.
Who "ate" them really?
I mean,those guys re-invent something which is already invented and if you ask my suggestion, I 'd go for emusic.com.
Re:Value added subscription? (Score:1)
1) What about lyrics distributed along with the song?
Google search with 1,760 results [google.com]
2) Videos anybody?
You need broadband for that. Whether or not you use an RIAA service or not, the majority of people will still need to upgrade to cable modems to get reasonable quality. Not likely.
3) Making songs easy to find.
Hmmm...WinMX search for "jethro tull aqualung" gives 271 results and counting. If none of them work (0 out of 271? Please.) then I can just switch to KaZaA.
4) Helping you find music you like
In WinMX, right-click on the file you're downloaded. Click "Find Similar". If that fails, try searching on Amazon and then look at the section titled, "People who bought this record also bought..."
5) Histories and stories of the songs and the people who made them.
Official Jethro Tull website [j-tull.com]
6) Online interviews with artists
See questions 1 and 5.
Look, the features you're requesting our already present on the Internet. Bringing them all together in one bit of software isn't worth being charged $x and having my freedom restricted.
Re:not pay extra for "untethered" (Score:2)
(full disclosure time, I never signed up for Napster or other Peer-Peer network due to legal/moral issues. Make it legal with a subscription plan, and I'm interested!)
Get with the times (Score:1, Troll)
Until someone gets a universal database that works, with per-song pricing, I don't think anyone will budge.
another dinosaur (Score:4, Insightful)
Why did /. even both with this one? The guy's just repeating the party line. Check some quotes:
Just like it wouldn't be hard to run a store where you just put everything on the shelves and people could just take what they want. You wouldn't stay in business very long, but it wouldn't be hard to do.
Confusing tangible property with music? That's the same mistake the record companies are making. You won't come up with any creative business models like that. In fact you'll come up with some pretty bad ones.
If somebody comes to our service and is looking for a song and they can't find it [...] they will now be forced off to a peer-to-peer site.
Forced to a peer-to-peer site? They are ALREADY on the peer-to-peer sites! What can you offer to "force" them to your site?
Well, I don't think you compete [with p2p], but you do create a service that has its own value.
Err, that's called "competing"..? I guess he assumes the p2p sites will all be shut down by the RIAA at some point.
What's the business model of Kazaa or Morpheus? How will they make money to support being around long term if the idea is to steal it and give it away for free?
If these guys can't make money, someone else will fill their shoes. Same as you, bucko. Better figure out how! And it's not "stealing" it's "copying".
[Everything MP3 already does just fine] are all things we have to do. But like I said, it's an evolution. You have to be able to download files permanently, burn them to CDs, transfer them to devices, use them on several computers, or else transfer them to other devices that can store and play back music. All those things will have to be part of that process.
Man, what is it with these guys. They think they are just wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch. What's the "evolution"? MP3 ALREADY DOES WHAT PEOPLE WANT. Do you understand?
MP3 files can be easily copied if they're not wrapped with any digital rights management. But if you have a DRM wrapper on an MP3 file, it wouldn't be readily accessible. It would have some restrictions in its use. You have streaming [...] which do have a DRM wrapper. So while you can download a file and listen to it, you'll be able to do various things with it.
Those sentences make absolutely no sense.. is he drunk??
And then you have what we call permanent downloads. In that case, you've actually purchased a track. Even if you no longer are a subscriber you can continue to use the music as you want because you purchased it.
Cool! Your service offers the same functionality as wax cylinders from 1895. Sign me up!
Re:another dinosaur (Score:3, Interesting)
"Well, I don't think you compete [with p2p], but you do create a service that has its own value.
Err, that's called "competing"..? I guess he assumes the p2p sites will all be shut down by the RIAA at some point."
Actually, I think there is a demand for a much more convenient service than p2p. In fact, I know there is such a demand (because I am that demand); the question, of course, is whether there's enough demand to make it profitable. I can go to emusic (I don't know MusicNet), read their recommendations, search through their catalog, and pick a few albums to download. Then I simply click on one link to download the entire album and save a playlist to replay it later. It's all very high bandwidth. The rate at which I get albums is orders of magnitude faster than with any p2p service, and for me it's certainly worth the very low price.
yes... (Score:2)
exactly, I was pointing out that he really does compete directly with p2p even though he asserts otherwise..and there are plenty of things they can do beyond what p2p gives you now, such as reliable downloading and giving new recommendations based on what you're downloading so you can find new music.
But instead it seems they want to destroy all existing p2p and start from scratch, with less functionality than what p2p has now, instead of building on it.
Re:another dinosaur (Score:1)
Try newsgroups. They're fast enough to saturate your connection.
It's about making it easy to do the right thing! (Score:4, Insightful)
No way would I sign up for some service where all my music could vanish if I miss a monthly payment! Neither would I sign up for some service which locked the music ONLY in my laptop and ONLY allowed me to play it under cirumstances that the RIAA deems acceptable!
The reason that online music has not fullfilled on it's promise so far is not because of the software isn't good enough or because no company has been managed well enough, it's because of greed on the part of the studio's. I'ts intimated in the story too....
As a consumer, I want lower prices overall, and I want more of the percentage going to the artist. I'm fed up with paying $15.99 for CD's while the RIAA gripes that they are being "ripped off". They are the one's ripping the artists off. I'd double again their percentage ( from $0.50 per CD to $1.50) if the industry produced a $9.99 CD. I'd pay $9.99 if it ment that I could download once and have rights to burn a spare for my car. The RIAA would save A BUNDLE under such a model, no physical media until my house, so RIAA pays almost nothing for distribution. I'd pay it because it's the right thing and because it's easier than driving over to the music store...
Problem is, they want more.....MUCH more!....RIAA want's to control HOW you listen...how often you listen, what equipment you listen on...they want to turn music into a "Pay-per-hear" system...(pay for home, pay again for car...pay again for friends house...pay each time you listen...etc)....Like the DVD, they also want to control what country you can listen in....I'm fundamently opposed to such a system, once I pay...it's mine to listen anywhere I am....I have lifetime rights to listen.....
Then there's the issue of "first sale" and RIAA's desire to get in on the used CD market.....charge twice for the same product...you no longer have rights that you would have with books....
I'm guessing that businesses like this (pressplay, music-net, etc) will exist only in the "shadow" for a while yet....the Record industry is not ready to turn anyone with a real business model loose yet....they are too busy hedging their bets right now.....I'm guessing that this outfit doesn't even have a long term contract to the music that they do stock for download. I'm guessing that it could be revoked in an instant if the studios wanted to...then they'd be out of business....and I've paid money for DRM with a company that doesn't exist anymore and rights which are not going to be honored by anyone....
I'll keep ripping and burning my own until the RIAA/Labels give me an alternative that I can accept....if not a better value, at least one that keeps the status-quo...
Re:It's about making it easy to do the right thing (Score:1)
I could honestly see Radiohead or TMBG doing something like this in the future. Who knows, with the way Michael Jackson is acting in his current smear campaign against Sony Music, perhaps even the big-name pop artists will ditch the record companies some day. However, this won't happen until the corporations stop "blowing" the radio DJs (sorry for the crude analogy) to make them play their artists' songs 17 times a day.
w w w . e r i c k r o u t . c o m [erickrout.com]
Re: Enouraging popular artists to fight the system (Score:1)
I remember several months ago when I read that Whitney Huston was signing a $50-million contact with some studio, and I thought, "Why doesn't she just tell them to screw themselves, and set up an internet site?" She probably has more money than God(dess), and has enough fans that even if only 1/2 of them paid the 50 cents per song that's a reasonable cost, she'd still make out like a bandit. Of course, one reason is that not just anyone can dangle a $50 million carrot in front of people..
Scratched CD's (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Um, not exactly (Score:2)
Why do you think KaZaA and Morheus uses tonnes of banners and KaZaA has spyware? With over 100 Million downloads of KaZaA I don't think they has a problem getting money. They will only not make money if they loose it in law suits. And that doesn't even consider open source software like Gnucleus on the Gnutella network that is perfectly happy producing free software for all to use.
On a side note with the introduction of Super Peers for the Gnutella network I think it works as well as KaZaA, it just needs more users.
A repeating argument & (long-winded) Rant w/ l (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument used constantly on /. (and elsewhere) is, "I'd rather send my money to the artist, than to the RIAA..." Great!
Do you?
Do you go to that artist's website and buy a CD directly from them? Do you send them a check every time you nab a song off of gnutella? When your pal burns a copy of "The Greatest Hits of God's Favorite Band", do you send some $$$ to the guys?
If you do, excellent. You are avoiding the Recording Industry that will screw a band over for breakfast, and laugh over lunch at how an A&R rep has "this band by the short hairs...". You are helping to end an Industry that doesn't care what YOU want, only what they can market to you.
You are supporting artists who have incurred expense to bring their music to you.
They wrote it, arranged it, taught it to the band, rehearsed it, changed it, rehearsed some more, played it at a dive for $25 and two beers each, rehearsed some more, went into a studio, paid an engineer to roll knobs, move faders, and lay it on tape. They listed to it, rehearsed the vocals, and overdubs. They went back into the studio, paid the engineer some more to get that on tape. The engineer mixed it, gave it to the band, remixed parts again, mastered it to DAT or CD. They sent it to a duplication house, they paid to have artwork done, (saved money by doing some themselves), they purchased 1000 CDs. They paid to have a website hosted, (saved a little by doing their own site), drove all over consigning CDs at record stores (small independents). They played some more shows for 50 bucks each (show. not per member), they paid the soundman 50 bucks.
Repeat every year and a half.
This is just a taste of what an average unsigned band goes through to get music "out there". There are many exceptions to this example. Some can record at home on "lo-fi" equipment. Some never rehearse. Some don't play shows. Some release everything on gnutella for the hell of it. Some try to get you interested in their CD in this manner.
Add label interest and, well, look at the links below. The point being made is: Good music is hard to find for a reason. Being a GOOD musician (not to mention songwriter) is one of the toughest (and thankless) jobs ever! The artists who go though the trouble to bring this to you should be rewarded. After all, they could have just sat in the basement writing and performing for themselves, not worried about "how is this record going to do?". The next time you grab a tune off the net, think for a moment. If you actually sent your favorite artist some money for the work that you enjoy, that artist will be able to make more music. Finally, a win win situation.
Unfortunately, artists represnted by the Industry are in a different boat altogether. For some real examples of what it costs the major label band to be a major label band, see here, here [therecordindustry.com], and here [umn.edu]. Additional info here [negativland.com] (my fav)
Yup. What was I talking about? [therecordindustry.com] That's right.
Re:A repeating argument & (long-winded) Rant w (Score:1)
The greatest performers I have ever seen, have been amateurs. Some of the worst performers have been trying to make a living at it.
Look up the history of that word. (hint, it doesn't mean someone who isn't good).
I have a real job. I'm into music for love, not money. When I play, the sentiment in the sound is obvious. Maybe that's the main reason why so much music lately has just sucked? That most of the folks that end up being recorded have lost their PASSION. Or maybe they never had it in the first place but just look good on video?
Re:A repeating argument & (long-winded) Rant w (Score:2)
Even if this is true, doing what you love can be hard work. You didn't just wake up one day and, with no musical background, pick up a guitar and play at your current level. You practiced, and played, and practiced, and played some more. You did it out of joy, so the challenge and hard work of those hours was fun, perhaps even welcomed.
Yes, artists should write/ perforrm for themselves first and foremost. The abillity to express oneself w/ music is one of the most amazing things I've ever experienced. When this talent is turned to writing/performing for a paycheck, the self-expression turns to self-doubt and pandering, pandering turns to the lowest common denominator, and that's what we usually hear on the radio.
I agree entirely. There is a subtle difference between my post and this statement, however. I speak for bands/artists that go to the trouble of recording and distribution themselves, with no label support. These people have obviously not lost their passion, either for making music, or for getting it out there for people to hear.
Should they get something for the song that is the 'friend' that you can count on, the 'company' as you drive, the 'adviser' when your relationship ends, or just something to listen to as you clean the house? You have the opportunity to decide.
Should you pay them once? Yes! Should you pay them every time you listen to the album/ single? NO! That would lead to a more stagnant music scene than we have even now, and enrich the **AAs as they would most likely demand a cut.
I suggest, if you enjoy what you are doing, to continue. I was lucky enough to make a living as a musician for two years. It was amazingly tough and rewarding; I count it as one of the best experiences I've had in music. Please do not penalize those who are trying to make a living at this. Go to shows, buy the bands music, and pass the word on to friends. You will be the richer one for it.
(Unless they're really bad, then throw tomatoes at them.
Re:A repeating argument & (long-winded) Rant w (Score:1)
If you want to earn money, there are a lot easier ways to do it than making music. If you want to be known and respected, then music is the place to be. Case in point, look at the software engnieer that makes 90k a year, but gets treated like a horses ass. Then look at the musician who has his song pirated 10,000 times a day on gnutella. Who would you rather be? And if you say the engnieer then I've lost respect for you as an artist, and wouldn't pay for your shallow corporate music anyway.
I think it's time to re-evaluate the "value" of music. Of course it's worth something. That something just doesn't happen to be money.
Re:A repeating argument & (long-winded) Rant w (Score:2)
oh no! (Score:1)
viruses? in an mp3? Quick someone tell McAfee to update their jpeg virus scanner!
Re:oh no! (Score:1)
Okey-dokey (Score:2, Insightful)
MP3 files can be easily copied if they're not wrapped with any digital rights management. But if you have a DRM wrapper on an MP3 file, it wouldn't be readily accessible."
You must be kidding me. MP3 files can be easily copied no matter what you do to them. No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd, right? Well, let's see. I right-click my MP3 file. I click "Copy". I right-click in another folder. I click "Paste". Well, I sure seem to have copied it!
"...the file quality isn't consistent, the directories sometimes are wrong, you get viruses."
So the file quality isn't consistent. But what the hell, it's fun using sound tools to change the bit rates so they're all the same. No, seriously, it's fun.
Directories sometimes wrong? Well, that's hardly a problem with the actual software, is it? If people do go around sticking up the entire hard disk drives so I can download their CVs and address books...
Viruses. Hm. Since when did downloading an MP3 give me a virus? Even if you do download executables, you can always stick it through the ol' virus scanner. You do have a virus scanner, right?
"What's your time line for making this service a success?
It's years.
But do you have years, though?
Sure... If we can show forward momentum and steady progress and continue to do all the things that I've been describing...then, yes, we do have some time. Time is required to build a long term, sustainable business and become mass market with online distribution of music in a legal way."
Don't delude yourself. You think you have a few years? Well, we've all seen what can happen in a few short years. Back in 1992, there weren't millions of people on p2p networks sharing music, warez, and pr0n. Fast forward a decade...
And online distribution of music in a legal way? Well, you don't seem to be going about it in the right way.
If I buy a CD, I have the music forever. You can't take it away from me once you take my cash.
If I buy one of these "MusicNet" MP3s, then I have to keep paying for the music, and if I don't, it's taken away from me with no refund? And even if I get a "permanent download", I still have to pay as much overall as if I just bought the actual CD?
What would you use?
Selling MP3's? (Score:2)
They're experimenting with that, as are others. And this has become a much more active conversation now about how to sell single tracks or entire albums online.
But I mean they're selling MP3s. They're selling files that aren't tethered at all for 99 cents a download.
Right, that's a permanent download."
Huh. Anyone know what that's about or have any URL? That sounds like something that would actually be remotely interesting.
Re:Selling MP3's? (Score:2)
for the article.
Try http://www.emusic.com/pitch.html
for the service.
Quote;
"We know that flexibility is one of the things you like most about downloading music. Unlike many other subscription offerings that restrict how you can use your music, we make it easy for you to transfer your music to portable devices, burn CDs and make multiple copies for your personal use. Once you download the MP3s, you own the music."
Unfortunately you can't see a catalog without a subscription. They do offer a free trial, but I'm leary as I tried an AOL subscription once and the cancellation process was next to impossible.
I don't wish to repeat the process to check out the service.
AOL giving free trials a bad name one consumer at a time.
Re:Selling MP3's? (Score:2)
Hm (Score:2, Interesting)
"the file quality is guaranteed,"
That's odd, all the P2P clients I've ever used told me the quality in number of hosts. Most P2P users don't intentionally host crap.
"the download times are optimised,"
And P2P clients also tell you the connection speed of a host. To optimize the download time, get the file from that guy with the T1.
"What's the business model of Kazaa or Morpheus? How will they make money to support being around long term if the idea is to steal it and give it away for free?"
The business model is to take cash from spyware vendors in exchange for sneaking their spyware into the client.
Of course, for an open-source client like Gnucleus, the point is to make music available, not to make money, which renders his argument moot.
And that is why P2P will outlast paid music: As long as there's open-source authors who want a P2P client, they will get it.
I actually subscribed! (Score:1)
Why? 75% of the music I listen to comes out of my computer. Most of that are from CD's I own and ripped. Probably a quarter is downloaded via P2P.
Listen.com was the first to put together contracts with all 5 "major" labels, and more importantly (in my book) with a few dozen small labels. As a result, about 90% of the artists I listen to are included in Listen's catalog.
All of it, streamed on demand. Less than 2 seconds after clicking "Play", I'm listening to the song, at a quality indistinguishable from a ripped CD. (I'm listening on $500 bi-amped studio monitors. It's not quite audiophile quality, but nothing to sneeze at.)
No, you can't download the tracks. That's OK for me, since I don't rip music to an MP3 player. I do listen to CDs in my car occasionally, but mostly NPR.
Is it perfect? No. There are artists I'd prefer to have in the catalog (The Beatles being the holy grail of online music licensing). Barring that, I'd like to be able to combine network and local files on my playlist.
But comparing it to any of the existing P2P networks, it's undeniably more convenient having all the tracks available on demand. I don't have to try 3 different searches, then struggle through 4 downloads on slow connections that terminate 3/4ths through. I don't have to correct all the title, artist, and album information to get it in a usable form in my library.
It comes down to a pretty simple cost-benefit analysis: Does this service provide $8.33 a month worth of value to me? (They advertise the service at $10/mo, but you can subscribe for $25/quarter.)
Well, that's the cost of a movie, or 3/4ths of a CD. Will I get more than a movie's enjoyment out of this every month? Darn tootin'. So I pulled out the credit card.
If they start offering downloadable or burnable options, will I shell out more cash? I don't know. Maybe they'll provide a pay-as-you-go option for that.
But at $8.33/mo for an unlimited jukebox, I'm hooked.